@Asim Malik funny how you left out the "one for all" half of the quote. All for one, and only all for one, is how systems collapse and millions die. I understand your argument, but you don't deserve to have as much as everyone else if you don't produce as much as everyone else. That's not to say you don't deserve to have a comfortable life, because you do. But the place you come from is gluttony, from envy
Presidential debate would never be like this. This is a conversation, not a debate. Rogan and Peterson aren't trying to "win" or prevail over one another. They're having a conversation, and that's why it's so chill.
@@Ndogg012 does he "deserve" to have a comfortable life if he doesn't intend to make it comfortable himself and expects us to communally make his life better for him?
@@Hugh_Jurrection Correct. They were agreeing with what the other had to say (most of the time) but then adding their own view/opinion onto the topic. Many ideas are the same for both parties. It’s just how or why is the difference
@@Hugh_Jurrection Correct. They were agreeing with what the other had to say (most of the time) but then adding their own view/opinion onto the topic. Many ideas are the same for both parties. It’s just how or why is the difference
I agree you should listen but I also believe you do learn by talking because it forces you to put your thoughts in a coherent streamline fashion. Just like writing. But I agree to much talking is sub optimal
@@oneeyeopen2094 no, as you try to form your thoughts into coherent verbal sentences, you often encounter places where you arguments fall apart and have to find the missing links... Hence you learn as you go.
Both guests have incredible command of the English language, especially Peterson. I am amazed at how he is able to select his words so carefully and so quickly, choosing just the right words so as not to mess up the meaning. .
@@brianagee2790 SO wholeheartedly agree. He never gets to the goddamn point! He just uses coagulative conjunctual vocabularization to communicate his cognitive disposition upon our auricular sensory reception to convey an intermediary disposition communaly acquiesced by society to dispositionally divide us into psycologically coalescent paradigms that we subliminally define ourselves to hope that we can, one day, excel and conquer our own divisive self definition to succumb to ourselves...Fuck I can't think of more useless words to use.
Watched Andrew Yang, then Ben Shapiro, now Jordan Peterson. If you put them 3 together with Joe Rogan hosting the conversation, that would be like the final episode of a TV series.
It would go somthing like this. Yang would just be repeating his talking points, Jordan would be giving us some logical ideas. Ben would be there talking over everone to try to "win" his argument. And Joe would be gettin high talkin about DMT. Lol
@@ESunshine24 I don't think anyone is on another level. They are both well mannered and intelligent people with original and interesting ideas worth listening to.
@@abrodking6584 idk. Someone like Thomas Sowell always has such solid arguments that it didn’t seem like they could be countered even when strong opposition spoke against. In fact opposition only seemed to strengthen his argument. Of course he only talked about thinks he studied strongly so they weren’t really opinions but closer to facts.
This is the real kind of conversation my brain craves. Whether I agree with them or not, it provokes thoughts, not some shitty catharsis I was taught to have when someone on my team wins an argument with better talking points.
I really just want to hear smart people talk on either side whether it’s Peterson or slavo zizek (the communist philosopher) Maybe because it’s just so rare to hear good discussions
IMANFBIAGENT That is one of the most honest self analysis I have ever read in the comments section. Our ego is so invested in the reward system of our side "winning" the argumwnt we forget why we had the argument and what needed to be solved in the first place.
Some issue's simple as "left" or "right" black and white mate! Some problems are all shades of grey and everything in between! The fact that everything has to be hard locked either to the left or right politically these days is the very reason why things are going of the rails lately; Populism both right and left is leading to a downfall in society because some issues are just to complex to simplify for people that don't and can't understand.................
@@TheSampleSlayer Populism gave me a door into politics while I was young and naive. It helped me to discover different perspectives in ways I had never seen before. Yes it's not where someone should stay but it's bloody good at getting people to talk.
@@TheSampleSlayer Left and right is in USA (and maybe UK). In other countries (at least I see it in EU) they have different voting system which creates more competition. It's not unusual to see 6 or more parties as the result of elections. To make a government they might need a coallition of 2-4 parties. Currently there are 4 parties in my country who is making the government. From those 1 is a new party, other is one election cycle old (so formed about 4-5 years ago), other 2 formed around year 2010. Only one of them was part of the government before. There are usually 20 parties which you can choose during the elections. Lot of former big parties which were in control of government they are now practically dead. One party which was in control in the past in 2000s (probably over 20% share) they received under 1% of votes in the next election (due to some stupid mistakes, corruption scandals and new competition). Few other parties ended up the same, they are history. This is the system which I really like. Not 2 parties which have monopoly last 40 years.
I do agree, universally basic income is not the answer. Im actually kinda scared it will cause unnatural inflation. Universal basic income HAS to be based on buying power, not on absolute numbers. F.e. it's has to be enough to have basic housing + food and water. (Or whatever criteria you want to add or remove). But it seems the most simple solution is just taxing rich people and companies more. And distributing that wealth back into the lower layer of the society. It seems unfair, but in my country it's quite normal and it's creates massive equallity of opportunity. But almost no equallity of outcome. I'm a prime example. My parents would not have been able to my healthcare, school etc if it wasn't heavily subsidized. Now I'm quite rich because of that, and I pay 56% taxes over my income. But I don't mind, because I have had: healthcare-, rent-, school subsidized when I wasn't rich and I payed only 26% taxes.
Dani Londen it doesn’t have to be if it’s not meant as full living wage. A constant dollar value would just incentivize poor people to move to cheap places to live.
@@danilonden3782 Maybe we can go for universal basic credit. The whole purpose of the idea is to give an offset (adjusted baseline) for people to start and to obtain a realistic chance to succeed for them or their children. I mean like a monthly credit that can only be used for education or innovation or startup.
@@ahmadchamseddine6891 I would say that's a better solution then a true universal basic income. But its very similar to the welfare system.in place in Holland right now.
Jake Andersson Yes! That’s what I’ve gathered. I’ve been following Jordan for the past year and a half and been on Andrew for several weeks only. Both of them makes sense! 😊
Jake Andersson Yup, apparently a lot of Canadians are wishing for Jordan to run against Trudeau. He can’t speak French which is apparently a requirement.
Peterson and Yang actually agree. Peterson sees economic utility of UBI, he just doesn't think it solves the bigger problem which has to do more with mental health & purpose. Peterson looks at things from more of a psychological point of view whereas Yang focuses more on economic well being. People often ask Yang, what are people going to do? Yang always says " who knows man that's the question of our era." Yang also doesn't think that UBI solves the entire problem, but he sees it as necessary to keep the economy functioning. That however does not mean that Yang doesn't see the potential psychological ramifications of mass automation, nor does it mean that he thinks throwing money at people will fix those mental health issues. He often points out that nearly half of the people who lost their manufacturing jobs are no longer in the workforce, and that suicide, drug abuse, and depression rates have skyrocketed in those communities.
UBI can be argued as just a band-aid to keep capitalism alive... it doesn't really solve a great deal - but is an interesting 'solution' that should be explored
In capitalism everyone gets what they deserve. And that's not an oversimplification. Leftist view is however. Right Jordan? So I guess low IQ people who don't earn enough should die, so that the new high IQ race will prevail. Yay!
The irony of arguments made by people like Peterson, that somehow aspiration or desperation breed innovation, that financial incentive is what advances society, is that this has LITERALLY never been the case. Sure money is important, but if you look through history at who accomplished greats leaps forward for civilization, or innovated technology, or created beauty in art, literature or architecture... you'll find a bunch of "idle rich people" Granting people the autonomy that they don't need to work to sustain themselves. Hell, look at modern success stories and you'll find plenty of "I ate ramen and lived with my parents" and think that means "sacrifice and hard work" but what it ACTUALLY meant is that they cut their costs to the point they could devote their time to something better. I wonder how many geniuses we've lost to poverty, lack of education or rigid class structure. Considering the progress we've made in a short few decades since universal education became common, I'm thinking a lot. (the very idea of universal literacy wasn't even considered before the industrial revolution required a more educated kind of worker. Before 200~ years ago education was mostly reserved for the prvileged few) "in capitalism everyone gets what they deserve" may be the most idiotic statement I've ever heard. What was never the purpose of the system nor is it something it ever addresses. Your argument here is essentially that poverty is a punishment for the sinful. You can argue that capitalism had increased social mobility & features in the fairest societies we've build, but even THAT is over simplifying.
"Men don't need *money,* they need *function."* That single sentence by Jordan Peterson is the single most powerful statement I've ever heard in the entire UBI conversation. The need for people to have meaningful work is as important as the need for food, or water, or any other basic human need. Here's the problem: The game is fixed, and it will stay that way. The only way that monarchies are overturned are through violent means. From the French Revolution to the Revolutionary War, it seems that the only way the ruling class deals with the peasants is through wealth, power, influence, and control, the only thing that all politicians truly understand.
That is not true. Peaceful protests against dictators/regimes are more often successful than violent ones. The game isn't fixed, it's quite likely partially fixed. Do you know what society/economy was fixed? India as a colony. What happened? Ghani. I'm not saying peaceful protests will magically fix everything, I'm just saying it's not as easy as you made it out to be. Also it's not as doom & gloom as you made it out to be.
@@hanspeterqwe6620 Don't get me wrong. Peaceful protests are ALWAYS the best option. But try telling that to the millions of violent looters and rioters tearing apart nearly every major city in America, as we speak. It appears that your positive comments aren't exactly having any positive effect on THEM, are they???
@@tiffsaver If they were actually planning to get rid of all the crooks and the corruption in America then yes, they would need to burn everything to the ground
@@tiffsaver You are distracting. Looters and rioters are not interested in the cause to begin with. They are just waiting for an opportunity to do what they do. The people we need to talk about are the people who actually want to change things to the better, not people who don't give a shit (like looters and rioters).
@@MyReligionIs2DoGood I am not "distracting." I am talking about supporting LEGITIMATE PROTESTORS, not the criminals and hooligans the government often PAYS to loot and burn cities down, then blames the entire thing on these same individuals. All of these staged events are planned by the members of the Democratic party.
