Capitalism Isn’t To Blame for Your Lack of Success
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 12 сен 2024
- Dr. Peterson discusses success, failure, why capitalism isn't solely responsible for inequality, and the complex factors at play.
Dr. Peterson's extensive catalog is available now on DailyWire+: utm.io/ueSFn
// SUPPORT THIS CHANNEL //
Premium Podcast - jordanbpeterso...
Newsletter: linktr.ee/DrJo...
Donations: jordanbpeterso...
// COURSES //
Discovering Personality: jordanbpeterso...
Self Authoring Suite: selfauthoring.com
Understand Myself (personality test): understandmyse...
// BOOKS //
Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life: jordanbpeterso...
12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos: jordanbpeterso....
Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief: jordanbpeterso....
// LINKS //
Website: jordanbpeterso...
Events: jordanbpeterso...
Blog: jordanbpeterso...
Podcast: jordanbpeterso...
// SOCIAL //
Twitter: / jordanbpeterson
Instagram: / jordan.b.peterson
Facebook: / drjordanpeterson
#JordanPeterson #JordanBPeterson #DrJordanPeterson #DrJordanBPeterson #DailyWirePlus #podcast #news #equality #economics #capitalism
The world is a better place because of Jordan Peterson ❤
The world is a terrible place and jordan peterson is telling us the truth.
* because of Jordan Peterson, not in spite of him
It is in deed
Its not
@@RayRay-uw6ms clean your room 😊
Jordan’s message is clear as ever but it’s amazing to see how he grows as a entertainer
"I already am eating from the trash can all the time. The name of this trash can is ideology. The material force of ideology makes me not see what I am effectively eating.“ - Slavoj Žižek
Zizek > JBP
@@WanderingExistence Most of Jordans followers are way to stupid to understand, wat Zizek is saying.
@@WanderingExistence You imply ideology is what fuels Jordan and his ideas, you couldn't be more wrong if that is the case.
But perhaps you would like to recommend any of Slavoj Zizek lectures? Any good arguments as to why his work is superior in your opinion, along with recommendations on how to begin learning from him? Any favorite works from him? Some books or the like?
@@JavierGomezX Zizek's point is that ideology is the framework each and every one of us sees the world through. Ideology helps us structure our desire to desire things and channels that in ways that give us a sense of meaning (religiosity, patriotism, consumerism, just to name a few). The concept is what he calls The Sublime Object Of Ideology (the title of his first book), which is where he uses the Hegelian dialectic as a way of reconciling the conscious and the unconscious in a way that revives Marx with the psychoanalysis of Lacan. This is why in their debate he said he was much more of a Hegelian but he is still a materialist. I've found Zizek's work to be very insightful and helps enhance ones awareness and skepticism of the ideologies that they consume.
So I would say learning some Hegel is key to understanding Zizek (and Marx as well). What I love about him is that he brings together a lot of thinkers- he's amazingly well read and also well published, I believe he has over 50 books- but that can also make it a daunting task, lmao. Personally, I'm dyslexic so I mainly listen to his lectures and other people's helpful summaries. As somebody who has spent the past 3 months studying Zizek (with 1 month prior on Hegel) I would recommend understand some of the basics of the Hegelian Dialectic and then jump into his lectures. There's this one guy, Julien de Medeiros, who specializes in summarizing Zizek and he has been massively helpful. But if you want a quick video on his idea The Sublime Object Of Ideology the channel Epoch Philosophy has a great 30 minute video on it.
Personally, I love just listening to hours of Zizek talk, obviously getting through his thick Slovenian accent with all his sniffleish ticks isn't for everyone, but he is a funny guy. He has several jokes that humorously explain the Hegalian dialectic, I'll share one of his two famous coffee jokes with you;
A man is dropping a woman off at her house, she turns to him and says "would you like to come up for coffee". The man replies "I would love to but I don't drink coffee", she insists "That's okay, I don't have any coffee".
Not to ruin the joke through explanation, but it's in a dialectical fashion that there was a material negation of the offer so that a higher message is being communicated. Eroticism is the ideology being expressed through the dialectical reconciliation of the material fact of no coffee and the idea of it being offered.
@@JavierGomezX 😊
One day around six years ago, the father of a newborn son. Listening to jordan Peterson wishing I could sit in one lecture of his. Over five years of listening to this man I feel as though the education I've received is endlessly valuable. Ive been able to change my life and my world around me. They say you can change a mans perspective with just one sentence. Jordan does that everyday. Love from Florida everyone 🙏🏻💘🍻
@stafus nah socialism short term and kills people with suffocating effect. Socialism is certainly not long term. Its inbred insolence between socialism and secularism.
@stafus what an awful comment you're the type of person that would kill millions. Grow up.
@Flyweight.8 too bad that under a world run by monetary-market capitalist incentives, the super rich will continue to get richer and the poor and lower classes will continue to suffer and be exploited, structurally guaranteed by the system.
Did you know a fun fact that came up recently? Here it is: "For the first time since 2009, none of Forbes "World's Youngest Billionaires" under 30 are self-made this year. The billionaires under 30 all inherited their wealth, which Forbes reported is due to the self-made ones aging into their 30s and the start of the "great wealth transfer."
Way to go young billionaires! Way to earn it the old fashioned way!
Something I've begun to notice recently is, how often humans put the blame for a problem on the thing that is actually doing the best to ameliorate that problem. As in, rather than the problem being so overwhelming that it's everywhere and people become so numb to it it normalizes into invisibility, they live in a system where there's not much of the problem. And so it's very noticeable when it happens. So people point at it and say, 'The fact that this problem still exists shows that our system doesn't work.' But the opposite is true. It's just that they have no frame of reference for how bad the problem COULD be if the system they blame wasn't in place.
It's like if there's a marathon, and most people are lagging way behind, but there's one guy way out front and he's halfway to the finish line. So you jeer him and yell at him for not being all the way there yet. Even IF that's because you're unaware of all the other runners who are much further away from the finish line, it's still fucking rude.
Very accurate
@@Perception.mp4 Danke.
Look up "preparedness paradox." It says when you prevent a catastrophe from ever happening, nothing happens, so nobody cares. But when there's an ongoing catastrophe and then you stop it via a heroic effort, everybody celebrates. It doesn't make sense because the first scenario is actually better than the second one.
@stafus Having a long-term, selfless idea that does not work, because it does not take the limitations of human nature into consideration, is not better thinking.
Capitalism acknowledges that we as humans are barely able to rationally think yet- we're not very far along in our species' evolution on a global time scale- and it has managed to take our short-sighted irrational thinking and make that produce wealth for more-than-zero people. It's a fucking miracle. Socialism fails because it's based in the exact same mindset that we are enlightened beings created directly by God, with none of the flaws of lesser animal organisms, that turn-of-the-century Christians had.
Put simply, if you have a bunch of toddlers, you can either treat them as if they have the mental capacity of adults, expect adult behavior, and you will fail. If you accept the limitations of their development and treat them accordingly, not only are you more likely to get better results, but there's more potential for behavioral maturing.
