Is AOC Economically Illiterate? - Destiny Debates Mike from PA
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 окт 2024
- Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has made a really bad take regarding stock buybacks recently.
Click▼
Date streamed: 08/19/2019
Follow Destiny
►STREAM - www.destiny.gg/...
►DISCORD - discordapp.com...
►REDDIT - / destiny
►INSTAGRAM - / destiny
Follow Mike
►TWITTER - / mike_from_pa
►STREAM - / central_committee
Use Destiny's affiliate link to buy stuff! www.amazon.com/...
Produced by Voddity
►Voddity - / voddity
►Edited by - / editormaddog
►Thumbnail by - / novusalan
Music:
►OUTRO: / cc6-mastered-3-conflict
It really bothers me how terrible he's being to that undergrad student.
He just like shits down the kids throat before he even has a chance lmao it's so pathetic
@@snake_plant6719 nonono. After Destiny himself didn't have enough spit left, he got another guy to repeat the same bullshit over and over. Mike was trying to make a point and Destiny was trying to not understand it. At some point, you have to equalize and 2v1 might be such a point
I agree.
das ich I mean when the kid started talking it seemed like he was going to correct both of them. Neither Mike or Destiny understands the concept of rationality in an economic context. But Mike assumed that the Econ Kid was on Destiny’s side. But really he was just a mediator for the conversation and to offer clarification of economic terms. Now if Destiny was right or Mike was right, it doesn’t matter. Grown folks don’t have civil conversations like this. Imagine being over the age of 30 screaming at the top of your lungs over a debate amounts to nothing with no serious media coverage and your response is “1v1 Bro”. Only a person with an underdeveloped prefrontal cortex would act this way.
He was definitely being too harsh, but in a sense his reaction to Destiny bringing that guy on is understandable - anybody whos gotten a masters in anything should know that bachelors degrees dont mean jack shit. People can easily half ass their way through those degrees, probably most people do
"Once they were made legal, they were allowed." she was speaking straight facts right there
Yes, when something becomes legal it is allowed. A third grader could tell you that. It is the literal definition of legality.
Shawn Brink r/swoosh?
Stop playing four dimensional chess with my heart AOC
She is trying to explain it people who are so fucking dumb
A lot senators and congress people are morons and even more voters are
She is speaking plainly
@andrew 800000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 IQ fam....she was real *fucking* big brained dude.
"I don't want to bring up credentials, they don't matter"
"Shut up undergrad idiot"
I think Mike looks up to how Destiny debates but then fails at performing it.
Hearing him lash out at the guy because he has a degree is hilarious. Destiny pushed him so hard and he takes it on the chin, this other guy says "hi" and Mike starts raging at this "idiot" lmao
Looking back at this, Milk from PA was so toxic to the undergrad because the undergrad didn't have any viewers he could leech off of. Gross
plus he was lying about being a lawyer
Dylan would be disappointed lmao
Mike literally said "Don't fucking interrupt... *cause who the fuck are you*"
I don't know how anyone likes such a clout-hungry rat-fuck.
@@creepyjesus1471 he's a jackass but that's reading a little too much. maybe it's true, maybe it isn't, but attack the guy on his obviously stupid actions, not presumptions.
@@patrickcampbell957 yea I am from the same region of PA as Mike. He was on local news for like a week about how he lied about being a layer and got kicked out of running for a State house seat his mommy used to hold.
Speaks volumes of a persons character how they treat someone that they perceive is below them. The way Mike spoke to that undergrad student was vile, and I'm more than willing to bet he's not so mouthy and foaming at the mouth when he's not safely sat behind a screen. The student has my respect for keeping his cool.
For real. I don't care how smart or how right this Mike guy is on anything. His character is trash.
I'm surprised mike didn't ask to speak to his manager.
Mike sounds like a real absolute piece of shit, even more so when he knows he is about to be shown to be a complete idiot
Dude is such a loser
He lost his shit because he knew the guy was qualified enough to pin his ass to the wall and that scared the fuck out of him.
Jesus, Mike yelling at the helpful econ guy is awful.
Until he gets his PH.D in Stock Buyback-ology, this intern is lower than the dirt on Mike's boot.
Brian lol, that made me laugh :D
This is how lefties treat everybody they think is beneath them
@@WayoftheDave the altruism really shines through, eh?
@@nigelwarner8398 Yup, nothing screams altruism and empathy like literally screaming at someone you deem to be beneath you.
This is the mark of a really shitty person. Whenever I see someone berate a shop assistant or wait staff (I.e. somebody deemed 'beneath them') that's their real character shining through. That's how that person would treat you in the same power dynamic. Truly awful people.
Doesn't think credentials matter, disregards someone because they don't have enough education.
It’s even funnier when he disregards the credentials of someone who has a degree on the very topic he has nothing on.
@@croisaor2308 Ikr? I spilled my drink when he said he wants someone who's more qualified than him and Destiny, when that undergrad was literally exactly that.
Also that he used the article author's credentials as a cudgel only to say his solutions don't matter just his data
Cridentials don’t matter FOR HIM everyone else needs to have them
oh look at this fragile destiny fans
>let me introduce random undergrad
>starts talking about suply and demand curve and rational actors
>my sides
AOC Economically Illiterate btw, but a gamer-infuenser spits knowledge (and at the same time leans on opinion of rando undergrad) while person who works on the ground is stupid and dont know shit.
(I was econ undergrad so this is even more personally funny)
He is so adamant on getting that undergrad out of the conversation lol.
Corey Ambrew hehe he doesn’t like being told he’s wrong without him saying mike your wrong lol he tried to just explain it twice and got cut off
An undergrad in any economic field is like kryptonite to Mike. Also highschoolers...
@broccollin seems like an easy dub to me
An undergrad in econ would genuinely know a fuck-ton about economics. Far more than online LARPers ever would.
@broccollin He has an educational Jurisdoctorate in Financial Arbitration. Basically he's a claims lawyer, worse, he's a teacher for claims Lawyers. That is not a sufficient proxy for even an Undergrad in Economics.