Summary of JP's opinion: some inequality is needed for innovation and productivity, but too much incites a revolution that helps no one. People at the bottom of the hierarchy will remain content with the hope of future success so long as the system doesn't feel rigged. Therefore rich people rigging the system are destroying the stability of society, so this behaviour must be stamped out at all costs. Some people on the left unfortunately believe that all people in power are rigging the system so need to be removed, which is incorrect and dangerous.
The left's vision is dangerous in my opinion. They want to get rid of rich people and create equality. That sounds great on paper for a perfect utopia, but in practice they will disincentive anyone doing anything productive since there is no point if you cannot advance and improve yourself financially. Economy sputters, the only people rich are the politicians in charge and the people are equally suffering.
@@itsatrap7215 Human behaviour and its decision making ability cannot be predicted in any terms. You can't say that in reality socialism or any other form of political or economic system can't work because of "human nature". We can use it in regards to anything. Hume's law literally constitutes inability of moral or ethical relations between human being to be calculated and predicted because of their subjectivity.
Bret Weinstein adds that modern technology (like social media) makes us all less content with our rung in society by nurturing jealousy. He seems to imply that this has led to increased left wing popularity. He adds that no one has studied the extent of 'rule-breaking' in the economy, but he suspects it is sadly very high, and therefore can sympathize people's cries for change.
@@aykhansalmanov5993 Yes we can say exactly that, because we can look at history to prove it. They tried socialism in over 50 countries last century. None of them worked well. All of them ended up as totalitarian regimes. 100 million people died. Humans are not ants.
@@EaglePicking As I said earlier humans are living creatures with minds and decision making ability which can't be predicted. The fact that socialism failed in 20th century doesn't make it any worse than capitalism. When we talk about capitalism for some reason we look at only successful and prosperous nations of Western Europe and North America but we don't look at tens of other unsuccessful capitalist countries which live in poverty. The reason for that is global imperial domination of big European countries over the course of history which in the end resulted in their prosperity.
WTF- 3 people had a conversation and let each other speak without talking over each other incessantly?? Joe- you're slipping pal- Lol. Was actually a good podcast. Well done.
My takeouts: - Inequality has a linear relationship with crime - The universal basic income may not be the solution - Men need to feel a sense of social responsibility, ie. Give them work and not just money - Technology & innovation kills jobs - People don't mind inequality if there is equal opportunity and the game isn't rigged - Rich people caused the 2008 recession but then benefitted from the restabilization of the economy after
They didn't say that "rich people" caused the crisis, they said the rich benefited the most from the recovery. Markets are too big and too complex to be impacted by "the rich" or any other group alone.
@@whitestork3896 The recession was pretty clearly caused by subprime mortgage credits given out by big banks. There were decisions made by a handful of rich people that severely impacted markets.
@@jacksonkoppe7297 Rich people were a contributing factor. But honestly, you don't get a crisis of the magnitude of 2008 without multiple factors. You had banks giving out subprime loans. But you also had a government that was pushing the banks to loan to risky borrowers. That was part of Bush's 'ownership society'. That created a scenario whereby you had a large number of loans being graded A+ by rating agencies who were clueless as to how risky they were. But if one really takes a step back, the ultimate culprit was Alan Greenspan and the Fed. Their monetary policy created not one, but two massive asset bubbles. The first was the dot com boom and bust and then that was followed by the housing boom and bust. Both were fueled by interest rate policy that fueled more risk since stable asset vehicles like bonds and CDs weren't yielding enough.
@@Diomedes01 This is a great summation of the variety of factors that were at play in 2008, thank you. Underlying all of it is of course greed, to some extent and by some parties. But that is a problem much older than us. In theory, a society that fully embraced, articulated, and operated out of love and charity (not UBI) instead of greed and pride would be the only long-term solution, but that is a utopia we can currently only dream about.
I agree with that 120% I just really hope that if UBI ever becomes a thing, I really don't want the majority of people to rely on it as "solving the problem." The problem is... How much faith do you have in the common people?
I much prefer a negative income tax. It is better than both welfare and ubi in every way possible. Its only fault is that it still gives people free money. But I think the two most crucial differences between welfare and ubi and nit are dependence and cost: 1) DEPENDENCE: Welfare actively creates dependence and disincentivizes work by effectively taxing the earned income of welfare recipients at a rate of 100% or more. Ubi doesn't create dependence and disincentive like welfare does (as your stipend doesn't stand to go away), but it doesn't incentivize earning income either. Nit, however, effectively taxes your early income at 50%, but as your income increases past a certain threshold, your tax rate drops to 20%, thus incentivizing earning more... without ever ending up with less total income like with welfare. 2) COST: Welfare currently costs a little over $1 trillion every year. A ubi of $1000/mo would just about triple that, and even Yang's best speculations (including taxing big corps) don't come close to paying for it; _furthermore_ his program wouldn't even replace welfare, as welfare recipients who get more welfare than the ubi offers can opt out, so this would actually cost _more_ than the initial 3 trillion. But nit _from the beginning_ would cost only half to a third of what we already spend on welfare, and that's assuming that all 30 million people currently in poverty simply stop trying to work... If we don't assume the worst and rather estimate that the average income of all those people equals the exemption threshold, then the entire program will pay for itself at no cost to current taxpayers. An added bonus to nit compared to ubi is that the money only goes to people who need it. Either Yang doesn't understand what MLK, Nixon, and Friedman were getting at by their minimum guaranteed income proposals, or he's just pretending for his uneducated base that these conservatives agree with his atrocious and potentially disastrous ubi idea. Either way, he's either a fool or a fraud. TL;DR: ubi is dangerously stupid, costing easily thrice what we already spend, but nit would immediately halve our spending and even stands to pay for itself within a generation. And Yang is an idiot... Not Yang Xiao Long... She's cool.
@@Clancey65 The game Monopoly was created in part to educate the masses about capitalism. BTW, I'd love to hear a conversation between Rutger Bregman and Jordan Peterson.
Yes he did, it involves a theoretical "value added" tax that corporations pay. Even if he defined it, it's a stupid idea.. For as smart of a businessman as he claims to be, he forgets how businesses function. This does one of two things (if not both): If the tax is centralized to the corporation's localities (highly unlikely, since he wants a national program), they're just going to leave. If the tax is pushed on purchases, like he implies, the cost gets passed to the consumer. So welcome to inflation. This isn't even a bandaid, and Friedman is rolling in his grave when Yang tries to pass this as something he would have advocated for.
This is one of the best clips from the entire JRE catalog. Really thought provoking stuff. I watch entire 3 hour episodes in the hopes of getting a little nugget of wisdom like these two shared here.
There is sooo much past knowledge out there and needs to be shared. But there is so much more bullshit out there that would need to be eliminated. This problem can never be resolved.
MeatSword oh perhaps everyone dont just implode in anxiety from having to actually deal with being present, or disappear into dopamine flux -netflix, you give hope to the world
And why are these two people, and Mr. Yang, and several others not sitting in a debate on national television to decide which philosophy might better the nation as a whole....ie running for President as opposed to the dreadful hand full of clowns that actually are? The people of this country need to back people like this.....give them support, give them money....I somehow feel we would all be much, much better off regardless of which side of the isle you occupy. Could we all perhaps agree on this one single point as a starting place...We have to demand it first or it won't happen.
Well then you might like very calm, rational and intelligent critique Peter Joseph did on a Peterson debate on Capitalism vs Socialism, posted on TZMOfficialChannel. Very thought-provoking. Hard to argue with since each point is so logically stated.
Brian Bagent meh, not entirely true but your point is well-made. We haven’t had a healthy middle class since the end of WWII and through into the 1950’s. The 1960’s was where things began to change. And then from the 1980’s onwards we had a steep decline in the middle class with 2008 being the final straw that destroyed it.
@@Xpistos510 - "we the people" didn't have access to honest money after 1933. the federal government still traded in gold with other nation states, per the Bretton Woods agreement, but Nixon ended that. From my reading, the real decline began in 1973 when Bretton Woods ended and the "petro dollar" was born. Any way you slice it, currency harms most those who works for a wage (salaried or hourly, doesn't matter). And the lower the wage, the more harmful currency is to the wage earner. The fact that many (most, maybe) households had 2 income earners (starting in the 60s or 70s) masked what was happening, but at some point, even 2 income earners won't mask the debauching of the currency. If you stop and think about it, a kid in 1960 making minimum wage of $1 or maybe $1.25, who was getting paid in silver coin, had more in purchasing power than those making minimum wage today. Trade value for circulated junk silver is about $14 for $1 face value of the junk silver. It is only going to get worse until the dollar ultimately and inevitably is debauched all the way to zero, as all currencies have always done, sooner or later.
@@smokedbrisket3033 but without debasing the currency or taking it off the gold standard, how is a Government supposed keep enough money in circulation for an ever growing population?
@@EvilSapphireR - it is a Keynesian myth that the supply of currency needs to keep up with population/GDP/whatever. It isn't about how much currency is in circulation (which increases indefinitely until it is worthless), it is about what you can buy with what you have. My suspicion is that you are assigning purchase parity to, for example, a $10 gold eagle and a $10 federal reserve note. There are 247 1/2 grains of pure (or 270 gr of standard) gold in a $10 gold eagle. It would take 78 $10 FRNs to equal the value of a single $10 gold eagle right now. Distilled down to essential elements, monetarists hold that we must debauch our currency in order to keep the economy running strong. That's a logical absurdity. The fact is that never in the history of the world have there been a group of people who are trustworthy enough to control those reins. Just like socialism's advocates, "it would work if we only had the right people in charge." We're $23 trillion in debt because of monetarists. If that debt were paid off, it would in reality be a deflation which would destroy the USD. We have 2 courses of action possible to us: suffer some pain and switch back to gold (and silver), or suffer severe pain when the dollar is inflated to the point of worthlessness, which it inevitably will be, as all currencies in the history of the world have inevitably done.