@stafus I'd also like to point out that, I never, ever see socialists who are willing to start sharing THEIR wealth. They want the government to take money from people who the socialists deem as unworthy of having it, and redistribute it as the socialists deem fair.
People who do not practice what they preach are to be ignored.
The problem with trying to solve inequality is things often resort themselves in the long run to be exactly the same. There's always going to be people who're rich and get ahead, by hook or by crook. And then there's always going to be people who fall behind, whether by fault of their own or victim of circumstances. To try and fix it like it's a one time solution is nonsense. The best way to go about fixing this is for people to adopt moral virtues that allow them to have compassion or give charity to their fellow human being. Or by equipping people at the bottom with the means to pull themselves up. The only other "solution" is by compulsion, and history has shown using force isn't the solution
I agree we should set society up so everyone has the option to be successful and then if they don’t want to do it so be it. It’s there life let them do what they want.
Also history shows that many of the people who say they want to fix inequality actually don't. They want a lot more inequality, with themselves at the top...
And we also see a lot of people who have never left their own country, who have no historical knowledge and fail to see their wealth is in large part a result of their robbing forefathers or those of their country men.
@@callum7081it’s like 99% like that.
When you dig deep without bias, most people who have failed, it’s due to their fault.
Insanely few people are victim of circumstances because almost all circumstances have a clear cut solution that a reasonable person could fix.
@@hamster4618Statistics disagree with you. Most rich people didn’t have any inheritance.
the mistake people always make is thinking we live in capitalism. as mr peterson said; capitalism is akin to a rule of nature. what we live in isn't that. it's called corporativism. the world is governened more or less indirectly by corporations. not by government for the people, much less by people themselves. the government couldn't care less about the people nowadays. it's the government for the corporations.
and the government control the police, they control the courts and the press. the schools, the universities, the science institutions. it's all rigged. this has nothing to do with capitalism except trying to make you think it is one.
Yeah ... That's capitalism. Capitalism does what's profitable; Apparently rigging regulations and taxes in their favor is profitable.
@@WanderingExistence capitalism is not about doing whatever it takes to get the most amount of money. that may be the result if you let things run its course for too long. that's because money is a fundamentally unnatural thing. in nature, there's always balance. for all things money that balance has to be crafted for capitalism to work properly, as in beneficial for the most amount of people.
sure, that might be said for socialism as well. it's the old "real [your system here] hasn't been tried yet" argument. but as i see it, capitalism at least has the potential to do a lot of good and it has done so in the past. i know no such thing of socialism.
in essence, capitalism can be used for evil, of course. but the underlying problem lies in the very concept of money itself. it's a problematic thing and if you ask me, trying to come up with a useful way of dealing with that, capitalism has done the best job so far, precisely BECAUSE it tries to emulate a law of nature. what corporativism does is circumvent that law.
@@meh.7640 You talk about how the root of the problem is money but then you fail to realize that capitalism promotes money as the highest goal... That is the reality of it. You don't get to do the "no true capitalism thing". People run businesses to make money, people don't run businesses just for the charity of things.
Wasn't it socialist that got you a 40-hour work week with a weekend, workers compensation, and basic safety standards?
@@WanderingExistence yes, the problem is money and the best way to deal with that problem is capitalism. it would be way better if we all went back to trading goods and services. but i don't think we will be able to feed 8 bn people that way.
i'm not saying capitalism isn't also causing problems in itself and sure, maybe we can take that and sprinkle it with the one or other bit of socialist fairy dust so everyone feels good about it. but at the end of the day it's just not possible that everyone feels good about everything. and it shouldn't be that way because that eliminates balance and you end up with one thing completely taking over everything. like, imagine there's an invasive species on some island and it wipes out the entire population of some other animal and then dies out because its food source is gone. now what's the point of that? the moral of the story is: there has to be a loser because that is the way nature works
@@meh.7640 What are you talking about? Capitalism doesn't humanely deal with money... Capitalism literally fires 10,000 workers and then does tens of billions of dollars of share buybacks?! Hey, it made me richer increased my stock portfolio.... But that's right that's all it did for society, is make me richer. Cooperatives on the other hand work too preserve jobs even when there's an economic downturn. Cooperatives work together, they can establish democratic modes of resource allocation that doesn't use money.
Wage labor is renting yourself via "self ownership". Employment is literally renting another human being as if they're property. The employer-employee relationship is a very insidious dynamic. Employment is a rental contract, like if you rented capital (say, a chainsaw from Home Depot), you pay rent for the "time preference" (basically the cost of time) for a piece of property. Capitalism is based on a principle of self ownership, which sounds empowering, until you realize that most people don't own capital goods other than themselves, and must rent out the authority over themselves as pieces of "human capital". This is a process of dehumanization where human beings are valued for their return on investment as capital goods. This is why, at the very least, capitalism needs unions and safety nets (or abolishment), or else the system won't value people for their human value. Importantly we must also think about our sick, elderly, and disabled people, as they can't provide competitive economic return for the investor class to value. We must figure out a way to change this economic system if we wish to value each other.
I can completely relate regarding the repartition of talent: I have been an artist for a decade, moderatly talented, known in restricted circles, but obviously struggling. I called it quite when reaching a more mature age and completely changed my professional orientation, focusing on an activity I was good at instead of what might have been a pipe dream: in short, I have chosen service over ego. I indeed succeed much more and increasingly faster - there's indeed a kind of positive feedback and momentum that builds with a real career progression.
I'm going through a similar experience. I'm an artist with relative skill, but since it's not so easy to be a really talented and successful artist, I decided to migrate to my more skilled side, which is software development. In the beginning, I thought that I wouldn't be so happy as I could be if I were doing art for a living, but boy was I wrong. I currently love what I do and would continue to it for the rest of my life. I still do art, but now it's just a hobby. My life feels more balanced now, and the rewarding experience has kept me confidently going
Same, moderately skilled at art, but well I got bills, started working blue-collar, and love it. I still do my art as a hobby, and I even have the money to pay for the support needed to make up for the talent I lack. I won't ever be able to live off my art, but that's okay, that's why I have a job I enjoy.
Evidence points to capitalist economy being able to have greater and more consistent growth rates over time. The growth accumulates over time to a point that even the 10% percentile poorest of the capitalist society will have a much greater buying power than the medium socialist citizen. Think of a capitalist society growing 3% each year versus a socialist one growing 0,5% each year, in average, over 200 years.
Besides, in a prosperous and safe society, people with good family and community connections, making good decisions, will improve in life rather easily while having significant backup for crisis and misfortunes.
More skilled people working in accordance to demand will have greater outcomes, and it is fair that having greater skill and woking in tune with everyone else's demand grant greater rewards than simply doing low skill and low demand jobs.@Kee485
Capitalist societies would be even more prosperous with only highly skilled people. Any society actually, but it certainly applies to capitalist societies too.@Kee485
Real problem is we do not have capitalism. Not when govt subsidies and bail outs exist. Taxes are unfair to certain businesses and especially to individual citizens. Capitalism is not the problem, totalitarian regimes disguised as "free markets" that are anything but free are the problem.