Mike: That's why you have an undergrad and not anything higher
Also Mike: i try to hold back credentials because i don't think they matter
Also also mike: my credentials annihilate this dumb undergrad
Destiny lost the debate right here
He has a law degree... And a masters in education... Mike proved with that statement that he doesn't know what credentials are... What is more relevant for economics?
A law degree or an economics degree?
@@Jazzyluvsyou100 clearly the law degree. Didnt you hear how angry, therefore correct, mike was?
Of course, remember, yelling that you have better credentials means you have better credentials... OBVIOUSLY... more yelling= more correct!
law credentials dont mean shit in economics......
being an nba referee doesnt qualify you for being an nba coach......being an assistant coach beats being a referee every single time when it comes to coaching......
@@sabin97 Somebody missed the sarcasm.
Mike from PA DESTROYED the guest caller's feelings with INSULTS in this debate :/
GIFT1FROM1THE1GODZ lmao poor kid got rekt
When he yelled at him...fuck this Mike guy. How come these left people can't keep their cool? What are they going to do, yell at the far right until they concede? 😂
seriously, who the fuck does mike from pa think he is? he's not special, he's not better then the other person, he's literally as much of a nothing as he is. Fuck mike, fucking arrogant piece of shit
@@kristofferv he also didnt sign up to be ambushed by someone who could be anyone.
@@chuckles819 does that excuse his behaviour?
Damn I remember the times it used to be Destiny yelling at the caller, and not the other way around.
Yeah dayum
Mike later expressed regret for yelling at him, but it was pretty absent minded of Destiny to not simply remove him from the call the first time Mike expressed annoyance that he brought on one of his viewers.
135Aldebaran he wasn’t bringing him on as a viewer... he was bringing him on as someone who was more qualified to make certain statements than with Mike or Steve - bringing him on was completely justified and Mike was out of line, surely you see that?
@@135Aldebaran why would he remove him from the call? Because Mike couldnt handle someone disagreeing wirh him? Even if it was "2v1" he should be able to defend his points
@@stumpe9662 Because it's disrespectful to bring random people in when someone doesn't want them there.
AOC did make one really good point. "When they were made legal, they were allowed." I would have to assume this is an accurate statement.
Mike citing his law degree over an undergrad in economics omegalul
I mean his degree is in a subfield of consumer law, so actually yeah, that compares pretty favorably to an econ undergrad
@@janosmarothy5409 Thats like saying a biology graduate knows as much about physics as a physics undergrad, only that bio and phys are closer to each other than consumer law and economics is.
@@deadmeat1471 thats a really bad analogy. google "securities arbitration", there's no way to have a handle on that without at least a working knowledge of finance such that you could have a reasonably informed conversation as it relates to, oh say, stock buybacks
@@janosmarothy5409 Google biology, theres no way of knowing about most of biology without studying basic physics(in fact biologists do study basic physics) but nowhere near the degree of a physics student, and these are to extremely closely linked subjects. Law and economics are tangentially related at best.
@@janosmarothy5409 From what im hearing, I think I agree with mike from PA completely, so im not dismissing him, im just contesting the argument from authority even if its accepted, isnt that authoritative.
“Bring in someone who’s not an undergrad” but I have no credentials myself LOL delusional
Hey now, he pretends to be a lawyer who deals in securities, he knows all about it! (Even though he had to look up everything on Wikipedia.)
Mike is one of those people who isn't smart enough to know that he is stupid
I just watched 85 minutes of three adults arguing over high school economics, with one of them back pedaling, strawmaning and screaming, one of them wanting to kill himself, and the other, the one with the highest credentials on the topic, got to talk for 30 seconds
"The recession wouldn't exist if there was rationality." Ok gonna have to call it quits here.
Yeah, way to infuse the "leftists don't understand economics" -meme.
@@CrestOfArtorias They should have him on fox news as the generic idiot leftist. Tucker Carlson could have this guy wound up in no time.
Well it wouldn't if people acted as Keynesian economic say for example, we would stick to 2% GDP growth a year no more no less this would stop a crash from happening. This is incredibly basic, I don't get how that is dumb it's literal first year economic basics.
@@CrestOfArtorias meme/fact
@@B______L Smooth brain over here
Everytime I think Destiny couldn't be less excited for a debate he proves me wrong.
Mike rationally bullied a poor grad kid in this debate
😭😭😭😭
Mike is the guy in class that thinks he has it all figured out. Enters the real world and realizes he's an idiot. So he stays at home, and yells at people on the computer
that's me :(
the rematch debate was streamed 08/07, this was streamed 08/19. THIS IS NOT A RECYCLED VIDEO OR EDITOR MISTAKE.
I thought it was a reupload based off the title but you are right it is not
echi ee 19/08*
@@Cashout95 wrong. I copied directly from the descriptions. If you have a problem with how date stream is written, your problem is also with the editor.
echi ee hahaha so mad kid. Americans.
Destiny was rationally irrational in this debate.
Did you even watch the whole video?
Jake Moore
It’s a joke.
@@JaredMooreWriYes .. and rationally irrational is a great way of describing his spin.
Just to be clear by Destiny's definition some guy that eats his own shit and masturbates on random people is still a rational person "economically" speaking because this person does still have a reason for doing these things even though that reason is probably extremely irrational which actually makes me want to agree with the other guy that it should be called something else but it is just a word for definitional purposes.
@48:44
"Who do we believe more Mike or an econ undergrad?"
I mean, by this point in the debate I'd be more willing to listen to Patrick Star about economics than Mike.
Lmao
What about the name that you conveniently left out after 'Mike' or Patrick Star?
@@mittens2015 Who would that be?
@@chaosgoat2720 me :)
@@johnappleseed8146 The real question is whether or not an econ undergrad has sufficient knowledge to lay to rest the specific factual dispute that Steve and Mike were having at the time, not knowledge about econ in general.
Destiny FINALLY found a defeater and was able to falsify the Christian god in this debate.
he didnt need a defeater for the christian version of yahweh sabaoth.
it has never been demonstrated to exist.
it's like flying unicorns, or the loch ness monster.....
I was soooooo ready for “are you rational?” “But surely you don’t know everything” “so either you accept that you are irrational OR that a rational agent doesn’t require perfect knowledge as a prerequisite”
Why was mike going so hard on the undergrad? Actually ad-homming him without hearing what he's saying at all.