Jordan Peterson: "Don't let the inequality in your neighborhood get out of hand, because the crime rate will skyrocket." Me: * Thinks about Mexico's crazy powerful drug cartels, super corrupt police forces and politicians and it's extremely poor citizens * Also Me : Yup, that sound about right.
The Cartel gets its money from the black market created by the war on drugs. Let's say I am a poor villager living in Mexico, what can I realistically do?
@@MrMetalhorse rhetorical questions are meant to make you think, not to be answered. You offered two callous answers that I have a hard time believing were made in good faith. Do you care about seriously considering the situation of someone born in Mexico? I have worked with and become close to people from Mexico, who made the most sensible decision available to them, and fled to America. I asked this question because I wanted the author of this comment to consider the life of someone born there and whether theyre able to do anything at all about the inequality in their neighborhood. Dr. Peterson says we should be precise in our speech, and I think he's right.
@@kevinbeck8836 nothing the cartel supports its people so the people can get support from a corrupt backbone. Practically corrupting everything around them. Once the economy and people get education the cartels will fall.
I managed stores in Michigan, my employees were college kids, young adults going to college and single mothers. Many, many times these employees showed up to work sick because they couldn't afford to take time off from work. The mothers reluctantly sent sick kids to school because they needed the paycheck and couldn't take the time off of work to care for the sick child.
@Twiddly Stosh yeah definitely but people make it seem like a racial issue, its not, its an economic and legislative issue. In the US in the 60s when it was still under the Gold standard you could buy a house with like 3 years worth of salary, and can buy a brand new car with like 4 months worth of salary. But that changed because the whole world left the gold standard and paper currency is losing value yet prices going up.
That’s what a Keynesian left winger (like me) would want, something akin to a new Breton woods model that would redress the balance between wages and growth. Maybe use crypto instead of gold?
@@christianround2774 i don't see what is fundamentally wrong with gold. My issue with crypto is that hypothetically a cyber attack or a super duper virus could take out the entire internet and then all the crypto would be gone. Gold on the other hand doesn't fear anything, including fire, water, cyber attacks etc. Gold will probably outlast nuclear Armageddon whereas crypto is wholely dependant on our infrastructure remaining at peak operation. Hell a pretty bad solar flare that temporarily halts internet traffic for a few days could potentially disrupt the block chain so bad that it either breaks or a few people acting quickly enough could steal all the worlds crypto or some shit. Why reinvent the wheel? We should stay on the gold standard.
@@ivan_says_hi crypto is stored locally, so it wouldn’t just disappear. The actual scientific likelyhood of an event like you are describing is pretty much 0. Modern infrastructure would never fail to that extent except for under cataclysmic world ending events, which at that point- goods matter more than any form of currency, even gold.
Yeah, the clear solution for all of our troubles is to go back to a fuedal system where us regular serfs are beholden to the government to survive. Basic income for all, woo!!
Funny. It isn't the concept though. I think the idea behind the basic income is you're suppose todo whatever you want. Work, not work. I'm deeply against btw
The idea is that UBI gives each person the opportunity to decide what the best way to spend their time is. What they're good at and what is worth doing. There is no freedom without this.
Please setup a show with Peterson and Andrew Yang. A psychologist and an economist that agree on UBI as a strong improvement of wellbeing, come together to discuss how to approach what UBI doesn't solve
@@koenigsforst_ That's something that I think Jordan Peterson is missing. A UBI would allow people to take on greater roles (and greater responsibilities) in their communities. Right now adults generally trade at least 1/4 of their time for money. If you had a guaranteed source of income that would allow to potentially free up more time to find a different, and perhaps greater, purpose in life. There are hardly any men on earth who have time for a purpose beyond being a provider for their family and it's certainly detrimental to society.
@@whenthedustfallsaway I think humans are motivated by what they place value on, and what they place value on is determined by both themselves as individuals and by the society they are a part of. That's why I think Yang is certainly on the right track with his UBI proposal, because he wants to accompany it with a completely new approach to measuring our success as a country. We rely solely on unemployment numbers, GDP, and stock market prices to measure success instead of life expectancy, mental health, personal happiness, education, financial security, and any number of measurements that more accurately depict the qualify of life for an average American.
I would go to sleep with a light heart and happy soul if/when that happens. Two of my favorite influential figures. Come on, Joe, make it happen. Peterson and Yang episode.
Culturally, we need to do away with this notion that money is an objective measure of man's utility. There are many a man and woman who work much harder than I do, doing things with much more utility to society, and who get paid a fraction. We've taken the concept of a market economy, monetized that, and then monetized the monetization. And we get upset when the government can't guarantee us more jobs in the massive ponzi scheme we find ourselves in.
It's because without money you don't get a roof, food, respect, healthcare, transportation, and you can't buy anything (which people think equates to liberty in a Capitalist nation). I wish it was as easy as getting everyone to stop being a dick, but it's legislation that drives sociological norms whether we like it or not.
@@jeffthebracketman Both genders can be equally judgemental when someone (usually a man) isn't independent and has some sort of wealth. It's an insult to live at your parents, it's an insult if you don't work a 9-5, it's an insult if you don't have responsibility.
@@idontfeellikeit That's implying that your profession has anything to do with who you are as a person. How many people do what they love? Your job, more often than not, is just a means to money (not to mention all the ways to earn money now that is in no way related to "working"). The government should be creating way more jobs than it does now, there's no argument against that, sorry. It should be paying teachers more and not paying cops time and a half to direct traffic. Whether you like it or not the government is responsible for the lives of millions of people and they're not doing a good job of providing a good life for enough of them.
@@idontfeellikeit Lmao, get off of MY high horse. That's mighty hypocritical considering you're ranting about a subjective opinions, but I digress... You're taking everything I am saying to an extreme an using it against me, as if I said that the government should be handing out everything for people so we can all just sit on our ass and be fat. It works in childish arguments, but not in what i hoped would maybe be an intelligent discussion. Trying to make my point to you is moot because the only relevant opinion to you is your own. I suggest going to a country where people all agree with you and you are never challenged. Might have to go back 100 years to get what you want though.
Social Media makes up 1% of the accessible 1% of the internet most people have access to. It's a powerful tool people still don't utilize adequately to harness its potential
Pretty sure he's dropped the f-bomb quite often. Just usually in context to something. It doesn't seem like it is his manner of speech, but I truly do believe that he does feels that way from time to time. He's just very, very careful with how he expresses himself.
Quantitative easing is the result of Big Brother getting involved in the money supply. If we had a free market gold standard like we're supposed to we wouldn't have the crazy man made inflation that we do now. However just because one big government scheme is bad, quantitative easing, doesn't mean that another big government scheme is good, Universal basic income. We need to ditch that horrible idea as well as get rid of the Federal Reserve and return to a gold standard.
You don't understanding QE. What you mean to say is Corporatists/Capitalists have deficit spending and institutional access to tax schemes that cheat the American society while racking up trillions in National Debt all in the name of corporate profits for the shareholder class. Give the money back to the People!
Interestingly, the route to this more calibrated world they speak of would likely be very mundane, somewhat gradual, and would provide news companies very few headlines.
@@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler He has mentioned other potential solutions before. EG there is a huge shortfall of carers of various types in most western countries. You do not need to be Einstein to help physically disabled people with cooking and cleaning etc. One estimate I saw was that there was a shortfall of in excess of 6 million hours in just the UK. If UBI was set at £100 but you had to earn it through being a carer and minimum wage was £10 then that would mean 600,000 unemployed people at least partly employed. The real issue is that mechanisation has taken far more jobs than immigration ever has. EG the car industry in the UK produces about the same number of cars as it did in the 70's.. There were in excess of 40,000 sprayers alone. Now the number of sprayers working for Toyota is 5. The total number of people working in the car industry is less than 20,000. Checkout staff are another classic example. These days in my local small supermarket there are usually no more than 2 checkouts open and the rest go through self scan. News stands dont exist anymore. What is also needed is a huge injection of cash into general STEM research. Keeping someone on state benefits for unemployment costs the taxpayer around £1000 per week (I can provide figures for this). That's significantly more than a post doctoral researcher in the first few years of research. The whole situation is nuts.
its amazing to watch this 3 years down the line and to hear what Jordan Peterson has to say. His take on the situation is exactly what is taking place in South Africa today. Its like he is talking about RSA but without mentioning its name.
I thought Bret Weinstein was more insightful and eloquent than Peterson, but it was not a competition. It is certainly refreshing and intellectually titillating to see thoughtful people discussing issues in a rational way in an attempt to get to the fundamental truth and relevance therein. Rogan in his role acts as the catalyst for the discussion by guiding the thrust of topics and encouraging and dissuading certain lines of inquiry. Nice job all. It is quite a scary time we live in knowing how far from the norm this type of rationality is, the monumental and multifaceted nature of the dangers we face, and the fragmenting of social norms giving rise to group-think and mob mentality. It is hard to see a safe way through and out to the other side without first suffering some major calamity such as ecological collapse or nuclear war. I keep hearing from progressives that there is some great awakening of consciousness taking place but I don't see it. We have been hearing that since the sixties anyway. What I do see is a great and growing understanding of just how manipulated and screwed the masses of humanity have been, continue to be, and through technology will ever more so be. Unfortunately, this understanding takes myriad forms depending on how it is perceived and from what ideological social viewpoint it is received. The response, therefore, will commiserate with the perception and so lead to growing conflict.
Pablo Ucan I wonder if you can get this same sense of mental awakening and expanding, coupled with substantial intellectual stimulation for enhancement...in a Jake Paul video?.......... I'll show myself out now...
Pablo Ucan all intellectual Jews make convoluted arguments that simply act as a goalie blocking your view of the real problem: Jews. Don't fall for their bullshit.