@Soothing Sounds exactly, big corps get so much govt money and benefits its insane! Meanwhile a regular citizens cant even start a small business without saving all his life and putting it all on the line.
Real capitalism means if a billionaire/banker and an average person both found guilty of frauds, there is no escape of either of them going to jail. No settlement, whatsoever. Same law always applies to everyone.
@@DonJuanDM if that system was what we have in place, things would be good. Right now we have a global techno oligarchy disguised as capitalism and "free market".
Yes I agree.
"No True Capitalism" 🤦🏼🤦🏼 Bruh, Remember all that government violence with the English Land Enclosure Acts and United States Homestead Acts.... You do realize, private property is a government intervention.
I could listen to these stories all day. We all have them! On any topic, no two people are equal. If we could get past that, and appreciate the differences, we'd really have something.
pretty big if, since people have been trying to find the answer to this problem for thousands of years
@stafus Name your top three successful (for their people) socialist countries.
I could listen to reason and logic analysis all day, too, with someone as well read as Peter Joseph, who did this video: "Peter Joseph - Critique of Jordan B. Peterson (vs Slavoj Zizek: "Happiness: Capitalism vs. Marxism")"
The "joke" about redistributing the money after every turn... it is also true for everyone I've seen try it. Lol. If you don't like normal Monopoly you won't like that either.
Do you like Monopoly? How the game works? Is it much fun for most players? Every time I've played it as a kid, half-way through I realize what a stupid, rigged game it is and I flip the board over into the face of the richest player who thinks they earned everything and laugh as they exploit everybody else for more gains. The game sucks, we stop playing and play a new game. A more cooperative game.
If we were to create a new social system, how would it look? Peter Joseph proposes one in "A Viable Society" talk he gave. What about you? Would you have private ownership of the means of production for profit as a main feature?
The insidious thing is that those who want to 'make everything fair for everyone' want to give lots of power to a supposedly benevolent government. That government then takes a third or more of everyone's money and controls the things they do. So imagine a Monopoly game in which one player gets a third of the money each player gets for passing go and also gets to make new rules. Right off the bat that player is going to do better than the others due to the taxation. Then the rules they make limit the ways in which other players can accrue wealth, because who would actually put a rule into place that doesn't benefit themselves? So we vote to feel good about ourselves and later realize we are in the Matrix.
It's as if it was never about 'making things fair' at all...
@@bbgun061 There is this huge problem that is going to screw everything up for everyone. All you have to do is give me all of the power and I will fix it. Promise.
High taxation as such is not the problem. Because the taxes don't got to any one "player", they are payd into the "game board". In a well working high tax country there is just a lot of stuff that doesn't cost money, like universities, bridges or waste disposal, whereas in a low tax country you end up spending a lot of the money you initially got to keep on those things that most people need anyway.
The real problem starts when the state starts using tax money to alter the economy, basically becoming a player in the game himself.
@@nicolashuffman4312 exactly
Monopoly was created to critique land rent. But honestly, we also need to critique wage labor and interest on capital. Wage labor is renting yourself via "self ownership". Employment is literally renting another human being as if they're property. The employer-employee relationship is a very insidious dynamic. Employment is a rental contract, like if you rented capital (say, a chainsaw from Home Depot), you pay rent for the "time preference" (basically the cost of time) for a piece of property. Capitalism is based on a principle of self ownership, which sounds empowering, until you realize that most people don't own capital goods other than themselves, and must rent out the authority over themselves as pieces of "human capital". This is a process of dehumanization where human beings are valued for their return on investment as capital goods.
This is why, at the very least, capitalism needs unions and safety nets (or abolishment), or else the system won't value people for their human value. Importantly we must also think about our sick, elderly, and disabled people, as they can't provide competitive economic return for the investor class to value. We must figure out a way to change this economic system if we wish to value each other.
Start working harder, stop comparing yourself to other people, don't take shit from anybody, be humble, be sociable, keep your wits about you, show up on time, follow simple rules in life and see what happens.
That depends where you live. People can work their asses of in some slum in India, chances are they will remain there forever.
@@hamster4618 no excuses. Change your surroundings and your community for the better. That's your legacy, besides your family/children if you have one.
@@joedohn9727 It's not an excuse. To "not take shit from anybody" means to put the blame where it belongs, and sometimes that is indeed society or other people, not just yourself. If you're dealt a bad hand on purpose, cuz "people like you" get a bad hand most of the time, that's the house cheating you, is it not? I'm not saying to just quit playing, since the game of life isn't such a game, it's important to keep doing your best despite the cards being bad, but at the same time it's important to notice and call it out when it happens. To do that reflects trust in others, and humility, knowing that you can't get through your problems alone, and you need others to help. Don't cheat me and I won't cheat you, thats the deal that should be brokered between society and the individual.
I did this and got sodomized by a gorilla.
@@FirsToStrike Yes, call it out, have a revolution if you must. That is taking action. That's not making excuses. That's what I said. Indeed there is corruption in the world. If you're born in those slums, what are you gonna do about it then? Bite the hand that feeds you, or stay down on your knees? I'm not just saying a call to arms, there are many different strategies, some violent and some not violent, that can be implemented.
This strikes me as a confusing message because it implies that anyone can just pick up the path and eventually rocket up the exponential, but clearly most people plateau pretty quickly unless they're filling a new niche, or are leveraging something else to boost them up an old niche.
Agree
Bang bang you got it. The title on the video "People differ in skill not power," when I read that I laughed out loud. I thought what a load of shit. Does it take skill to be born into a rich family or get lucky? Sure skill is needed to increase the probability of success but even those without skills are in power so what the hell does the title even mean?
@@CPB4444 I still think people can do amazing things with their lives if they're determined enough, and smart about how they go about things, but society is kind of a ponzi scheme with only so much room in each niche. I'd like to see some way of us acknowledging that and giving people an alternative to the expectation of a tedious climb up corporate ladders and having their mental health deteriorate from not getting their promotion. Something like a local community space where people can find their local niche and/or have support to develop their capabilities in what they love doing.
@@riffking2651 Yeah I would like to see it too. However it seems that we have reached an end and not just the west but in all of the world. Humanity wasn't biologically made to have all this non-stop change and information. The simple life of hunters and gatherers is what we crave. We were born to live that was it. The rise of agriculture and trade allowed for our current technological advancement, however we have not grown as a species sense our forager days. We are still tribal, even those who broke out of the mold are tribal in a sense too, they are human to a fault. In our pursuit to make things better or easier for ourselves we didn't evolve alongside our technology thus we still have war, poverty, and ignorance. I do have hope though that at the end of this advancement we shall make something akin to gods, something that we ourselves cannot fathom.
@@CPB4444 The parents of those well off individuals had to have skill to acquire their fortune initially though.