A moderate leftist for you.
Martin Skrieli would've been great in this debate.
Wow this Mike Guy is just an awful person.
Destiny has never worked with an economic model and doesn't understand behavioral economics. I've studied it. You're talking about bounded rationality. Neoclassical economics does not INCLUDE actions that include changing preferences, transitive preferences, imperfect info, and market failures. Behave Econ and more modern econ tries to bake in these cognitive inconsistencies and accounting for failures. Brah are you kidding me!!! Economists pretend humans are "econs" all the time. Do like a minimal amount of reading on Behave Econ. Anything Khanaman or Thaler or sunstein. There's a reason the heavyweights have all won Nobels. They showed that some econ models were sooo wrong. I'm not saying that the models are useless, but their limitations must be accounted for. You can't use the idea of a rational actor to say that economic actors will only do whay they perceive to be helpful to them. That's bounded rationality. It's models are poor compared to the classical ones because specificity and complexity have a interpretability and applicability cost. The point is many models are useful, but to ignore when they fail empirically is to push economics further into dogma not science.
Iziah Thompson, yup. Destiny conflating bounded rationality with rationality is just wrong and contributes nothing to this debate. I don’t even see how it relates to the question at hand.
Out of genuine curiosity for where the conversation would head, is there any chance you could debate him? He's pretty open to debating practically anyone.
@@kuro2797 I def would. I have never been on Twitch though.
@@IziahThompson do you have to be on Twitch? This is the side of things I don't really know about. Pretty sure if you just DM Destiny somewhere (email/twitch) he can tell you how you could hop onto the stream.
@@kuro2797 shit I'll give it a try. I'd love to mix it up w/ him
Destiny chose phone-a-friend in this debate
and still lost
It wasn't very effective...
This is clearly a willful misinterpretation of his intent, but ok.
@@mat_j It blows my mind that you can think Mike won this debate. He had to have simple definitions explained to him like he was a 4 year old and STILL couldn't grasp it, or tried to pivot away every 3 seconds.
@@roymarshall_ blowing a mind of Destiny's follower is not a hard thing to do
Holy shit, 34 minutes in and it's literally just them arguing about the word 'rationality'. Does this ever change to something more productive later on?
Divine Hero it does but mike turns out to be a little boy crying when he’s wrong
@@OmniUniv yeah he was ree-ing hard.
I agree with the complaint, but the blame lies with Mike for struggling so hard to grasp the concept.
@@chaosgoat2720 Yeah, I would agree with that. I just hate it when people argue against semantics, it's so useless and avoids the main discussion/issue(but I suppose it was necessary in this case).
@@divinehero7800 If semantics are the only thing disputed, then I'd agree, but that was obviously not the case here.
Even if Mike was right, he lost the second he started yelling, and he lost all respect the second he started belittling that kid
You cant lose if your right
So true.
@@trevon_thedragon4034 uhh nope. You can absolutely lose a debate even if you're correct. The measurement for success in a debate is audience perception.
@@trevon_thedragon4034 Digibro's alt account?
@@trevon_thedragon4034 but Mike wasnt even correct about rationality
Destiny was a member of the chicago school in this debate
He didn't understand the limitations of homo economicus and instead adopts it over empirical decision-making from behavioral economics.
Sometimes people act irrational despite perhaps having perfect information. People are human not uber rational automatons who only serve their own selfish interest all the time.
This is precisely why I hate snarky econ majors who think they are on par with scientific researchers. Economics is not science. At best its applied psychology
@@MorePlatesMoreRapes Agreed, for example if a Doctor is chemically addicted to substance. In their mind and training they certainly know that there is basically no reason to take said substance yet they do so anyway. To push the analogy further, someone prone to seizures simply seizes, and has no control over their actions. So much of human behavior is precisely not dictated by higher order decision-making, belief, etc. To argue that someone shakes their body vigorously because its "rational" to follow the deterministic path of one's chemical state is the logical conclusion of the rational actor theory destiny was implying. It is an obviously true statement but has absolutely zero purpose in any debate.
@@seto007 Let's see here,
1)Untestable hypotheses: I understand that modeling can be useful. But for real sciences, you need to be able to experimentally test your hypothesis. Mathematical modeling is supposed to supplement, not supplant, your experiment. (I'll grant that microeconomics comes closer to being a quantitative "science", but even that is beholden to undefined variables, speaking of which)
2)No reproducibility and 3) undefined parameters: You can control for factors like interest rates but still have a national economy tank. Concepts that were "supported" in the past are then shown to be completely unfounded, even when controlling for external factors. For example, the idea that a low enough unemployment would lead to higher rates of inflation, an idea that led to policies such as keeping interest rates higher, was recently shown to be unsupported. Despite the decade long trend for lower unemployment exceeding what the Fed had estimated, inflation hasn't risen proportionately. Again, this is despite what the prevailing theory was. In science, sure an old theory can be revised, but only through rigid, reproducible experimentation, not due to chance and external undefined variables. The "crowd-out" theory was also basically shown to be a bunch of bunk. As should the rest of economics.
@@seto007 Sure, until it _doesn't_ . Marginalism itself is an attempt to reverse engineer an explanation and ultimately a justification for massively fluctuating prices aka the _irrationality_ of the supposedly consistent market forces.
Maybe I'm wrong here, but personally I think the most obvious observation ever is that a commodity that costs say $10 is perceived _completely_ differently if you have millions of dollars or zero dollars, if it's your only choice or if it's not, if you're aware of certain info or if you're not, if you randomly ignore that known info or not, ad infinitum; and all of this radical change in perception occurs within the _same person_ at various points in time. How can something that fluctuates so wildly even within an individual's perception be quantifiably consistent at a macro-scale? To use Mike(from PA)'s example, this would be like if you saw red and I saw green, we use some quantification metric to anchor it to something objective (like wavelength) and then at a later point in time red became blue and green became fuckin magenta.