Pablo Ucan I have to disagree about Bret his last argument he even said wasn’t based on evidence but just a feeling that a large fraction of the market is running a Con, I’m paraphrasing. I don’t think that it is appropriate for a scholar to make an argument they can’t support with facts especially if they are in the position to spread those argument to students. Now it is fine to hypothesize but before making statements on that hypothesis you need evidence. Sorry I know that wasn’t really your point and I got carried away a little.
Funny, I thought the opposite. Peterson always comes across so clear, even when he is just spit-balling an argument that he hasn't fully developed yet. Weinstein seemed so unclear and obfuscated and didn't seem to be bringing facts to the table. I know Weinstein just settled for a big pile of money from Evergreen and has the resources to do the media circuit for a while, but I predict he will fade away due to his lack of clarity while Peterson continues to grow in popularity.
Research on UBI shows that very few people who stay on it do not take actions to advance themselves on the job market. People work harder and become more entrepreneurial when they are not stuck in a cycle of poverty.
Constantine Kramarenko Yeah, you’re right. The issue is that those same studies admit the following: - UBI would increase prices thus reducing the purchasing power of money. - UBI depends on a massive almost total reduction of welfare, something that’s deeply improbable, and unpopular. - UBI would probably trigger deficits that would neutralize or destroy the supposed benefit.
Tom Hewitt go watch a tv show called the trailer park boys or go to a hockey game trust me that whole polite no cussing atitude is only pushed by mainstream media
THE most competent discussion I have ever heard on this subject that didn't follow extreme ideologies and politicize it. I wish the news media knew how to foster this kind of discussion. The world would be a better place.
What Peterson was saying is why I find the idea of Star Trek's Federation so interesting. Money has become obsolete in that fictional world, the vast majority of humans don't want or care about money because basic needs are catered for, you have replicators to feed and clothe yourself, you have Holodeck's for entertainment, the ability to travel and, most importantly, a career that makes you feel useful and gives your life meaning. Money not required.
The "Star Trek" argument again? You do realize it is science fiction? Actually, if you really want to geek out on it and delve deeper into Star Trek lets: The replicators were used on spaceships where they don't have farmland. Therefore can't raise crops or cattle. Prior to replicators you have sophisticted food storage methods like we do in the army with MRE's --however you do wind up with an issue of limited storage space for both food and waste on a space ship. Also, replicators were powered by energy in the form of mythological dilithium crystals. Often episodes of Star Trek and other sci-fi shows were written with "insert techno-babble here" in the scrips. And I am not kidding. Thus techno-babble is no way to build a sustainable economy. So the massive energy it takes to "replicate" food and other stuff was not something that people on Earth would do...that would be enormously wasteful. And being good stewards of the environment, Star Trek people would not waste energy. Lastly, the everybody gets the job they feel would be useful is also a Utopian fantasy. Have you ever worked a job? I wonder. Consider Fry from Futurama. He was a pizza delivery boy before he got frozen and woke up in the future...to be a delivery boy, the job he was most suited to. What if you don't WANT to be a delivery boy? What if you would prefer to be the captain of the Starship Enterprise? Well, not everybody will be chosen to do that, so some level of resentment is going to be built in to the human experience. The concept of communism will never work because even with a society with no money, there will still be a concept of things that people value. Without a motivation, people don't reach for their full potential. That is why communism always fails.
James Keyes Communism, as originally defined, has never even been tried anywhere. People tend to forget how vague and reactionary the Communist Manifesto was. All the details are pretty sketchy, and defined more by their effects than by their methods. Marxist communism was a materialistic criticism of 19th century industrial working conditions, but it wasn't a coherent set of proposals for an alternative, as people tend to think of it. Communism, at that time, didn't need a plan, as communism was never envisioned as a planned movement, never intended to be a choice, never meant to be the result of any sort of centralized decision making process. Marx deliberately contrasted his critical, reactionary, specific, materialistic analysis he used with command economies, which he called "utopian socialism." Marx predicted that communism would be an outgrowth of capitalism, the apotheosis of progress, and result in the withering away of the state and the abandonment of class distinctions. He believed that communism would grow naturally and inevitably out of the free market, without any sort of planning or coordination, not that it would co-exist with and act as a competitor to the free market. The most capitalistic countries of the day, namely the United States, because they were farthest along in the dialectical process, would, he thought, become the most communistic of tomorrow, spearheading the movement. He cheered on the American Civil War, as he saw the emanicipation of slavery as part of that dialectical process and as a sign of the US's transition to communism. If you believe in the historical dialectic, and define "communism" as whatever the 19th century capitalistic countries (as typified by Robber Baron-era America) have since evolved into, then the most successful communist country in the world right now would be, ironically enough, the United States... There actually was a worldwide series of civil rights protests and revolts around 1848 that culminated in the Japan's meiji restoration, the women's rights movement, and the simultaneous end of slavery in those few remained countries that still had it (Brazil, Thailand, the US). The revolution wasn't televised, so not many people know about it, but Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm wrote a good book about it, The Age of Revolution. As it happened, contrary to what Marx predicted, openly "communist" parties haven't actually come to power in any really industrially-advanced countries. They mostly win out in feudalistic dictatorships (like Czarist Russia and Qing China) or former colonies (like Cuba and Moldova). What they with these countries would probably be unrecognizable to the original 19th century communist sympathizers. If communism in the original sense exists anywhere in the world, it's not going by the name "communism." What's calling itself "communism" these days is closer to the "utopian socialism" that Marx so disdained. However, there are a few states that call themselves communist that had or have relatively enlightened policies. As best I can tell, those states are Vietnam, Nicaragua, and China post-Mao. Now, keep in mind, I'm saying "relatively." Each of these are pretty dysfunctional in their own way, but they're still doing better than the average "communist" country
The "Communism has never been tried correctly argument" is invalid. Making such supportive statements is truly immoral. As if to encourage it to be tried again and again. Communism has been tried and failed. Many times. All we get to show for it is 100 million murders. Anyone who doesn't roundly condemn communism for the pure evil that it is, but instead equivocates is an enabler. Not only do you dishonor the over 100 million people murdered by communism and a billion more enslaved by it, but to add insult to injury you allow for it to be tried again, because the rest of us dummies couldn't get it right, so we need to just try to do it your way.
@@myview9923 actually it's not necessary to figure out, you can perceive game is fixed and that's enough to feed the resentment, there's plenty of Social Justice Warriors feeding resentment and using it in theyr own benefit
Pretty much everyone I know admires wealthy people who got there by producing something of value. The kind of wealthy people that people don't like are the ones that either got there or remain wealthy by pushing down on working people. Most people do not like CEOs that did not start the company, don't produce anything of value, slash everyone's benefits and pay, try to outsource everything, exercise their stock options,, and then leave with a golden parachute worth millions after they get fired. Most people do not like the wealthy people that ran the big banks that were living like kings when the economy was booming and then ended up getting bailed out when the economy crashed by the only people that we hate more than them, politicians. Working people do not want to be lectured on how lazy and worthless they are by a bunch of parasites that are not treated as such only because they are getting paid to be parasites.
Problem is, the "American Dream" doesnt differentiate. In the US, just being succesful is all that matters - everything else is second. Thats the problem.
@@PLF... success is a pipe dream and completely subjective. Success to me would be to not have to worry all the time if I'll have a place to live next month or not. One crap job after another and the only ones that is me well pay me as a contractor. I give 30% of that to the government every year for my troubles. So yeah, Ubi will work for me, personally. Let bezos worry about bounced checks for a few months
@@MrZatyro suddenly rents get 1000 bunks more expensive and everything else gets even more expensive as everyobe is literally given. 1k Wow no worries dude wow it is okay let just increase UBI until all the problems of the first world goes away
Yeah, it's the same argument. There's a percentage of corrupted police(the rich) so we will take away the whole police system(the rich). Like what you going to replace that? Kindless? If kindness work in the first place, police won't even exist.
Best line from Peterson I ever heard "Men who are men don't need money, they need function". The only problem is men who are men want women who are women and they do need money.
If you want to know the answers to the economy, ask Dr Thomas Sowell. He's done extensive studies on that subject. He addresses this issue better than these two do. Dr Peterson is on the right path, but Dr Sowell has fine tuned it.
@Vlad Xavier Why do you assume that bureaucrats obeying capital interests isn't itself a part of capitalism? Why is it good for capitalists to pursue their rational self-interests at all costs, but when a politician pursues _their_ self-interest by selling out, it's a bad thing? "The executive of the modern state is nothing but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie." -- Karl Marx The state and private interests are two sides of the same capitalist mode of production. You need central authority to enforce private property, and you need capital to make authority effective in the first place. The power of one depends on the power of the other. The government isn't "strangling" the economy, it has always been doing what the economy needs it to do. It was corrupt from the moment it began to exist. Governmental power isn't useful at all unless you can use it to cash out.
I'll never understand why its considered greedy for me to keep what I have worked for but it's not considered greedy for someone else to take it from me.
because sadly you dont live alone in the woods which means you a part of a bigger society and if you dont want the poor running over your country you better start thinking differently but on the other side you also got the back from the society you live in if your time (or your loved ones) get bad so you dont get an existential crisis after 1 bad event in your live and history shows clearly what happens with wealth inequality
@@em3sis so its not theft if the rich are fuckibg the poor and paying them shit? you live in a human society shithead if you only take people are gonna steal open history books shithead french revolution
@@yoruichixx6951 your language is a clear indicator of where you are in life. What entry level position are you working in? People think they can work at a gas station their whole life and make a career out of it. Get some people skills. Exactly how are the rich "fucking" the poor? Have you seen the work ethic of the average employee? It's dog shit. Idiot kids would rather play fortnite than take an economics class. Fathers and mothers are neglecting their children. Schools are prioritizing dogma over useful curriculum. And your solution is what exactly? UBI? That won't solve anything. You'll just be artificially raising the floor for entitlement.