Hatred of capitalism is rooted in ENVY.
And/or SLOTH. They want stuff (envy) without being willing to do the work (sloth).
Root of the left, whether it's progressivism, nazism, socialism, communism
The Big Lie By Dinesh D'Souza
Or maybe people are just capable of seeing the inherent inequality of capitalism that's based on inequality of skill of labor. Regardless, it's the best economic system we have yet to come up with
Yes
Get motivated. Figure out what skill or service you can sell, follow the reason and logic of it while ditching the passion.
This man is low key a comedian
Yep l;ol
Because he tells the truth
And a low key freestyle rapper
So tell your points.
The outcomes of economic experiments are normally distributed, but these outcomes are reinvested into new economic experiments, meaning the people who have a good outcome are able to roll the dice again, while those with bad outcomes aren't able to roll the dice any more. People with good outcomes are able to afford more dice rolls and this gives them a higher chance of another win. At a certain point, you are able to afford enough dice rolls that you are practically guaranteed a win, and that's where they reach "escape velocity". So while economic experiments are normally distributed, long term economic success, which is an iteration of many experiments, is exponentially distributed.
I'll say this much. AOC, Elizabeth Warren, and Nancy Pelosi didn't climb a competency hierarchy to write legislation over me.
Very well put.
Ignorant blinde and instant virtue signaling and compassionate poor and working class give those people power(instant virtue signaling is a combination of instant gratification and virtue signaling since it's prevalent)
Yeah they rose to power because non-skilled people want government handouts
They did, you just disagree with them which is a different issue
@@octavioavila6548 By that logic all dictators climbed competency hierarchies. Could be true, but it's more likely that politics isn't a competence hierarchy at all.
Where can i find the complete lecture? This is gold
“For whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him.” Mark 13:12
What can be truer?
You are not preaching. You're stating fact that has being known for thousands of years.
@stafus you're imagining things. State 1 country where true socialism/communism has achieved what you've just described or atleast uplifted and made people wealthy beyond their means.
Fun fact: Socialism is about community not the individual.
The anti-plumber story could be a comedy bit on its own 😂
Seriously
I had a well pump replaced. (Not the hole in the ground; just the pump that pulled the water out of the hole.) I stood around and watched. It cost me over a thousand dollars, so I was damn well going to watch!
Since then, I've replaced three well pumps, at a cost of about $250 each for parts. (When ya own third-hand rental property...)
Plumbing isn't hard, but you have to think; you have to know the mechanical properties. The guys that replaced my well-pump had one thinker (company owner), two grunt workers, and a brother-in-law. Ninety minutes, and they were paid and done.
Respect to plumbers!
In RTS (real-time strategy) circles we refer to end-game power creep as 'snow balling'; it's the same with success, if you have recently succeeded at some goal or task then it stands to reason that you're going to be in a position (psychologically, physiologically, socially, financially, etc) to do so again. This effect is culminative, and of course the reverse is also true; recent failures conceive their own progeny too.
Man I could listen to Jordan Peterson renovating his house forever
Educational & entertaining. I hope this gets to people who need to hear it.
Never thought I'd hear a Dr. J stand-up in this lifetime. Show this to someone who haven't heard him before and they would think he does comedy.
"... because the wall wasn't on fire before he showed up ..." I had to pause the video because I couldn't hear what he was saying over my own laughing at that. :)
Between 1948 and 1970, productivity in the USA increased by an annual 2.8% and real incomes increased by 3%. In the past 18 years, productivity has been 1.4% and incomes have only increased by 0.7%. In 1940, 90% of Americans born would go on to earn more than their parents by the age of 30. Only 50% of Americans born in 1980 can say the same.
Yes, capitalism - or the modern deregulated version of it - is probably the reason for your lack of success.
That conflates causation and correlation. It totally ignores the wider economic context. You do realize that in 1948 there was precisely one nation on the planet with an industrial economy that wasn't in shambles right? Want to guess which one that was? Using 1948-1970 as an arbitrary "baseline" and then comparing it to the globalized economy of today is either deliberately disingenuous or incredibly ignorant.
@@codyvandal2860 This sounds like "race to the bottom"; now that other nations have regained their economic and industrial footing, the usa is in competition with them and thus needs to cut manufacturing cost, in large part- wages for laborers.
In hindsight, maybe the capitalist class should have never invested in the rise of the middle class after ww2, and just kept us at the same level of poverty as beforehand. No point in investing if its just temporary.
Huge argumentative fallacy.
From an economic analysis I would argue that purchasing power, inflation, and the Fed are the reason for these statistics you mention, not capitalism. The US hasn’t seen true capitalism since 1913.
@@hipoint40cal39 dude you’re evil
@@codyvandal2860 globalization was a intentional effort by the American elite to enrich them self
So well articulated. Thanks!
While I mostly agree that the problem is more complex than we think, the premise is biased.
The very first example can be further analyzed to disassemble the intrinsic problem of "competition" in a market that's only as free as we believe it to be. Paraphrasing John Sutherland's "Bestellers: a very short introduction" by the Oxford Press, the problem with the bestellerism ethos (which can be easily compared to most marketing distributions) is that when publishing companies get big enough they have no incentive to look for new writers as long as they can artificially promote books they know are going to sell because they either come from renowed authors like King or because they have good marketing traits that have nothing to do with the quality of the work itself. This way, the top 10s are always composed of books that became best sellers as a self fulfilling prophecy. What do "reasons to vote for democrats" and "call us what we are" have in common? they are both empty works (literally, in the first case) with no literary value whatsoever that become famous because they were promoted enough to sell well. By the way, this is also the reason why "Johnny the Walrus" by Matt Walsh was Amazon's #1 seller in LGBT books for Kids for a couple of months despite it not actually being an LGBT book: because most of the market is controlled not by the consumer but by the producer. This happens in all fields of marketing creativity, in music we have so called industry plants and in cinema and acting we have nepo babies. You yourself reached the height of your career not because of your books (as much as I will still admit they are of great quality and importance) but because of the attention you got from youtube videos of your controversial takes.
Capitalism is not to blame for your lack of success only insofar as we ignore the fact that your lack of success can be easily explained by the fact that the market does not have any actual interest in the quality of one's work but only in how marketable it is. King himself (whom I greatly admire) admitted in his book "On writing" that he is not such a good writer but he sells very well.
"the market does not have any actual interest in the quality of one's work but only in how marketable it is"
False
People define quality based on their needs
When I'm looking for hand-tools I'm coming from the point of I need it 3 or 4 times a year.
Premium Japanese or German made tools are no doubt high quality, precision made tools that would last any buyer a lifetime.
Pittsburg hand tools are measurably in every way less capable tools than a premium made tool - they have loose tolerances, made with cheaper metal, less durable coatings, don't have markings stamped in them, etc.
The user's needs define the quality required
I don't need that premium tool. For the price of one premium tool I can buy a whole set of Pittsburg tools and they will get the job done for someone like myself who uses them every couple months, and will also last a lifetime with such usage.