The only consistency/stability of prices comes from dominating control over markets so is it any wonder that they always trend towards monopoly (aka perceived stability)? Another way to say this is that the supposedly ideal laissez-faire capitalism with an equal playing field for competition is also the most inconsistent and unpredictable. And that's not even touching the monetary aspect of it all. In any case however, these metrics are merely facades of perception and have no relationship to any sense of "objective value". In this way it's fundamentally no different from claiming divine rule so long as people _actually believe_ that claim and continue to function in the perceived "legitimate" social order.
I think I’m more willing to listen to someone who is actively learning the subject than Mike from PA
I'm more willing to listen to somebody who's making it up as they go along than Mike from PA
Just because a company does what's in it's best interest doesn't mean that it is good for general welfare. Drug companies shouldn't be able to take advantage of publicly funded research and then sell the results of that research for an inflated price that people can barely afford.
Bad take, no one disagrees.
Yes, it does mean that because the company's self interest which is making profit relies on its customers to do it. Companies don't provide things like customer support because they're charitable. They do it because it's in their own self interest to keep their customers from leaving to another company that offers such services.
"... doesn't mean that it is good for general welfare." That's not what Mike was arguing though which is the problem. He got locked into some specific nonsense about the definition of rationality and whether or not bu backs are bad.
@@supervegeta101 But they are. Because regardless of rich or poor, lower class, middle class, upper class, black, white, hispanic, everyone is a consumer, even the producers.
@@supervegeta101 Yeah. This debate was barely about what AOC even said.
Hey bro I didnt murder my neighbor and steal his shit, it was just economically rational of me to to dispose of competition and acquire his resources.
From a psycho/sociopath's perspective, it is economically rational. Not for the neighbour though.
@@Anskurshaikh I would phrase it like this in a court of law.
@@rep-vile What if they've rationalized a best (perceived) way to get away from law and get to a new place where they can start anew.
Psychopaths are known for constantly moving places and changing roles since once their cover has been blown they must move somewhere else.
Criminals always thinks that they can get away with the crime if they're smart enough and sometimes its true.
@@animeweeboo9206 you can't know the result of an outcome. If you flip a coin picking heads and tails would both be rational decisions. If the coin lands tails that dosen't mean heads was an irrational guess.
You mean how rational actors worked when we didn't have laws and society? Such a stupid fucking point lmao.
This whole discussion felt like destiny was winding up a punch he never threw.
And Mike was just slapping himself in the face.
The punch line was when we realised destiny was letting Mike slap himself in the face.
@@animeweeboo9206 bullshit, destiny wasn't having any valid point or argumentation either. Both were not having any substance.
@@inajosmood hence the "winding up a punch" thing. imo Destiny has solid foundation for his argument, but i don't think he's too knowledgeable about econs. Mike is at the same level regarding his knowledge, but the moral high ground he self-assumed makes him sounds like an idiot.
Either way this was a bad debate about two people who claims to know lots about what they're talking about but not really. The undergrad wins.
@@RisqueBisquetz You say that but destiny did make an argument against aoc's first point which was that saying stockbuybacks are greater than R&D therefore bad is not a valid critisicm without providing evidence of how more money could be invested in R&D as opposed to the current split, mike was saying that the company should have invested more in R&D without providing evidence that doing so would not be wasting the money.
@@bazzar619 not only that, but he was going so far as to say stock buybacks should be criminal.
At least I assume that was his claim. It was hard to grasp anything coherent from his self righteous monologues.
I’m just here for the comments.
And not disappointed
same
Anthony Navarro Trumpanzee is a leftist. And he’s a pretty good troll. So hopefully he’ll respond to your whiny commie comment.
But apart from that, have you ever thought about what you’re doing? You’re living vicariously through a failed sax player turned video game streamer and debater, and through his enormously large, non smooth brain, you have both seemingly found the one true path of logic and rationality, wherein you’re above all observational bias. You have conquered both the fallacies and flaws of right wing politics and left wing ideologues...only you, destiny and the rest of his meat riding audience have found the answers to all the questions ever posed in both politics and economics. In your view, destiny is THE SMARTEST person in the world. He’s an economist, a political philosopher, a master rhetorician, expert debater and true scholar. He’s never been wrong, and never lost a debate. He’s an expert on everything, and an idiot on nothing. No man, woman or child can conquer the cold logic and factual basis with which destiny operates. Feels good, man.
How does it feel to be completely stupid? You’re no better than all those brainwashed ideological morons you both think you’re trolling mad hard. Except you’ve found one dude to bottle up and dispense all his views to you, for you. How does it feel to be another brain dead cog, completely stuck in the same cycle of bias and ignorance as everyone else? At least most other ideologues don’t follow ONE person, but many. You’re so blind and presumptuous as to think that one guy can apparently always be right about everything, that you can’t even see the inherent bias destiny operates under as you’ve allowed yourself to believe the hype.
Don’t believe the hype.
P.S.: I’m a huge fan of Destiny, but I’m also not dumb enough to think he’s an expert on everything. That would be stupid. You have now bought in to full Omni-liberal talking points.
Mike "don't FUCKING interrupt me when I'm speaking, because who are you?" from PA
He does not have credentials that trump the undergrad in the field of economics. He is trying to beat him down with his title like everyone with a well supported and reasoned position does. Right?
For anyone curious, his juris doctorate is also known as a Doctor of Jurisprudence. It is a professional law degree somewhat equivalent to a master's degree but does not grant the credentials to practical law until passing the bar exam.
I bet that screeching tantrum act will serve him well during his career lawyer. I hope his future employers don't get a hold of these debates... Wow
@@Breadbored. IDK dude, I think he'd be funny to watch on courtroom TV
Remember when Mike was calling himself a lawyer when he didn’t pass the bar (and sign the book) which is what one has to do in order to be called a lawyer? And that it got so bad that even a court called Mike a liar
Mike doesn't sound alpha when he screams at Destiny; he sounds nervous and scared
Damn I like Mike, but he actually really disgusted me during this debate. The way he talked to that undergrad dude... I can't even
He’s a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger. Has absolutely no credentials on the topic and exhibits such confidence when wrong, and even demands to have someone with a PhD explain it to him.