@@em3sis " And your solution is what exactly? " doesnt matter the last resort solution will be some rich people will get headless thats what history says it doesnt matter what your values are it doesnt mater how you feel ethics also dont matter at the moment people are desperate and hungry people gonna steal shit to be a human aint it, caring and stuff thats so gay wealth inequality will get people outside and kill people who have money thats the reality, and i dont care what the solution is im just telling you how that will play out if noone presents any solution but your conservative ass doesnt understand that concept its to difficult to understand for the average american because even understanding the reasoning behind universal healthcare is so god damn socialistic that you rather pay way more in privat insurance then paying less in taxes its funny because thats exactly how an insurance works exactly the same
@@unluckycloverfield4316 oh and the quote is intended when this was the method. i.etsystatic.com/14435134/r/il/18960b/1554153907/il_570xN.1554153907_7zg7.jpg
I have watched this podcast and have considered it. This problem is very simple. There's two classes of people in our economy today. There's those who live on commission, and there's those who live on fixed income paid by those who live on commission. For me, either everyone lives on commission of some kind, or this problem continues.
UBI will eliminate large part of the pressure of merely survival and support the need for creative expression and personality/mental care, I personally think an universal basic income will be the next big evolution in economy. And rightfully so. People who are not struggling to survive are happier, and happier people are better and more productive members of society. Just my 2 cents.
Merely surviving is not fun, progressing and thriving is fun. UBI that covers just the simplest levels of wealth does not curb ambition and wants, but it gives a safety net for taking risks and going after opportunity, given opportunity is present. UBI is not inherently bad, but like Peterson said, opportunity is what's neccesary to actually solve the problem completely. Therefore UBI in conjunction with increased opportunity is a viable solution.
Finland tested that and the results were not good. People with ubi were happy, but less willing to seek jobs. Being productive was never a matter of happiness, but necessity or at least social pressure.
Noone that advocates for UBI ever solved the issue of inevitable inflation and till that one is solved I ain't even listening to the "hypothetical happyness of its recipients".
@@bakpfeife2224 The last decade in the west was spend trying to fight deflation. I think that was the right time to try any of this policies that are getting rejected based on inflation issues. Higher minimum wage, UBI, etc.
@@ivofena83 I mean the EU has basically almost no Inflation and they are doing pretty decent so we are talking about different wests. And trying out those policies never helped to reach the goals even in the Finnland tests....but ya still didn't even really adress a potential solution to the inflation problem so ima stop here.
Add Andrew Yang to this conversation and I can't help but feel we might get to a workable solution. Love that they are talking about real problems that we are STILL experiencing.
@@JesusFriedChrist man I wish I was Canadian! ❤️ I’ve never seen a Canadian that didn’t seem to have a high IQ ❤️ They all seem so much wiser and calmer than so many of us down here 😂.
The thing about UBI that I found enlightening is that it's leveraging on basic human instinct that is inherently capitalistic: most people won't get enough with basic income. If someone fell down to poverty level, they would lose hope and become a burden to society. But if they're given enough money to stand on their own feet, to be able to afford basic stuffs, they surely wouldn't stay that way. They would want to achieve and earn more. That would motivate them to be more capitalistic, to learn more skills and earn more money. UBI is just a stepping stone for people to achieve and earn more in life, and ultimately, to make them contribute more to the society. It's not enough to just give them freedom of opportunity to make more innovators, you'll also need to give them a little bit of taste of money, so that they're more motivated to innovate and learn skills and get down to work.
right and one of the more practical, realistic ways of widening that area of opportunity is giving people that "money cushion" in which they can stand on. Basically, in our society some are born with longer ladders to get the apples while others have ladders that a tiny fraction of that size too short to even bother reaching for the apples.
They surely wouldn’t stay that way is a big hopeful guess. I’m not saying UBI wouldn’t work I just don’t think surely they wouldn’t stay that way is a reason for it to work.
Peterson and Yang don’t actually disagree on anything. They both identify that run away inequality will upend the system. They both understand that UBI is a bandaid.
I'm wondering what you think Peterson would consider the root cause then? Because to me the end goal is socialism/communism, and ubi is just a band-aid/first step towards that. Based on how Yang has talked, I don't think he necessarily views UBI as a band-aid, he's made many comments kinda disavowing socialism.
not really. I dont know how you got that out of this interview, other than you have a cognitive bias. He simply said that run-away inequality will destroy that society, but he NEVER said we have that in the present. Then he goes on a intellectual rant on IQ. I agree with him. That rant leads towards welfare, not UBI. UBI helps everyone, while welfare helps those, most of which have a low IQ, who have slipped through the cracks. Huge Difference but whatever. You, dumb fuckers, get so married to ideas its not worth discussing. By the way, I think UBI is a good system, however interrupting, or misrepresenting, someones words is not what any system should be built on.
The argument for universal basic income, at the end of the day, is really about artificial intelligence. It's going to replace most jobs in the next 100 years. What does that do to society when the bottom 80% aren't needed?
Jonathan Greete you don’t know what AI is then. Yes it will takes ages until it’s here, distant future, but as said a question of time. AI can literally replace every single job in existence. Every product would exist without the need of a human. So only consumers are left. Work no longer will be a necessity but rather something that will help fulfill our desires. Like some sort of Hobby. People for sure will still like contact with real people, maybe they don’t want to be served by a robot in a restaurant for example. So yes, there will he work, but it will serve a different purpose than today. It’s a complicated topic and difficult to foresee how this will go, but it’s certain a lot will have to change. That’s only the end result, a lot will happen gradually. Ubi seems to be an obvious thing along the way in this context.
@@jgreete You're grossly underestimating the difference between AI and things like steam power or animal husbandry. It doesn't need to be a general artificial intelligence to replace most jobs. Truly dynamic problem solving will be secure for a while longer, but how many jobs actually require that?
@@jgreete Technology advances almost exponentially. In the past, if your job became obsolete, you could retrain yourself and do another job for 20 to 30 years and further your qualifications at a pace that is humanly possible. Now, as the pace of advancements increase, this might mean that your expensive degree or qualification might be obsolete in 10, possibly 5 years. On top of that, there will be downward pressure on wages as masses of people are laid off and enter into professions that are still safe from automation. We absolutely will need to tax automation in some way, otherwise the system will become unsustainable for humans.
When AI takes over the majority of jobs in approx. 300-500 years from now, people will need UBI and most people will go on Soma vacations (in the virtual world) all the time. Read George Orwell - he predicted this! What a genius. But right now, it’s still too early to discuss UBI.
This has been done as an experiment in Saskatchewan in a couple of communities and they found that entrepreneurial behavior rose because people were not bound to a particular job to survive. The same holds true for universal health insurance as people's access to health care is not tied to their employment, they are free to go to a different job or start their own business without fear of the loss of health coverage. That explains why countries like Denmark are more entrepreneurial than the US and have higher rates of social mobility.
the statement "when people have their basic needs met, it leaves them open to pursue higher education and do entrepreneurial stuff" is so obvious that it hurts to say. And aren't conservatives supposed to be all about the economy and small business?
That’s the altruistic side of the coin. And it’s a valid argument. The problem is that it’s usually put forth by UBI proponents who choose to ignore the other side of that coin which is that unearned comfort breeds indolence and any number of other pathologies that go with it. So, hypothetically, for every entrepreneur you unshackle from their menial, soul-killing job, you’re also going to create another societal parasite.
@@WhiskeySam1 Okay. The keyword in your argument is "hypothetically". Many other countries have done this. You don't end up with a significant number of people who just leech. Believe it or not, not doing anything ever and just getting a check every week is not a very fun way to live. A few really sad individuals will inevitably just be content to eat instant ramen noodles and bottled water for the rest of their life, living in a one-room studio apartment. But humans don't just stop doing stuff as soon as our basic needs are met. Most people, now with the burden off their backs, will get that college education they never had time for (free college) and then, with a good higher education, pursue a real job, maybe a craft, maybe an accounting job, maybe a research job. Now that they have a reliable, well-paying job and a good education, they can be weaned off the UBI, and they start paying higher taxes as they climb up the social ladder, paying back their debt to society, and their tax money will soon be used for another person. Would you be content to not do any of that and just stay at the bare minimum for the rest of your life? I doubt it.
Vanad1um That simply isn’t so. We have mountains of data that show people tend to stay on unemployment (which is essentially temporary UBI) until it runs out. Finland had a 2 year study on this which showed people were no more likely to pursue work when given unconditional UBI benefits. Your assertion that overwhelming percentages of would be UBI recipients are productive entrepreneurs just waiting for some free time to suddenly become productive just flies in the face of observed social science data over decades. There’s a conditional argument to be made in favor of UBI, but the idea that you’ll get more productive workers than takers isn’t one of them. There are millions of Americans whose basic needs are met: housing, transportation, food, medical care who chose not to work. We’re seeing this play out in real time as I type this with the COVID unemployment benefits. Employers can’t get people to come back to work. A dirty apartment can and should be cleaned, but shelter over ones head and food to eat is the definition of comfort. It isn’t luxury by any means, but there’s also no acute pressure or discomfort either.
Honestly Brett jumps to the evolutionary response way to quickly on some of these social issues. It's true that an evolutionary analogy can be drawn, but he forgets that biological evolution is not the orchestrator of the more complex social behaviours of humans, just the origin of them.
It’s interesting because earlier in this podcast, they all agreed on a particular point about someone’s degree of motivation and creativity that is influenced by being lower on the socioeconomic ladder, and that some of the greatest entrepreneurs started from almost nothing. But the key is that they still had something, as Weinstein clarified (I.e. their basic needs were met and they likely had a stable family and childhood). I get Peterson’s point, that young people, particularly young men, need meaning purpose and fulfillment in life in order to be functioning and thriving human beings, but I disagree with his initial point that UBI would dissuade people from being able to discover that purpose on their own. In fact I think that Peterson could be convinced that UBI may actually be the key to helping the majority of society discover greater meaning and purpose because it gives them just enough to meet their basic needs (I.e. equality of opportunity) but not so much that no one feels motivated to do more for themselves. Regardless, I think Peterson could definitely be YangGang in the near term future, mostly because Yang rejects identity politics and is more focused on equality of opportunity than outcomes. Less government bureaucracy, which was the crux of Yang’s critique of Bernie.