A professional mechanic on the other hand would probably only use a set of Pittsburg tools as his starter set to use until he can save up for the premium tools.
Your definition of quality, which can be rather used to define utility and convenience, is also a subset of the marketability of a product. While I was mainly referring to entertainment products (which generally don't have semi-objective standards of quality) even commodities fall under the same umbrella of problems of a monopolized markets, the most clear example of this is planned obsolescence: we've been able to make light bulbs that would last for millions and millions of hours (potentially forever) for about one hundred years, yet most modern light bulbs last from 1 thousand to 100 thousand hours depending on the type of product. Why is that the case? Because the Phoebus Cartel, composed of the most important light bulb manifacturing companies, monopolized the market so much that they forced us to use subpar products that would need more frequent replacement. We can see the exact same thing in most tech products (phones batteries that last less and less etc.) and with a good portion of common commodities. Even here, where competition should perform its best, the intrinsic limits of capitalism make it so that it's not the best product to dominate, but rather the interest groups with the most power.
@@inaridefucc8904
Jordan usually mentions that most hierarchies or probably all hierarchies are corrupted to some degree.
I think his message is tailored to the individual for which it is completely irrelevant what happens at the top of a hierarchy and whether there is corruption or not.
So for a person at a job in a company just doing a 10% better job will yield a huge return regardless of how some people that are at the top got at the top or stay at the top.
Yes.. a microcosm of this problem can be found in the music industry. What he left out is that most of the skill lies outside the bands that are on top of the Spotify charts. You have to dig to find quality. There is a thriving metal and prog rock scene, but not many of them have risen to the top.. not because of economic models and certainly not because of lack of skill.. but because of many other factors.. technology changes, how music is marketed and distributed.. (I see marketing as a separate thing from simple market forces like supply and demand... and one could argue an important skill at that.
AND THIS..
One could also argue that capitalism today isn't about innovation, but RISK MITIGATION. Why take a chance on a new artist when there's another disposable pop song to suck cash from and then toss aside?
The problem seems to be more about marketing, visibility, and distribution. NOT skill or innovation. So one could say we have old school capitalism (which is rapidly heading to a stage 4 cancer) and perhaps a new type.
I live in Eastern Europe and he tends to be spot on about the lack of innovation here.. so I'm not tempted to fall into the dichotomy trap. In fact, the two "sides" start to look the same when they become dysfunctional enough. To deny that the systems on a global scale aren't rigged..is insane. I'm not even going to waste my time on a debate.
The argument he presents here sounds nice at first listen, but honestly, I don't buy it. I think that the most rotten people (sociopaths) tend to end up in leadership roles when they should actually be in jail, regardless of the political system running in the background.
However, there's more to unravel here, and maybe he didn't get to this part of the plot yet. OR maybe the title is just provocative clickbait. Even with this long comment I only addressed about .001 percent of the overarching problem. He's certainly a smart cookie and I would not attempt to debate him outright, but ask more questions.
In conclusion, I prefer healthy, vibrant capitalism and am very pro small business, which is hard enough as it is but is made to be even more so by a system that is getting more dysfunctional each year.
I am a truck mechanic. I worked in big workshops on big trucks. Some of them unionized. I hated it. I am a critical thinker a problem solver and not scared of a hard days work. However i was expected to be the same as a guy who was dishonest. A guy who was no good at diagnosis a guy who would hide rather than do a hard job. I was being dumbed down to the lowest denominator. Its easier to dumb someone down than it is to lift someone else up. I left and started my own company. Found my own level of income and usefullness. Rely totally on my own ability to provide what the community i live in needs. 23 years and counting. I have never been happier.
You changed how I view many things ❤
I really like this talk but I wish he would talk about how artificial barriers to entry such as degrees and certifications is the problem. People understand inequality when it is based on competence. Inequality due to an artificial barrier to entry causes anger. Using the plumber example, you can be the most competent at what plumbers do but you can't be a plumber without a license. You can't be A without a certificate or license but you can't get those without an degree.
Can anyone tell me where can I find the full video, I really liked this one
ruclips.net/video/dPv1RYsi7sA/видео.html
Huge fan of JP but his thumbnail is wrong, people do differ in power and those at top learn the skill of maintaining power. Most skilled people fail, being the best musician doesn’t get you around music label bs
He's still right. What you say is "just being skilled is not enough" and he happens to add that intelligence, concienciousness and even agreeableness also play a role in success.
@@h.m.7218 He does almost completely ignore nepotism, corruption, and entrenched self-perpetuating power structures
@@codyvandal2860 No, he doesn't. Every time he talks about hierarchies structure, he also does talk about their tendencies to evolve towards corruption and about our duty as citizens to be aware of it and to fix it when needed.
@@h.m.7218 hate to break it to you but nepotism isn't illegal. But it definitely guarantees success
i think this is the case because, if we look at what's happening when people accrue value, it's that they are being rewarded for a specific trait/behaviour/practice(these all pretty much tie into each other). So if you were to consider 'human' as an average base form, everyone slightly strays away from that base form because of how randomly we 'express the human form', and if straying, which is random, in a specific direction is being rewarded then clearly, depending on the extent to which it strays, the further out the stray occurs the less individuals there will be with that trait. For example, considering that the number of people reduces as height increases, if people were simply being rewarded for how many apples they could pick from a tall tree you can see how most of the rewards would accumulate in the hands of the minority. Here, we know height takes a normal distribution in society, but in this example it's almost as if we're rewarding 'uniqueness in a specific direction'(tallness), which is what we do when we fixate on the distribution of mass in the stars or the mass of waterflow in rivers, and can roughly be measured by the extent to which the individual strays divided by the number individuals at that same 'level of stray'. This way, normal distributions almost always form the 'foundation' of Pareto distributions, or at least they're inseparably linked.
Capitalism is unfair. Even Jordan admits that. Financial success is mostly due to luck and differences in initial conditions. Having a kickstart or a influential or rich family will open doors you couldn't imagine. Being smart and talented will only make people jealous of you and try to take you down.
And there's no point in mentioning the riches that capitalism brings, like computers and internet. People will always need housing, food and medicine. Those are the most important things, and they're getting harder and harder to have. The middle class is disappearing and social mobility as wel... So what's so good about capitalism?
Your assertion "financial success is mostly to due to luck and differences in initial conditions" is fundamentally disproven. It has been debunked by hard scientific data repeatedly. But, because it is an emotionally gratifying position it proves incredibly resilient in peoples minds.
You are starting with the assumption that the world is supposed to be fair. The world doesn't care. We are all born ugly or beautiful, rich or poor, smart or stupid. There is no equality from the start, forcing it will only make it more unequal.
Capitalism is a word created to describe a specific problem, so it can be blamed for a lot of stuff.
The problem with great and honest minds like Jordan Peterson is that he proves such good points, that opposites learn how to play as well
To him that has much will be given, to him that has not even the little he has shall be taken away from him.
His standup is getting better and better. Can't wait to hear his tight 10.