Yeah... That was a pretty yiiiikes
LOL. Destiny was so taken aback that Mike had actual credentials, which turned out to be like a masters-level juris something dealing with securities, that instead of accepting that, Destiny openly doubted he even had the qualifications... while being a fucking music dropout. (Or did the editor not leave that bit on the convo in? I saw this live.) And Mike is supposed to accept that slippery Steve gets to pull in some rando undergrad from chat, with fuck all real-world knowledge of how this shit works beyond surface level textbook recital? NOPE, YEET THAT FUCKER OUT! Dunning-Kruger Steve can go have his circlejerk with undergrads after the debate. (And this is what the rational actor bit was: two dipshits being mad that even behavioral econ, which is orthodoxy friendly since it attempts to keep rational actor valid on a surface level, demonstrates that their core assumptions are literal bs when you read what they say instead of retreating to definition mongering to avoid the giant hole in your economic edifice.)
He is your typical lefty pseudo intellectual that argues for the poor and working class at any chance and then berates and misstreats someone who has perceived poor social value as in the undergraduate not having a twitch channel or thousands of followers.
@@seto007 It's almost like economists are paid not to understand anything beyond their own navels, hence why they did a mea culpa after 2008... while not changing anything in their models.... while heterodox economists had models that allowed them to predict the crash... because good economists are usually embarassed by their own discipline and how bankrupt and politically corrupt it is. You can lie constantly and peddle garbage that is known NOT TO WORK EVEN IN THE ORTHODOX MODELS, as long as you keep that for econ conferences and don't say it out loud.
Being a fan of destiny has been a rollercoaster for me this year
I got a rise out of him debating idiots like count dankula but he's really showing his true colors when he debates the left on policy issues imo. I get that his schick is being good at debates but that just means he's a good salesman not that he's pushing nuanced ideas. To me he's turning into the Neolib Ben Shapiro:/
Same...
thomas ferrick TRUE!
@@somogoto It's only natural that when you analyze real world data and study cause and effect of very well intended left leaning policies they most often than not end up producing the opposite effect. It's hard to dig into these subjects and ignore the evidence. That's why you need to use terms as "nuanced policy issues". They are not nuanced. You are just wrong and want to have it your way regardless because you're ideologically blind.
@@somogoto lmao "i liked when he was debating people i disagree with, but now he's debating people i agree with i don't like him anymore"
An undergrad in economics will have a really large fundamental breadth in economics than the very acute knowledge attained from a law degree in securities. Mike shows a categorical misunderstanding of graduated education in this debate. This the reason why a Doctor is not needed for an authority in any particular subject. All you need is an upper division student.
Let's be real - Mike probably didn't ever care about the kid's creds. He could've been a triple phd and I bet Mike's primary objection would still be the "face me 1v1 like a man" meme.
This is even better now, knowing that Mike was lying the whole time about being a lawyer
I tried watching this once. Got frustrated and stopped. I’m now fifteen minutes in for a second time. I’m getting insanely frustrated and debating stopping. How someone has a law degree and didn’t take any econ and polisci is beyond me.
Another way thinking of a rational actor is selfish. They think of the best option for them, based on the information they have. I’ve never once heard from any professor in any field say that a rational actor was someone completely rational with perfect information. It doesn’t matter if you’re talking Econ, game theory, or any other field, that’s not what a rational actor is.
Destiny: says anything
Mike: WHAT?!?!
send my regards to the roach dawg buddy
I bet if Mike knew AOC only had a minor in economics, he wouldn't be so dismissive of the kid with the undergraduate economics degree.
I looked it up and she actual look had a double major in economics and international relations
@@evilhivemind8839 yeah dude he degrees are impressive so you would think she wouldn’t be so economic illiterate. However she kinda plays this dumb cringe socialist girl. I think she got into politics for the real long con and she is building a base on purpose with some acting. Or I’m just really stoned and have no idea what I’m talking about.
@@oopsiepoopsie2898 I have heard a saying that goes something like "college can give you an education but it can't make you smart". She is clearly a very well educated individual who is competent at many things. But her ideas are dumb. At least to you me, who knows maybe we are wrong. But she clearly knew what sort of economic policies she was in favor of before going into politics, Her education did not inform her into her current views, she had the views first and got the education as a credential to back up her view point so she can make her political views a reality. That's really the problem with her.
MikePA doesn't think credentials matter than proceeds to harass someone because of their credentials.
I've loost all respect for Mike
That undergrad who came on did amazingly to keep his cool and carry on debating rationally. He's literally barraged by ad hominem and still replies concisely.
There was one time where there was a perfect silence in and he jumped on and BTFO mike and them mike petered out and had to switch topics after he said one of the dumbest things
Love the assumption that private individuals and institutions are supposedly so "irrational" and that governments or "democracy" exhibit superior "rationality".
I think I parted ways with Destiny when he said 'entirely'. It is not entirely possible that there is nothing to spend RD dollars on. Vaguely possible, slightly possible, minutely possible, but not entirely. Destiny is slanting the hypotheticals, and making it seem like they are no discerning characteristics of the scenarios. Given that pharma companies are always omplaining about RD costs, and given that their profit is entirely based on the outcome of RD, it is only a reasonable choice to go with stock buybacks if the company functionally changes to a fiscal product. It is similar to a farmer who figures out that it was a better use of their time to NOT grow food, because the government programs making not growing food more profitable.
AOC's point is that this shift does not serve the society. It is parasitical in nature, and in the case of pharma directly impacts wellbeing. Should we not regulate markets to prevent them from becoming parasites? Is not the 'ought' of markets to incentivize competition to serve both the participants on the marketplace and the society that market exists in?
send him an email with your concerns
DM this to him. It's something that wasn't brought up in the debate and needed to be said
Is this a troll comment? Or just actually this stupid?
@@wononcyka666 legit: How is it stupid? I get Destiny's point. From their perspective, pharma companies should try to do what is in their best interest, and stock buybacks certainly could be that. Not just for the executives, but the stockholders as well. But they exist in OUR marketplace, with businesses based on intellectual property rights WE grant them. Why should we allow it to go completely unchecked? Why is not unreasonable to regulate it more? If the two options are so damn equivalent, then why can't the 'just as good' choice for them be not 'just as good' for us? On a numbers level, picking belly lint could become just as profitable as RD investment, why should we allow pharma companies to turn into belly lint companies on our dime?