7:20 Thats the main issue i personally have with our system. I dont demand socialist welfare, redistribution or whatever. All i want is a fair game. But the fact is that the whole game is rigged. It starts with our monetary / financial system. Politicians are bought and pair for. Elections are rigged. We have revolving doors everywhere. Pay for plays. The bigger the government got the bigger the breading ground for corruption and special interests to take over got. And it got MUCH BIGGER, way too big! Competition is prevented, regulations hurt upcoming companies and favor existing big players. Just look at big pharma or your health care system in the U.S. But it effects pretty much everything! The amount of corruption increased so much, the amount of legislation that is made favoring special interests got so huge (they are basically writing the legislation themselves), that there is little to no legislation that is actually in the interest of the individual. Thats why the inequality feels so painful since the sense that the game is rigged and that it is a big club and you and i ain't in it is more and more blatantly true. The ONLY way to fix this, is by reducing government. By freeing the free market. By cutting back regulations. By limiting governments powers (as they should be according to the constitution). By putting a stop to revolving doors and industry big players regulating themselves. No more handouts or subsidies. By reducing the breeding ground for corruption. Imagine a government that can't offer you special favors. A government where special interests could lobby as much as they want but government wouldn't have the power and authority to do shit. What would happen? Would there still be super pacs and bought and paid for politicians? Would there still be dozens of lobbyists for every politician? Would special interest groups still try to get their food in the door and have revolving doors? No of course not, since there would be no incentive to do so, since there is nothing to gain. We need a small, lean and mostly powerless government, that does not interfere in the free market, that does not "stimulate" the economy. That does not prevent competition in any way or form. That does not hand out favors, subsidies or anything of that sort. Government is supposed to be the referee not an active player. The founding fathers gave you a republic... if you can keep it. We clearly lost it.
@Cristoph Egger - you sound like one of those guys...what was their names....Washington, Jefferson, Adams and a few others - mind you they had one caveat and that was that the people had to be morally upright or else there was no hope. Replacing corrupt govt with corrupt robber barons doesn't work too well either....If you haven't read them you might enjoy The Federalist Papers - www.thefederalistpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/The-Complete-Federalist-Papers.pdf Those guys made a lot of sense..................
I agree with your premise, but not with your conclusion. I think we are at a point right now that if we just got rid of regulation, all of the big fish would eliminate the competition that the free market brings.
So completely well said. Unfortunately, the mentality that government should intervene in everything, is the mathematical certainty of disaster on the horizon, along with, deep state corruption within government itself. Yikes.
Whilst i agree with the first part i feel yoi got a little off base at the end, sliding off into a sort of "right wing republicans have the answer." Neither party has the answer, and the founding fathers didnt found a perfect state. No one political party or movement is The American Option, and we need to try different things to weigh the pros and cons of different ideology.
@@daanmollema6366 I think you miss understood. As it is, both parties increase government all the time, hence the problem getting bigger, corruption and special interests getting more dominant. Its just that under democrats they actually advocate for big government to fix problems government created in the first place. The left wants more government and is open about it. The right wants small government but NEVER actually makes it smaller... it only slightly increases under them. Its like choosing between the lesser of two evils. There is no political party that actually wants to reduce and limit government. This will never happen. Why would they wanna eat themselves? They would do anything to prevent it and fight with all they got to make sure we the people would never unite and see the elephant in the room.
Wrong. Simply disable the Government from having so much authority on the markets and people's lives and any amount of money in politics will not make much difference. The right to donate your money to politicians is no different from the right to free speech in principle.
Thank you for this I’ve literally come to many of these realisations myself and although I’m put out that these ideas aren’t just my own grandiose thinking… they have been well fleshed out already and I’m grateful to learn and incorporate these ideas and your perspectives into my argument/proposal… Wonderful lesson in the art of debating too, great video!
Pretty soon you are going to see that fast food restaurants have suddenly replaced a majority of their workforce with robots and AI. And rest assured, it will happen very rapidly once the tech reaches a certain level, which is already imminent. Once McDonalds has stopped hiring minimum wage employees, the trend will already be on the way in every business sector. Something like 30-50% of job opportunities will just completely cease to exist. Now you need to consider the impact on the economy. The current model can't possibly stay in operation. Something will give, and it all comes crashing down. What worries me most is none of the politicians are really talking about the situation. It's as if they want to keep us in the dark for just a little longer. So that when people finally realize what is going on, it's already too late for them to have prepared any personal safety net plans. I think it's a bit scary to think our leaders could somehow be so oblivious to the immediate future. But then it's even more scary to think they are just playing along and keeping their own plan hidden...
You're entire comment is 100% correct, and I know you're being coy at the end. They are old but arent stupid, and they have plenty of people working for them telling them this stuff. Why would they care if we eventually got replaced by machines? Only reason why they keep us around is to produce goods and services for them...robots will be able to also. For relatively free
If 30%-50% of the economy could no longer be employed, they would HAVE to get some kind of basic income... otherwise the ones with jobs would soon be unemployed too because 30%-50% of their customers have no income!
@@AmericanDash no they wouldnt. Why would they need us if machines can do everything that the working class does? It would end up being the next civil war when people start getting hungry
AI will replace a lot of people in software development and engineering as well. It's going to be far more than just minimum wage. There are few jobs that can't be replaced by technology, and looking at recent advances this stuff will be happening in the next 5 years.
@@thekensilva you dont have to think something is a great or even a good idea to admit that it just might work or help if the circumstance calls for it.
@@thekensilva he says it's a horrible idea as a be-all-end-all. which he is very correct about. if you listen to andrew yang he says basically the same thing--that men without a sense of purpose almost invariably self-destruct. yang sees ubi as a necessary stepping stone to a solution. jordan peterson would probably agree that it's not perfect but it's necessary.
I FREAKIN LOVE THIS CONVERSATION! The level of intellectual engagement and just calm, and reasonable discussion is so good. Just great stuff. Glad I have a phone that plugs me into these discussions and helps me learn to articulate things like this.
People tend to be just as satisfied with a favorable result from an unfair process as a negative result from a fair process. But perception is everything.
I'm normally quite critical of Peterson's opinions, but I have to say that this was a well reasoned discussion. I appreciate how the positioning of the arguments are about consensus rather than division.
Perhaps you were more open to his ideas and arguments here because he more openly and overtly called out conservative thinking, which perhaps runs contrary to your perception that others have created that JBP is a conservative? The thing is, Peterson very often seeks consensus rather than division, it's just that those who benefit from more division want to paint him as some crazy right wing boogy man. He's not.
I like Peterson's arguments normally but here thinks he's leaning way too hard into people needing purpose to contribute into society. Yeah, that's also important, and he's one of my favourites simply for being one of the few to acknowledge that, but it's a much lower hierarchy of need than basic survival. I totally see the positions of people like Yang who believe that, without having to worry about survival, people will have the mental freedom to really thrive. And knowing how most government stimulus programs work, it's not like people living off UBI are exactly laughing their way to the bank; the government WILL find a way to give us the bare minimum we need to not die from lack of food and shelter (and rightfully so - it's taxpayer money), and it'll be on us to supplement our lifestyle with work, same as always.
The typical way we have always handled wealth inequality is through estate taxation. The problem is that we have overcomplicated our tax code and have weakened our society through a lack of morals, ethics, and self discipline.
identity politics needs to stop, generalizing and making sides to every fucking issue is tiresome, you're a person not a soldier in the left or right wing lol
Unfortunately the "left " is who started assigning sides (and continues to do so) to everything as fast and wide as they can possibly manage for no gainful purposes other than to define everything that is not of their particular view/side of reality as wrong and bad even when it's easily seen to be any and everything but. Once that single sided social sect bias source issue is fixed we as a whole of society can start to move forward in a positive way again.
First time I’ve heard Peterson say “fuck”. My life is changed for the better.
When?
@@jackmarshall757 dude if u literally listen to the first 20 seconds u would hear him say fuck
gold 😂😂
@@kaorichan7523 I completely didn't hear it lol. Time to get my ears checked
I heard him saying for the second time. The first time, you believe me or not, was in a biblical lecture, lol.
I wish the presidential debates could be this calm and collected.
@Asim Malik funny how you left out the "one for all" half of the quote. All for one, and only all for one, is how systems collapse and millions die. I understand your argument, but you don't deserve to have as much as everyone else if you don't produce as much as everyone else. That's not to say you don't deserve to have a comfortable life, because you do. But the place you come from is gluttony, from envy
N intelligent....
Presidential debate would never be like this. This is a conversation, not a debate. Rogan and Peterson aren't trying to "win" or prevail over one another. They're having a conversation, and that's why it's so chill.
@Asim Malik no thank communist, you deserve nothing but what you work for.
@@Ndogg012 does he "deserve" to have a comfortable life if he doesn't intend to make it comfortable himself and expects us to communally make his life better for him?
Note how SILENT the other parties are while another is making an opposing or different point
Yes! That's showing respect even if you don't agree with another person. Freedom of speech at its best.
They seemed to be agreeing with each other from what I could see.
@ I think they were silent just because they genuinely cared about what the other had to say, just hunger of knowing and understanding more
@@Hugh_Jurrection Correct. They were agreeing with what the other had to say (most of the time) but then adding their own view/opinion onto the topic. Many ideas are the same for both parties. It’s just how or why is the difference
@@Hugh_Jurrection Correct. They were agreeing with what the other had to say (most of the time) but then adding their own view/opinion onto the topic. Many ideas are the same for both parties. It’s just how or why is the difference
You can judge someone's intelligence by their willingness to listen, even when they believe they know better. You don't learn by talking.
Then my cat is a genius.
You judge intelligence on a subject, by their ability to know what they're TALKING ABOUT.
My dad always said that. You can’t learn if you’re talking only repeating what you know”❤️
I agree you should listen but I also believe you do learn by talking because it forces you to put your thoughts in a coherent streamline fashion. Just like writing.