But what is success? That's an entirely subjective concept.
I like to think success is simply not failing at what you set out to do. "Success" is a pointless waste of time otherwise - all pride.
In the end, greed and envy are declared sins for a reason. Nothing will destroy a society faster, which is why Marx was a fool. Greed and Envy are the reasons why Marxism fails, no matter the form.
6:45 indeed, that was the case, which is how Marxism got attention and as a result one of the countries in which inequality was greatest, Russia, China communism got a footing. Happily enough that did scare the wealthy people in power in Europe which in turn adopted social measures.
If I had to blame capitalism for anything it would be consumerism. Now we all settle for subpar products churned out of an assembly line with no passion behind it but the passion for money and to squeeze as much out of you as possible.
I mean I know there are people racing to get the new Iphone that comes out every year even though it changes maybe one thing if at all and yet they charge an arm and a leg.
Maybe that is just a problem with our culture? But either way there is an unhealthy obsession with material there
Unconsciousness (ignorance) is the cause of financial poverty
This was more of a comedy sketch than a lecture to be honest haha
Gang affiliated massage therapists do exist
12:35 good piece of advice, don’t go to a surgeon that will kill you
Capitalism isn't to blame for people's lack of success. But does everyone need to be super successful to live a decent life? If you're waiter or plumber you should be able to pay for food, shelter and utilities. Yet that's not the case but we still need waiters and plumbers and carers.
Maps of meaning 1st lecture, first topic !!
Indeed, but it can be blamed for the lack of income.
Tom Hanks said recently at Harvard that people who fake the job earn more than those who do the job. That can't last long. It will lead to a global fail at some point.
So essentially success and failure is f(x)=x^3.
sometimes the ones that win the game are the ones with connections, or so full of themselves that make believe people every lie to cover up lack of skill.
We hardly have private property rights at all in the U.S.. Are we claiming we live in under capitalism? I'd do anything to live in a world of the voluntary exchange of private property, but we have long since fallen from that ideal. We live in a society where you pay the piper every step of the way if you want to start a business. You could have had your home paid off that last 49 years and you can be sure that the State is collecting taxes on it still, so it's like you never own property! You'll always "pay rent" to the privileged political class.
Wage labor is renting yourself via "self ownership". Employment is literally renting another human being as if they're property. The employer-employee relationship is a very insidious dynamic. Employment is a rental contract, like if you rented capital (say, a chainsaw from Home Depot), you pay rent for the "time preference" (basically the cost of time) for a piece of property. Capitalism is based on a principle of self ownership, which sounds empowering, until you realize that most people don't own capital goods other than themselves, and must rent out the authority over themselves as pieces of "human capital". This is a process of dehumanization where human beings are valued for their return on investment as capital goods. This is why, at the very least, capitalism needs unions and safety nets (or abolishment), or else the system won't value people for their human value. Importantly we must also think about our sick, elderly, and disabled people, as they can't provide competitive economic return for the investor class to value. We must figure out a way to change this economic system if we wish to value each other.
THIS.
It is not capitalism or socialism. It is Greed that is the problem.
@Gyrate greed is a sin in the Bible a harem in the Quran and disgraceful in Confucius belief
It’s also okay to admit there are inherent barriers to success: Mental health disorders, obesity, High cost of healthcare, inflation, student debt, credit card debt, minimum wage not reflecting cost of living. All these are factors that can compound health issues and make success difficult. It’s going take more than making ones bed, standing up straight, and not lying to yourself as sound intervention) to these complex issues. (Although they can help).As humans, we are social creatures. We need to community to assist us in the most uncertain of times. Policy that addresses the direct cause of poverty. The moralistic stance that one’s problems are based off one’s inability to pull themself up by their bootstraps has long been proven wrong.
Would you be in favour of ensuring an even start in life - eg. A guaranteed income for the early years, rent control, free healthcare up to a point, equal access to services etc... if, in exchange, the ladders bottom is cut off?
Ie - here's your start point, we'll do everything we can to help you, but if you mess it up, you're finished. That's on you.
Knowing that this is all hypothetical. Would that be fundamentally fair?
@@oliverhopkins8074 I’ll bite, sure! What would be the outcome if this was hypothetically fair?
@@kyleeli2241 promise its not bait just a thinking point.
I mean personally I'd like it. In the UK we have a safety net that a lot of people are happy to lounge about on. But we have horrendous taxes. 45% tax on income (60% marginal tax at a certain bracket too). It defeats the point of trying hard.
I think give everyone a fair shot but if they drop too far, can't support themselves (with reasonable help) and continuously make bad decisions, off you go. The system won't support any more and you go into a sort of gulag for manual labour until you've proven yourself worthy of freedom.
On the flip side it should slightly lower taxes as we are supporting people only for a fixed time. No lifelong dossers.
Gosh, were things so black and white. Too bad about the unwieldy balance of wealth leverage and individual capability. Then there's the internals of greed, fear and psychological balance and imbalance. Capitalism must be tempered by morals and ethics mate morals and ethics.
This is one of the only things that I agree with Jordan on.
It is funny (actually tragic) that what people are laughing about at the end of the clip, happened (in different ways) and may still happen.
Capitalism isn't to blame, directly, but wealth does not equal virtue nor competence. I've met some grossly ignorant rich people in my time, and none too few brilliant, poor people whom got dealt a bad hand by the vicissitudes of "fate". Capitalism, properly protected against corruption and rigging of the system, is about the fairest economic foundation we can avail ourselves of because it CAN be a meritocratic system (even if it isn't always one), as opposed to others (like Communism) that attempt to invalidate individual merit as a variable.
Yes but as soon as you take out the corruption in the rigging of the system... Then it's immediately not capitalism 😜
I say this somewhat in jest, but really, if you look at it; corruption and rigging works in the real world thus this is how we get real world capitalism.... Your ideal form will never exist.
The longer you keep fantasizing about some ideal capitalism the longer you're just going to be exploited by those that are corrupting and rigging the system.
I concur. I think the complexity of the financial system brings distrust with it and deters most from utilizing traditional means of wealth enhancement and growth.
As much as I love the guy and agree with him I still don't think we can keep being capitalist forever, it's a very old system that definitely has its problems (not saying we should look toward Marxist ideas). We'll eventually have to think of something new, something that's completely not like the things we've been accustomed to for hundreds of years.
We need real capitalism.
That is no government subsidies.
We also need to ban interest bearing loans.
Interest is why every country has debt.
@@peterleversha9651Real capitalism" doesn't exist... True capitalism is mediated through the ideal and the material, you'll never be able to have _Pure Capitalism_ because the real world is never ideal. Get over it and graduate high school. Ironically, historically modern capitalism started with interest-bearing loans from the Medici. Lol.
Besides, why do you even want capitalism? Wage labor is renting yourself via "self ownership". Employment is literally renting another human being as if they're property. The employer-employee relationship is a very insidious dynamic. Employment is a rental contract, like if you rented capital (say, a chainsaw from Home Depot), you pay rent for the "time preference" (basically the cost of time) for a piece of property. Capitalism is based on a principle of self ownership, which sounds empowering, until you realize that most people don't own capital goods other than themselves, and must rent out the authority over themselves as pieces of "human capital".