@@seto007 I see that, which is why I said I was with Destiny until he said 'entirely'. The choice between spending on RD or stock buybacks while 'possibly' wasteful in either direction, were not 'entirely possible' in one of them. They are not weighted the same. And those two choices have distinct consequences for us, the marketplace. It is not an all or nothing choice, but when corporations make decisions that are sellf interest at the expense of public interest, regulation is not unreasonable.
Destiny unironically white knighted for big pharma in this debate
I mean its reasonable to not like big pharma, but also disagree with Mike's take. You don't have to blindly agree with every criticism against a target you dislike, becuase you're on the 'same side'.
If I was talking about vaccines, and we both agreed that they don't cause autism, and I said something really dumb like "Obviously they don't cause autism. Everyone knows that autism is caused by aliens beaming rays into people's heads to turn them more like the aliens." You aren't obligated to agree with me because we're on the same side, and you aren't a white knight for the vaccine causes autism community if you argue against my take.
@@ChairmanJMao No one's doing that. It's not blind rejection. But, there is no justification for allowing the formerly illegal practice of stock buy-backs. It serves utility to companies and zero utility to society
This Mike guy was so mean to that undergrad kid my god... He didn't deserve any of that and the "Who even are you" mentality Mike seems to ooze here just makes me really dislike him. Say what you want about Destiny but he will never hold his Twitch audience / fame above someone and actually talks to people regardless of their standings.
what Destiny did inviting that kid is below pathetic
@@mat_j So inviting someone educated in economics to explain a simple concept that mike keeps getting wrong in the feild is pathetic, lol
@@bazzar619 that's not what he did and that was pathetic, just like your comment
@UCopfdEulA1p39mS6_nl2wxw I will not elaborate but I will just bring what my little friend said about your comment. He thinks your comment is incredibly stupid. He's an expert on dumb comments You want to elaborate why do you think even my twelve year old friend thinks your comment is so stupid?
Panda well I mean Mike was saying that acting in the short term based on information that’s easy to find by literally anyone proves false and worse is not acting rationally
Which is the whole idea
To act based on info
If you can prove easily that soemthing is bad then people who have the job to make money therefore should act that way according to a rational world
Destiny doesn’t understand this and thus said what mike thought wasn’t true
Mike just isn’t smart enough to phrase anything
wow
"credentials dont matter"
"i wont accept the opinion of anyone who doesnt have a phd"
AOC has an undergraduate degree in Economics, therefore he can't accept her opinions. Case closed: AOC is economically illiterate.
@@the_inquisitive_inquisitor
what exactly is an "undergraduate degree"?
@@sabin97 Associates and Bachelors degrees are considered "undergrad" where Masters and PhD are "Graduate Degrees"
@@the_inquisitive_inquisitor
you need to graduate in order to have a degree. before you graduate you're an undergrad. but if you dont graduate you DONT have the degree.
an undergrad is someone with NO degree.
also someone with a bachelors degree in x is NOT illiterate in x.
i have a bachelors degree in computer engineering and a masters degree in computer science(engineers rarely go for a phd). i was definitely NOT illiterate in computer engineering when i started working on my masters degree.
@@sabin97 I was being hyperbolic: if Mike can dismiss the econ undergrad based on his level of education then he should also dismiss AOC based on her level of education.
That poor undergrad.
youtube editor is about to get fired for posting this 10 times lmao
Hendog mike pa will be hearing from my lawyer for giving me cancer of the brain by using moronic ways of justifying not knowing the terminology he uses. Let me know the name of that editor and i’ll include him.
Idiots actually not watching the video.
@@JaredMooreWri It's a joke.
@@davidjohansson1416 Yet, people are actually believing it...
Jake Moore no
Mike literally asks Destiny to prove that the companies made no error in making the stock buyback decisions.
Burden of proof is on you, Mike. You ask Destiny to prove a negative. If we assume that people take rational decisions (in terms of maximizing perceived self-interest, which you conceded), the burden is on you to show that their perception of maximized self-interest was wrong. You cannot claim it without substantiating it. Destiny did NOT claim that there is absence of error, he just told you that you should prove that there is error. It's that simple.
I came into this thinking "wow, I might actually agree with Mike from PA for once" and that was my first mistake
This guy literally pulled every 'trick' the right tries shitting on you for doing during debates. The backtracking and avoiding any question possible this guy did holy shit.
“I don’t care what you said your just wrong” -destiny @ 40:25
In Other News destiny says this a lot
He was? Do you disagree that Mike wasn't interpreting the article correctly or are you mad that Destiny talked over Mike, like they both repeatedly did over each other throughout the debate?
yea, that seems like an appropriate response to give to someone who insists on continually making stupid and incorrect statements.
Pretty sure he was playin my apex in the other video. So this new.
destiny says there's no economic theory which is not based on the rationality based on the available information of the economic agents, forgetting keynesianism, which molded western economics since 1940's until today, which is based on the irrationality of consumers and the lack of balance in the markets. bravo
@@bagoiv75 The problem is, economics jargon seems to use "rational" in such a broad way as to encompass what we would call "irrational." "Rational"has different definitions in the real world vs an economic discussion.
I think. I don't know that I use rational/irrational in totally dictionary-correct ways in my regular life.
"The decision makers rationality is for his personal benefit not necessarily the interest of the company."
But you tie that personal benefit to the compan- DONT FUKING INTERRUPT ME BECAUSE WHO THA FUC R U
He caught that one in the nick of time. His whole worldview almost imploded.
Nigel Warner you could try to tie personal benefit to the company, but if they could find a way around that tie to maximize personal benifit , they would
@@Breakfastlunch123 Absolutely, but that's why we try to tie personal benefit to the company. The way around it is highly illegal, to deter them from choosing to do that. It also negatively impacts the shareholders, incentivizing them to take action against the CEO, should the legal deterrent fail.
I may be mistaken but I don’t think AOC has said anything against citizens doing stock buy backs. She thinks it’s a conflict of interest for Congresspeople to do it which is correct.