But I agree to much talking is sub optimal
@@SovereignStatesman You literally cannot learn anything while talking. You have to listen to learn.
@@oneeyeopen2094 no, as you try to form your thoughts into coherent verbal sentences, you often encounter places where you arguments fall apart and have to find the missing links... Hence you learn as you go.
What impresses me about this is how cogently they put together their arguments. When I rant about this stuff I get looked at like a tinfoil nutter
Both guests have incredible command of the English language, especially Peterson. I am amazed at how he is able to select his words so carefully and so quickly, choosing just the right words so as not to mess up the meaning. .
Its intellectual masterbation. Rhetorical style does not equate to making a substantive argument.
I disagree it's intellectual masturbation, but agree that rhetorical style does not equate to making a substantive argument.
@@brianagee2790 SO wholeheartedly agree. He never gets to the goddamn point! He just uses coagulative conjunctual vocabularization to communicate his cognitive disposition upon our auricular sensory reception to convey an intermediary disposition communaly acquiesced by society to dispositionally divide us into psycologically coalescent paradigms that we subliminally define ourselves to hope that we can, one day, excel and conquer our own divisive self definition to succumb to ourselves...Fuck I can't think of more useless words to use.
@@sinjis75 You did very well. Much impressed.
Watched Andrew Yang, then Ben Shapiro, now Jordan Peterson. If you put them 3 together with Joe Rogan hosting the conversation, that would be like the final episode of a TV series.
Yeah and add Elon Musk to that
😂😂
Cuthbert Bracegirdle facts over feelings lmao
It would go somthing like this. Yang would just be repeating his talking points, Jordan would be giving us some logical ideas. Ben would be there talking over everone to try to "win" his argument. And Joe would be gettin high talkin about DMT. Lol
And Peter Schiff, that would be great
I've been watching so much toxic and disgusting politics, this is like diving into a pool in the middle of the summer
Island of calm in a sea of madness sums it up well, I think!
Right there with ya ✌️
Both are waste of time.
@@mabd7340 what is “both”
Gay
I didn't even realise Bret was there for nearly four minutes, hats off to him.
He simply can’t impose into Jordan’s conversation when Jordan is on a whole ‘nother level
@@ESunshine24 I don't think anyone is on another level. They are both well mannered and intelligent people with original and interesting ideas worth listening to.
@@abrodking6584 bingo
@@ESunshine24 intellectual people don't disturb another person while they are speaking
@@abrodking6584 idk. Someone like Thomas Sowell always has such solid arguments that it didn’t seem like they could be countered even when strong opposition spoke against. In fact opposition only seemed to strengthen his argument. Of course he only talked about thinks he studied strongly so they weren’t really opinions but closer to facts.
This is the real kind of conversation my brain craves. Whether I agree with them or not, it provokes thoughts, not some shitty catharsis I was taught to have when someone on my team wins an argument with better talking points.
Do your part and spread the word! It actually could get much better too, but we're just used to any conversation being better than none
IMANFBIAGENT omfg yes agreed
I really just want to hear smart people talk on either side whether it’s Peterson or slavo zizek (the communist philosopher)
Maybe because it’s just so rare to hear good discussions
IMANFBIAGENT That is one of the most honest self analysis I have ever read in the comments section. Our ego is so invested in the reward system of our side "winning" the argumwnt we forget why we had the argument and what needed to be solved in the first place.
I actually just found Peterson, and even though I find myself disagreeing with him, I still like listening to what he has to say
This is how a healthy left/right debate should look like.
Some issue's simple as "left" or "right" black and white mate! Some problems are all shades of grey and everything in between! The fact that everything has to be hard locked either to the left or right politically these days is the very reason why things are going of the rails lately; Populism both right and left is leading to a downfall in society because some issues are just to complex to simplify for people that don't and can't understand.................
I disagree because Peterson Strawmanned leftist arguments and no one challenged him
You guys are all right (no pun intended).
@@TheSampleSlayer Populism gave me a door into politics while I was young and naive. It helped me to discover different perspectives in ways I had never seen before. Yes it's not where someone should stay but it's bloody good at getting people to talk.
@@TheSampleSlayer Left and right is in USA (and maybe UK). In other countries (at least I see it in EU) they have different voting system which creates more competition. It's not unusual to see 6 or more parties as the result of elections. To make a government they might need a coallition of 2-4 parties. Currently there are 4 parties in my country who is making the government. From those 1 is a new party, other is one election cycle old (so formed about 4-5 years ago), other 2 formed around year 2010. Only one of them was part of the government before. There are usually 20 parties which you can choose during the elections.
Lot of former big parties which were in control of government they are now practically dead. One party which was in control in the past in 2000s (probably over 20% share) they received under 1% of votes in the next election (due to some stupid mistakes, corruption scandals and new competition). Few other parties ended up the same, they are history.
This is the system which I really like. Not 2 parties which have monopoly last 40 years.
Put these guys on with Andrew Yang
curtisw0234 yesssss
I do agree, universally basic income is not the answer. Im actually kinda scared it will cause unnatural inflation.
Universal basic income HAS to be based on buying power, not on absolute numbers. F.e. it's has to be enough to have basic housing + food and water. (Or whatever criteria you want to add or remove).
But it seems the most simple solution is just taxing rich people and companies more. And distributing that wealth back into the lower layer of the society.
It seems unfair, but in my country it's quite normal and it's creates massive equallity of opportunity. But almost no equallity of outcome.
I'm a prime example. My parents would not have been able to my healthcare, school etc if it wasn't heavily subsidized. Now I'm quite rich because of that, and I pay 56% taxes over my income. But I don't mind, because I have had: healthcare-, rent-, school subsidized when I wasn't rich and I payed only 26% taxes.
Dani Londen it doesn’t have to be if it’s not meant as full living wage. A constant dollar value would just incentivize poor people to move to cheap places to live.
@@danilonden3782 Maybe we can go for universal basic credit. The whole purpose of the idea is to give an offset (adjusted baseline) for people to start and to obtain a realistic chance to succeed for them or their children. I mean like a monthly credit that can only be used for education or innovation or startup.
@@ahmadchamseddine6891 I would say that's a better solution then a true universal basic income. But its very similar to the welfare system.in place in Holland right now.
Is it just me, or does joe really shut up and listen more when peterson is on?
He does with a lot of his guests. Jordan is a lecturer so it’s natural
Not a.good thing
@@basengelblik5199 it's a podcast, letting the guest speak is the whole fucking point
@@Noclaff especially when the guest has a lot of things to say. People like JBP shouldn't be stopped every 30 seconds.
People like Peterson love hearing themselves talk.
Joe Rogan should facilitate a meet between Andrew Yang and Jordan Peterson.
They actual agree, Yang and Peterson that is. Read the second top comment
Jake Andersson Yes! That’s what I’ve gathered. I’ve been following Jordan for the past year and a half and been on Andrew for several weeks only. Both of them makes sense! 😊
@@richardarcilla I wish Peterson was American so he would be yang's vp
Jake Andersson Yup, apparently a lot of Canadians are wishing for Jordan to run against Trudeau. He can’t speak French which is apparently a requirement.
Richard Arcilla the Presidential loser?
Peterson and Yang actually agree. Peterson sees economic utility of UBI, he just doesn't think it solves the bigger problem which has to do more with mental health & purpose. Peterson looks at things from more of a psychological point of view whereas Yang focuses more on economic well being. People often ask Yang, what are people going to do? Yang always says " who knows man that's the question of our era." Yang also doesn't think that UBI solves the entire problem, but he sees it as necessary to keep the economy functioning. That however does not mean that Yang doesn't see the potential psychological ramifications of mass automation, nor does it mean that he thinks throwing money at people will fix those mental health issues. He often points out that nearly half of the people who lost their manufacturing jobs are no longer in the workforce, and that suicide, drug abuse, and depression rates have skyrocketed in those communities.
thank god your comment is up here. you got it exactly right, they dont disagree.
UBI can be argued as just a band-aid to keep capitalism alive...
it doesn't really solve a great deal - but is an interesting 'solution' that should be explored
I think the best option would be to move the truckers to trade skills. Carpenters, electricians, construction, plumbers, welders, etc.
@@NickOloteo You forget supply and demand problem, once again......
@@1flash3571 what do you mean? Aren't we in serious need of trade jobs?
UBI won't give you meaning or purpose, but neither will working a menial job for pitiful wages. And soon, there won't even BE menial jobs.
But at least you'll have enough funds to find meaning or purpose.
In capitalism everyone gets what they deserve. And that's not an oversimplification. Leftist view is however. Right Jordan? So I guess low IQ people who don't earn enough should die, so that the new high IQ race will prevail. Yay!
The irony of arguments made by people like Peterson, that somehow aspiration or desperation breed innovation, that financial incentive is what advances society, is that this has LITERALLY never been the case.
Sure money is important, but if you look through history at who accomplished greats leaps forward for civilization, or innovated technology, or created beauty in art, literature or architecture... you'll find a bunch of "idle rich people"
Granting people the autonomy that they don't need to work to sustain themselves.
Hell, look at modern success stories and you'll find plenty of "I ate ramen and lived with my parents" and think that means "sacrifice and hard work" but what it ACTUALLY meant is that they cut their costs to the point they could devote their time to something better.
I wonder how many geniuses we've lost to poverty, lack of education or rigid class structure.
Considering the progress we've made in a short few decades since universal education became common, I'm thinking a lot. (the very idea of universal literacy wasn't even considered before the industrial revolution required a more educated kind of worker. Before 200~ years ago education was mostly reserved for the prvileged few)
"in capitalism everyone gets what they deserve" may be the most idiotic statement I've ever heard.
What was never the purpose of the system nor is it something it ever addresses.
Your argument here is essentially that poverty is a punishment for the sinful. You can argue that capitalism had increased social mobility & features in the fairest societies we've build, but even THAT is over simplifying.
Michael Jones not everyone does. Some people work 2 jobs just to pay their bills.