This is a process of dehumanization where human beings are valued for their return on investment as capital goods. This is why, at the very least, capitalism needs unions and safety nets (or abolishment), or else the system won't value people for their human value. Importantly we must also think about our sick, elderly, and disabled people, as they can't provide competitive economic return for the investor class to value. We must figure out a way to change this economic system if we wish to value each other.
@@peterleversha9651 victorian England, eventually became what you call socialism. Bismarck, every single Victorian European nation evolved into their modern counterparts, even ones like Portugal and Spain were under the “fascist”dictatorship of Francisco and Salazar.
@@rudysmith1552 interesting, I might have to look into that.
Thank you.
Hahaha. You're not working hard enough. Pull yourself up by your boot straps.
what if the problem wasn't the fact that hierarchies exist but instead it relies on the criteria by which hierarchies are established? to me the question that the Dr. Peterson is trying to answer here is part of a biggest and more articulated problem.
Wage labor is renting yourself via "self ownership". Employment is literally renting another human being as if they're property. The employer-employee relationship is a very insidious dynamic. Employment is a rental contract, like if you rented capital (say, a chainsaw from Home Depot), you pay rent for the "time preference" (basically the cost of time) for a piece of property. Capitalism is based on a principle of self ownership, which sounds empowering, until you realize that most people don't own capital goods other than themselves, and must rent out the authority over themselves as pieces of "human capital". This is a process of dehumanization where human beings are valued for their return on investment as capital goods. This is why, at the very least, capitalism needs unions and safety nets (or abolishment), or else the system won't value people for their human value. Importantly we must also think about our sick, elderly, and disabled people, as they can't provide competitive economic return for the investor class to value. We must figure out a way to change this economic system if we wish to value each other.
@@WanderingExistence I appreciate this remark.
I have the impression, indeed, that most human relationships (at least in the western world where I live) are degenerating into some forms of consumeristic exploitation, not only in the workplace but also in private/personal life. I relate this regression to the capitalistic way of dealing with things. Here you explained it better than I could do.
@@alessandravittoriniorgeas5345 Well I've wasted 11 years of my life consuming political philosophy ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
If you want to know more about how I come to these conclusions feel free to ask but I won't bore you if you're not interested
@alessandravittoriniorgeas5345 or it is that human tendency in a certain percentage of the population, that the capitalist system arises from.
@@annastone5624 it is a good question. I think that at the level of the individual, so considering our personality traits, there are people more attuned with the capitalistic mentality than others. Having said that, if we look at the level of human societies, in this particular historical period we live in, the capitalistic idea has had great success. Maybe in the future it will not but this is how I see it works. During the human history successful ideas have changed,depending on the particular and unique context of the historical period in question.
The plumber is so perfect
The ancient Israelites had an interesting system. They were given a designated land inheritance which they were unable to sell on a permanent basis. Every 50 years land was returned and debts forgiven. Ppl still maintained their wealth but those without were still able to maintain the hope of an inheritance for their families.
Another subject that has a small amount that does the majority of the work is air to air combat. Only around 5 percent of fighter pilots became aces (shot down at least 5 planes) and of that 5 percent, an even smaller amount shot down twice that many, and so on.
Because capitalism exists that is why everyone has an opportunity to be successful
define success for me please
"Capitalism isn't to blame for your lack of success".
Does anyone realize that not everyone has the same amount Capital when they are born?
Those born into riches start at the very good line.
Those born into poor start at the very bottom.
To realize that depending on your wealth will people have different opportunities is to understand that tragedy. And whether you want to use it for your gains or act to rectify it is another topic.
The human species began in poverty; wealth is the exception; poverty is the norm. Wealth is the best antidote to poverty.
Therefore poverty doesn’t need to be explained. Wealth does!
@Ryan Burdeaux Money created society and is now killing it because people lack love. Money is happiness, though, right?
@@secondlifeafterdeath money created society? No.
We need more love tho!
@Ryan Burdeaux I agree that love always wins. However, the fruit of good and evil is money and greed. The serpent of deception made sure we bit into it like snow white. We're all asleep to the truth.
@@secondlifeafterdeath I suppose we have a different understanding of money. Stay blessed 🙏
While it’s true that people differ in their skills and abilities, how do you think the opportunities available to develop and use those skills are influenced by the economic systems in place, like capitalism? Also, considering the ethical and moral perspectives, how should a society balance these individual differences with the need to provide equal opportunities for all its members?
Lots of women claim to struggle finding a boyfriend. When will you tell them to self improve in order to get a man?
I have never seen a women struggle to find a boyfriend, they struggle to find one that's worthy of their standars, because reproduction is the woman's prerogative. That said society does indeed push women to self improve to attract a partner, just the same as men, it's simply a matter of what is attractive to potential partners.
He does. Just listen more videos.
@@MTech07 Name one of them where he says it
It kind of is when you think about it,
jordan peterson has great takes on religion and philosophy, but his takes on global warming and capitalism have to be looked at critically and are often untrue.
mind you share on what's untrue so we can learn together my friend?
@@aldenhariyanto2568 JP is a capitalist and makes some comparisons and examples that are not fitting. For example he says: "we cant predict what happens anyway, so why even try." but we have so many scientific papers, we can predict global wwarming pretty accurate. Through his formulations and examples he is changing our opinion on the theme. you have to pay attention and u will realise or there are many debunking videos, where u can form a clearer opinion, i cant explain it that well
@@glemser3730 i see. well, maybe will dig more on the global warming subject next time. I have to understand it better if we want to discuss further.
Mmmmm
@@glemser3730 the world moves in cyclical weather patterns, of course the earth is warming up, as evident in its upward trajectory within the given cycle.
The real discussion should be man-made pollution, not “global warming.”
The world is now greener than it was 20 years ago, there are more polar bears than there were in 2000 (relevant to the ice caps melting), and there is the same amount of water on earth as there was since the beginning of the creation.
The world was supposed to end 10 years from now in 1981.
The people who work the hardest literally earn the least under capitalism
Power is the ability to manifest one's will, both inside and outside of oneself. Skills are therefore a source of power. Some people have a greater ability to manifest their will, ie they have more power. Having power is not inherently bad. It's all about how one uses it.
The 2nd part of the video is actual comedy
I love this
my Lack of Success? its pretty simple really i failed at everything for 30 years. But eventually i gotta succeed at something.
I believe people differ in their abilities to obtain power, which contributes to actually being able to use certain intellectual/cognitive capacities. Without some inner way of empowering yourself, you cannot function effectively and will always feel like certain people put you down
Jordan Peterson is a Godsend.
'People differ in skill, not power'. If this is true then it logically follows that because of this people DO differ in power.
His implication is that power is derived from competence. The competent receive more work and have more demands on their time. This, in turn gives them more influence, and therefore, power.