That's why congresspeople can't do it. All investment needs to be managed my a third party that doesn't have communication nor access of info about government data
"your just claiming I'm wrong because I'm wrong" LMAO. When you're too angry to hear what you say.
i think he was trying to say like hes using circle reasoning but he is definitely a dumbass
Mike from PA had a stroke in this debate
I think you two are arguing about the wrong issue. If a company's stock is cheap relative to its value, the CEO would be stupid if not negligent not to buy it back with cash on hand. Nothing nefarious about it. If however, the CEO is doing it when the stock is fairly valued or overvalued in order to drive up his own compensation, her point is legitimate, Unfortunately for her, if she's going to make that charge, she should damn well have the facts to make her case. Instead, she is appealing to emotion.
saddlebag exactly. If company buys undervalued stock back it’s not only makes paper gains for shareholders but also creates a possibility to attract more financial resources in the future when the stock price converges to the true value or more. Thus, getting more resources for R&D
@@seto007 She has no proof for that statement either.
If you wish to stop businesses from earning profits, that's fine, they all close and you can make your own insulin.
@@web Prezacktly. It's like being given free money. Once the stock is trading at par value or better, they can reissue it again and have twice as much to invest in R&D.
This is the problem with listening to politicians who wish to sway you via emotion because they have no grasp of the subject they're actually discussing.
is this an hour and a half of trying to figure out malice vs incompetence? This is a genuine question
It's an attempt to but mostly gets grounded by implying it's one or the other despite reading an article that specifically shows some know it's not in benefit to the company or it's 'subjective' utility 🙄 and some economists lean towards believing it's malice and one of the counters being 'well they're still doing a thing to their individual benefit' it just becomes a wish-wash of dancing around applying malice here but then sticking rationality after it thus... what... justifying the prior?
Destiny's not even being obtuse or dishonest here, I honestly think both are talking past each other due to the amount of information one argument means to the other, I guess similarly to the 'curse of knowledge' concept
AOC was reading from a prepared statement but she seemed to me to be loosing her place and fumbling her points
Mike's way of talking is exactly like when my 2 year old needed a nap.
So much assuming that companies are making good choices with respect to sick people.
*inc profits
I feel like you'd have to elaborate a bit on what you mean by that. Are you saying that sick people and company interests are not perfectly aligned? Or is it a much broader point, that companies are actively damaging sick people? That companies, when conflicts between sick people and their own interests occur, they choose their own interests?
I think Destiny is making too many leaps in this debate. He assumes AOC knows only as much as what she's saying and he has no idea whether she know more than that. She probably doesn't but the fact he is relying on that in blind faith isn't a good thing.
@@ChairmanJMao Probably the former. It probably comes down to this drug might not work so we won't invest R&D but we can raise our stock price without creating anything for sure.
@@parker469a him twisting her words and leaving out entire chunks of what she said that were important to her point didnt help either.
Destiny gets re-uploaded in this debate
The Now Streaming Podcast no im pretty sure its new. Never seen mike from pa yell at a dude before
This isn't the same video.
Should have talked to a finance person instead of an economist. The reason companies do stock buy backs is because when companies have extra cash it raises their weighted average cost of capital. When deciding on where to invest that capital they have to invest in something that has an expected return above their wacc. If they have no rnd projects expected to return more their wacc they would never invest in that thing because it would cost their investors more than they would make. By doing stock buybacks they actually lower the wacc for future rnd. Lawyers shouldn't talk about economics or finance ever
Most mega pharmas don't do alot of primary rnd. The typical cycle is:
1. Research university and gets grants to test a theory
2. Professor partners with a angel investors and a biotechnology company is created to further research.
3. If animal studies go well they will go public to secure public funding. The companies normally make zero money at this point and the drugs being phase trials. 80% of these businesses stay in this phase forever if the drug fails they often use their funding to try other options.
4. They don't have the financing to continue studies and get the drug approved. If the drug looks promising and profitable above the costs a mega pharma comes in and buys the biotech ( huge profits for biotechnology holders) they then invest the 100s of millions to billions to get the drug through all trials and approval.
The mega pharma decides whether or not to buy the biotechnology company if and only the expected return of the total investment exceeds their weighted average cost of capital. If the expected return is not sufficient they will never buy the biotech even if the drug could work, and no one will ever put the money in neccessary to push the drug through trials.
If a company has a lot of cash because of the way the math works it actually increases the weighted average cost of capital by buying back stock it actually lowers the bar to invest in more rnd. This is because it costs less in the future to issue additional shares. This means in the future they can actually invest in less profitable drugs.
4 years later and I’m pretty positive Mike still doesn’t know what rationality means in terms of economics
Is it rational for what's essentially an undergrad lawyer to scoff at an undergrad of economics? Especially when debating economics?
Isn't Mike just really doing the "Appeal to authority" fallacy? I don't see why the undergrad isn't allowed to speak.
To me it would look like Mike thinks he's above the undergrad and takes it as an insult that he has to be "educated" by. Why? Many things, one of them being him saying "who do you think you are?" just after telling the poor dude to shut up.
I could be wrong but it really looks like Mike thinks very highly of his knowledge in economics.
@@Hauntedundead I think pretty highly of my knowledge in finance, but my bank account balance would beg to differ.
Mike was actually mean the other person in the debate. That's really something for someone who wants to claim high ground on credentials. No need to be rude in a debate, what a child.
The company is well within their rights to use their own money on stock buy backs. IF they receive a federal bailout and use that money on a stock buy back, THAT’S unethical.
OMG! really destiny?
about stock buybacks, ya those two numbers aren't related in any meaningful way. much like the cost of a t-shirt vs a burger doesn't have much relation. but if you buy a paycheck worth of t-shirts you're not going to be eating that week.
I just can't even... it makes sense to ban stock buybacks. the point of her argument is that the stock buyback could be savings in the cost of the product. the point is that stock buyback is an unessasary expense and the point to do so has nothing to do with providing a decent product.
P1) AOC (correctly) believes PHARMA INDUSTRY is in the business of making money trough improving health.
P2) She a firms budget allocation is a good description of what industry they belong to.