First rule of adult life: Learn what a narcissist is.
First rule of the work place: identify the narcissist(s)
First rule of competition: Learn the narcissist(s)
The Path To Victory: Appear to be in the narcissists corner whilst working out your allies
Victory: Expose the narcissist with your team of witnesses, victims and undeniable evidence.
First rule of success: Don’t fallen victim to the narcissist
First rule of life: Don’t be the narcissist!!!
First rule of happiness: Know your status, stature, intelligence, potential and/or wealth do not bring happiness, mindset does.
Be positive.
Compete honestly.
And if you’re nasty, be nasty to those who are nasty, it’s their game play it fast and fatal or don’t play it
"Capitalism Isn’t To Blame for Your Lack of Success"
Spends 10 minutes talking about his Plumber.
So you didn't understand ?
Inequality between humans is simple.
IQ
intellect is such a small indicator of material success lol
Yeah I'm sure Jake Paul and Zuckerberg are both rich for the same reasons lmao
@@hypno5690 Big, Big, Big difference in wealth between those two though. Your net worth is probably much closer to Jake Pauls then Jack Pauls is to Zucks
Unlikely
@@zaydabdulkadir what about Ed witten and Jake Paul
JP really just said "L + ratio, skill diff, git gud lmao"
This is Peterson at his best. This is the brilliant mind that peeps on the radical left never get to engage because they've blithely dismissed him as a racist sexist alt right leader. The people who say they hate Peterson, ignore 99% of his brilliant takes.
You must have Talent, skill, interest and will to do. The prestige are the prestigious because they had talent, and did nothing else but that thing. Success is focus and desire.
After all the advise and help you've given me Jordan, I’d like to offer you some!
Your skill set does not include organizing subcontractors on a building site (ie your house)
Rather, use the professionals who know how to make your life easier in this regard!
An architect/interior designer and a main contractor know how to coordinate a design and the work of subcontractors so that you, the client, get your project completed totally to your satisfaction, so please don't cut corners in the future and then complain about it on your show, although it was quite funny and served a point you wanted to make. I get it man!
Haha . . . I'm ready to use my skill set and help you next time you're doing home renovations . . . ok.
Love from South Africa.
I beg to differ - ppl of course are different in skills but also power - for example my influence is zero as I m not rich and dont have friends on high offices, my earnings are just enough to buy food and pay retirement savings but nothing to save for vacations or car or if need be doctors (more than general consultation) while Soros can pay 1 B a year for spreading his propaganda in BBC and other TVs. I dont think that there is no difference in power between poor and rich.
I love it, “an anti-plumber meets a plumber”…
In the US the rich get Richer the poor gets poorer they are a price for it.
The poor are not getting poorer. The percentage of people in the lower class is actually declining. She look at an economic charts over the past two thousand years it's basically flat until 1870. Pain is damn near a straight line upwards.
You just repeat things you hear huh? Lol
@@KaoticOrder It isn’t the 1800s and don’t claim we are better off than the 1950s lmao
@@hypno5690 every single metric of material success has dropped since deindustrialization. The American worker hast to compete with immigrants and southeast Asian workers. Halfway across the world there is no point or any of this equate to an increase of standard of living, except for the upper management in the upper echelon of society even they are being hurt by the housing crisis, but most of them were already entrenched due to generational structures.
This has a lot of good points but it doesn't adress the issue of certain professions being paid very poorly in relationship with their contributions to society. A good example is teachers and librarians. These wages are regulated by the government and despite the fact these jobs bring so much value to society, teachers can barely afford to live in the communities they serve. 😢
If we had private schools, they would compete to hire the best teachers and then teacher salaries would go up.
@@bbgun061 the issue is that children from families without money lose out in that structure, and those poorer children are still a net positive investment to educate in a civilized society. The system you suggest would definitely improve teacher compensation but poorer children would not be going to school.
@@lindsayhartman7135 I didn't say there wouldn't be school vouchers
Who determines the "contributions to society"? You? That's the issue with such an assertion it requires someone to unilaterally and arbitrarily determine what someone "should" get. In the private market the pay one receives for their contribution is a direct result of what the public collectively believes about the value of that contribution. Big demand for heart surgeons and engineers - not so much for gender studies majors.
@@codyvandal2860 thats a poor valuation. Escorts get paid top dollar, but they are not contributing to society per se, apart from the man in question.
"skill issue" thanks...
It’s interesting he’s pointing out a fundamental law in the Pareto distribution…but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do what we can to mitigate its effects. Just like government power has to be artificially limited through checks and balances, we also need economic ways to prevent Walmart and Amazon from taking over the world and turning their employees into wage slaves. Somehow we need to incentivize the broadest possible ownership of productive property, so that small businesses don’t disappear and we have true democracy like the American founders intended, but that can only be achieved when citizens aren’t coerced into activities they don’t want to do just to survive. A person that owns a home, land, or a business is much harder to control and freer than those who don’t, which sadly is more and more of us these days
Capitalism means you keep what you earn. Under communism you must share all your profits and earnings with everyone else, regardless if they earned it or not. That's why communism fails. People are selfish. Self gain is more important than universal humanity.
"Earn" is literally a subjective concept determined based on either your morals or the legal system. Under feudalism, "to earn wealth" meant something completely different- It meant to earn respect, fealty, land, and the labor of others.
Gang affiliated massage therapists is out of bloody pocket 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
who is Steven King and what did he write????
Distributism seeks to devolve or widely distribute that control to individuals (Families) within society, rejecting what it saw as the twin evils of plutocracy and bureaucracy.
Capitalism advocates 'corporate ownership' of property and the means of production.
Socialism advocates 'state ownership' of property and the means of production.
Distributism advocates 'family ownership' of property and the means of production.
Attaining and wielding power is a skill. Why would you pretend power simply doesnt exist?
This is why companies can fire the bottom 25 percent of performers and lose very little.
Carpenters advice: Its timber you cannot build with its two warped and twisted, it needs to be discarded, and useful only to be burned in a fire. Not to be a stud in the house of your life. -😤 Anonymous
10:30, drywallers , they get payed by the sheet,if they slow down you’ll want to talk to them, drywallers get payed by the sheet. Without a high school diploma, at $5 a sheet,, 1/2 inch or 5/8 of an inch, 2 guys can hang 60 sheets by 1:30 -2:00 and divide $300, that’s $150 apiece, they do earn their money,
Man I've learned more about plumbers than I ever wanted to know.
So any idiot who comes into wealth can squander, or get lucky, or cheat, or lie, or steal, or bribe, or create conflict, or change the rules, and it's not the money that's the problem. Brilliant!
Of course using money to make money isn't talked about when there is lack of services and products. They blame the worker who makes mistakes, not the freeloader.
Yet the skill to acquire of the workforce of people should definitely be excluded from a system in order to have a change for it to be sustainable. It's quite easy when a skilled worker built one house there is no man nor woman who can built 10 in the same time with the same criterias.