P3) Firms which claim to be in the Pharmaceutical industry are receiving funding and federal supports, which are resources the society has allocated to be spent on improving general health.
P4) Firms claiming to belong to Pharmaceutical industry but spend majority of their funding on unrelated indenture (by point 2) are not truly in that industry.
P5) These firms are not using the resources (mentioned in 3) in the intended industry therefor are wasting the resource.
C) Pharmaceutical industry is wasting resources because they are more of a market speculation firm than a pharmaceutical one.
This lines my exact understanding and i was hoping destiny would change it but he did not. Mike wasn't good at staying calm here at all tho to make it more productive
I like how Mike kept saying that education or certification doesn't matter, then would immediately follow-up by bashing the 'uneducated' undergrad for not being on his level.
Doesn't AOC only have an econ degree? I guess her credentials aren't high enough for Mike.
Exactly! Was literally just thinking that, hilarious
Sometimes Destiny gets so Technical that they never get to define what their argument is and then debate it.
Language is one of the major factors in leading people to think they disagree when often they really don't
Mike from PA's rhetoric towards the undergrad portrayed him as a very insecure manlet.
Damn, the commies are gonna love this
truuuu
Shut up you fascist Nazi.
Thing is it’s sadly true as fuck it suck AOC is fucking the left atm
@@noimmigrantswelcome9251 Living up to your name I see.
I guess anyone who doesn't agree with Destiny is automatically a commie. Nice one 👍
These dudes really read the same letter together and came to opposite conclusions...
Different ideological lenses.
It's actually the easiest thing to do. If i read my j's in english and you read yours in Spanish we'll naturally come to completely different conclusions.
I feel like this whole conversation could've been avoided if you just made up definitions which he could understand. I'd recommend using Star Trek terms:
Spock Effect: Acting on decisions void of complete emotion, and maximized solely on results based on information given
Kirk Effect: Acting on decisions based on both LOGIC AND EMOTION, to maximize PERCEIVED best outcome, despite end results not always being optimal
This probably would've been easier for him to fathom.
All the AOC whiteknights getting butt hurt is HILARIOUS
“Is being opposed to stock buybacks economically illiterate?” - Liar from PA at around 1:17:00.
If you support dividends being permitted then yes.
AOC haters shaking in their bootstraps lol
Are you mexican?
here a year late but mike equivocating that hard on "rational" made me lose brain cells
Tonka wasn't this triggered..
Just saying.
They both got equally bent outta shape about the car brands, though. Is... Is Mike Tonka?
Holy shit that did not don on me.
Mike is impressively dense. It really is something to behold.
totally not mad gamer
@@spacerichard7692 totally not mad enlightened Mike fan.
Just in how many threads are you putting up this sad display? I do hope you're actually 13 and will grow out of it.
@@Powersd451 Imagine thinking that this young person knows anything about economics: ruclips.net/video/E5w4Hi7vQh0/видео.html like really?
1} Credentials memes (most important thing to wounded imbeciles)
1) www.twitch.tv/central_committee/clip/RoundSullenTildePastaThat
2) www.twitch.tv/central_committee/clip/ColdSpoopyPresidentHeyGuys
3) Ocasio-Cortez graduated cum laude from Boston University College of Arts and Sciences with a BA in 2011, majoring in international relations and economics. When her father died intestate in 2008, she became involved in a long probate battle to settle his estate. She has said that the experience helped her learn "firsthand how attorneys appointed by the court to administer an estate can enrich themselves at the expense of the families struggling to make sense of the bureaucracy"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez
2}Buybacks+rationality(TM)
1) www.twitch.tv/videos/469554421?t=0h23m00s (~ to 25:30 )
2) www.nber.org/papers/w22897
3) www.forbes.com/sites/aalsin/2017/08/09/how-stock-buybacks-cause-economic-stagnation-a-qa-with-robert-ayres-and-michael-olenick/
4) www.twitch.tv/central_committee/clip/TastyTsundereSeahorseJKanStyle
5) www.twitch.tv/central_committee/clip/TangentialPreciousDugongPunchTrees
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality#Economics
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory#Criticism
Gamers rise up!
www.twitch.tv/central_committee/clip/ObeseStormySwanSoBayed
So if you wanna mald and cope its on you
@@spacerichard7692 wow you're mad.
Is this supposed to change that Mike rejects the concept of "rational agent" just because he thinks "rational" is the wrong word for it?
Also, I'm not a gamer, dummy.
For your acting like you're an enlightened PhD who knows everything on the topic, you sure appear like a biased and bitter internet edge lord who spent too much time on 4chan.
@@spacerichard7692 Imagine thinking Mike - a guy who after careful explanation still cannot grasp the concept of rational actors in economics - knows anything about economics.
Mike has openly claimed he doesn't like weilding credentials when he's making a point but he clearly shows he's fine using someone else's lack of (percieved) credentials to shut down an argument.
How can anyone think Mike wasn't a complete embarrassment? Honestly asking. Destiny mauled him on every single point.
I think this should probably be titled "Is AOC wrong about a very nuanced section of economics that probably most politicians wouldn't be able to resolve anyways?"
yes.
Destiny got perceived as irrational in this debate.
Mike comes out, first statement: Rationality in economics supposes perfect knowledge.
Piva'te. Pivot, PIVOT.. LOL, Got me thinking of Ross from friends yelling PIVOT while moving the couch up the stairs.
Lol right?
I hope Mike from PA shouts down blue collar workers for their education credentials. How does a guy with this much contempt for the un-educated (or under-educated, or just less-educated-than-him) argue for greater worker control.
If he’s joking, dang, he needs to work on his sarcastic tone.
Ah, you see what he really wants is to have greater control over the workers.
Answer, No.
Meanwhile, economists laugh at AOC
answer: def yes lmao
@@mgrey24 How?
@@Crimsonwhocares It is in their best interests to do so is it not? It has been done several (many) times before has it not? Taking objective reality, you're hard-pressed to actually believe Destiny's statement here.
He’s actually such a wanna be intellectual it’s insane! 🤣 ‘Rationality vs. the idea of a rational actor’ was hilarious