Dm Gray more times than not though those people came from rich families and turned 50 MIL into 400 MIL.
"Men don't need *money,* they need *function."* That single sentence by Jordan Peterson is the single most powerful statement I've ever heard in the entire UBI conversation. The need for people to have meaningful work is as important as the need for food, or water, or any other basic human need. Here's the problem: The game is fixed, and it will stay that way. The only way that monarchies are overturned are through violent means. From the French Revolution to the Revolutionary War, it seems that the only way the ruling class deals with the peasants is through wealth, power, influence, and control, the only thing that all politicians truly understand.
That is not true. Peaceful protests against dictators/regimes are more often successful than violent ones. The game isn't fixed, it's quite likely partially fixed. Do you know what society/economy was fixed? India as a colony. What happened? Ghani.
I'm not saying peaceful protests will magically fix everything, I'm just saying it's not as easy as you made it out to be. Also it's not as doom & gloom as you made it out to be.
@@hanspeterqwe6620
Don't get me wrong. Peaceful protests are ALWAYS the best option. But try telling that to the millions of violent looters and rioters tearing apart nearly every major city in America, as we speak. It appears that your positive comments aren't exactly having any positive effect on THEM, are they???
@@tiffsaver If they were actually planning to get rid of all the crooks and the corruption in America then yes, they would need to burn everything to the ground
@@tiffsaver You are distracting. Looters and rioters are not interested in the cause to begin with. They are just waiting for an opportunity to do what they do.
The people we need to talk about are the people who actually want to change things to the better, not people who don't give a shit (like looters and rioters).
@@MyReligionIs2DoGood
I am not "distracting." I am talking about supporting LEGITIMATE PROTESTORS, not the criminals and hooligans the government often PAYS to loot and burn cities down, then blames the entire thing on these same individuals. All of these staged events are planned by the members of the Democratic party.
Summary of JP's opinion: some inequality is needed for innovation and productivity, but too much incites a revolution that helps no one. People at the bottom of the hierarchy will remain content with the hope of future success so long as the system doesn't feel rigged. Therefore rich people rigging the system are destroying the stability of society, so this behaviour must be stamped out at all costs. Some people on the left unfortunately believe that all people in power are rigging the system so need to be removed, which is incorrect and dangerous.
The left's vision is dangerous in my opinion. They want to get rid of rich people and create equality. That sounds great on paper for a perfect utopia, but in practice they will disincentive anyone doing anything productive since there is no point if you cannot advance and improve yourself financially. Economy sputters, the only people rich are the politicians in charge and the people are equally suffering.
@@itsatrap7215 Human behaviour and its decision making ability cannot be predicted in any terms. You can't say that in reality socialism or any other form of political or economic system can't work because of "human nature". We can use it in regards to anything. Hume's law literally constitutes inability of moral or ethical relations between human being to be calculated and predicted because of their subjectivity.
Bret Weinstein adds that modern technology (like social media) makes us all less content with our rung in society by nurturing jealousy. He seems to imply that this has led to increased left wing popularity. He adds that no one has studied the extent of 'rule-breaking' in the economy, but he suspects it is sadly very high, and therefore can sympathize people's cries for change.
@@aykhansalmanov5993 Yes we can say exactly that, because we can look at history to prove it. They tried socialism in over 50 countries last century. None of them worked well. All of them ended up as totalitarian regimes. 100 million people died.
Humans are not ants.
@@EaglePicking As I said earlier humans are living creatures with minds and decision making ability which can't be predicted. The fact that socialism failed in 20th century doesn't make it any worse than capitalism. When we talk about capitalism for some reason we look at only successful and prosperous nations of Western Europe and North America but we don't look at tens of other unsuccessful capitalist countries which live in poverty. The reason for that is global imperial domination of big European countries over the course of history which in the end resulted in their prosperity.
WTF- 3 people had a conversation and let each other speak without talking over each other incessantly?? Joe- you're slipping pal- Lol. Was actually a good podcast. Well done.
John C Shut the fuck up
woah, first time i heard Peterson drop an F bomb! had to rewind and refocus. sort myself out.
JackSather same, I was momentarily taken aback, ahaha
I must be desensitized because I didn't even notice...
its kinda of a quote
better _get my act together_
JackSather One time on Dutch media he said something like "Well, watch the fuck out". I died
I dig the JRE podcast that start out with
"Hello Freak Bitches "
Because you're a freak bitch.
@@SovereignStatesman shut up he’s not one but you are
@@ericacannon5832
Rogan thinks his swearing gives his show an "edge." It doesn't. It's juvenile.
@@aJones-hv5ny That's because Joe is a simpleton.
My takeouts:
- Inequality has a linear relationship with crime
- The universal basic income may not be the solution
- Men need to feel a sense of social responsibility, ie. Give them work and not just money
- Technology & innovation kills jobs
- People don't mind inequality if there is equal opportunity and the game isn't rigged
- Rich people caused the 2008 recession but then benefitted from the restabilization of the economy after
They didn't say that "rich people" caused the crisis, they said the rich benefited the most from the recovery. Markets are too big and too complex to be impacted by "the rich" or any other group alone.
@@whitestork3896 The recession was pretty clearly caused by subprime mortgage credits given out by big banks. There were decisions made by a handful of rich people that severely impacted markets.
One thing we can be sure of is that once a “universal income” is established, it won’t be long before it’s worthless. Then what?
@@jacksonkoppe7297 Rich people were a contributing factor. But honestly, you don't get a crisis of the magnitude of 2008 without multiple factors. You had banks giving out subprime loans. But you also had a government that was pushing the banks to loan to risky borrowers. That was part of Bush's 'ownership society'. That created a scenario whereby you had a large number of loans being graded A+ by rating agencies who were clueless as to how risky they were.
But if one really takes a step back, the ultimate culprit was Alan Greenspan and the Fed. Their monetary policy created not one, but two massive asset bubbles. The first was the dot com boom and bust and then that was followed by the housing boom and bust. Both were fueled by interest rate policy that fueled more risk since stable asset vehicles like bonds and CDs weren't yielding enough.
@@Diomedes01 This is a great summation of the variety of factors that were at play in 2008, thank you. Underlying all of it is of course greed, to some extent and by some parties. But that is a problem much older than us. In theory, a society that fully embraced, articulated, and operated out of love and charity (not UBI) instead of greed and pride would be the only long-term solution, but that is a utopia we can currently only dream about.
The money doesnt solve the problem. It sets the stage to solve the problem.
Andrew Yang
I agree with that 120% I just really hope that if UBI ever becomes a thing, I really don't want the majority of people to rely on it as "solving the problem."
The problem is... How much faith do you have in the common people?
No that's just dumb
I much prefer a negative income tax. It is better than both welfare and ubi in every way possible. Its only fault is that it still gives people free money.
But I think the two most crucial differences between welfare and ubi and nit are dependence and cost:
1) DEPENDENCE:
Welfare actively creates dependence and disincentivizes work by effectively taxing the earned income of welfare recipients at a rate of 100% or more.
Ubi doesn't create dependence and disincentive like welfare does (as your stipend doesn't stand to go away), but it doesn't incentivize earning income either.
Nit, however, effectively taxes your early income at 50%, but as your income increases past a certain threshold, your tax rate drops to 20%, thus incentivizing earning more... without ever ending up with less total income like with welfare.
2) COST:
Welfare currently costs a little over $1 trillion every year.
A ubi of $1000/mo would just about triple that, and even Yang's best speculations (including taxing big corps) don't come close to paying for it; _furthermore_ his program wouldn't even replace welfare, as welfare recipients who get more welfare than the ubi offers can opt out, so this would actually cost _more_ than the initial 3 trillion.
But nit _from the beginning_ would cost only half to a third of what we already spend on welfare, and that's assuming that all 30 million people currently in poverty simply stop trying to work... If we don't assume the worst and rather estimate that the average income of all those people equals the exemption threshold, then the entire program will pay for itself at no cost to current taxpayers.
An added bonus to nit compared to ubi is that the money only goes to people who need it.
Either Yang doesn't understand what MLK, Nixon, and Friedman were getting at by their minimum guaranteed income proposals, or he's just pretending for his uneducated base that these conservatives agree with his atrocious and potentially disastrous ubi idea. Either way, he's either a fool or a fraud.
TL;DR: ubi is dangerously stupid, costing easily thrice what we already spend, but nit would immediately halve our spending and even stands to pay for itself within a generation.
And Yang is an idiot... Not Yang Xiao Long... She's cool.
Life is like playing monopoly with no initial bank.
@@Clancey65 The game Monopoly was created in part to educate the masses about capitalism. BTW, I'd love to hear a conversation between Rutger Bregman and Jordan Peterson.
Andrew Yang said at least a thousand times now that this isn’t an end all solutions.
Chris Simmons did he say where the money was coming from and how long it’ll last? No
@@tangodelta7809 (he did)
@@tangodelta7809 you havent done any research clearly
Yes he did, it involves a theoretical "value added" tax that corporations pay. Even if he defined it, it's a stupid idea.. For as smart of a businessman as he claims to be, he forgets how businesses function.
This does one of two things (if not both):
If the tax is centralized to the corporation's localities (highly unlikely, since he wants a national program), they're just going to leave.
If the tax is pushed on purchases, like he implies, the cost gets passed to the consumer. So welcome to inflation.
This isn't even a bandaid, and Friedman is rolling in his grave when Yang tries to pass this as something he would have advocated for.
Collin Yates Bezos has a $600 million deal with the CIA over what shutbyotch stated
This is one of the best clips from the entire JRE catalog. Really thought provoking stuff. I watch entire 3 hour episodes in the hopes of getting a little nugget of wisdom like these two shared here.
It's crazy that this was recorded nearly two years ago. Needs to be shared everywhere.
There is sooo much past knowledge out there and needs to be shared. But there is so much more bullshit out there that would need to be eliminated. This problem can never be resolved.
3 years ago
Who’s here during corona-virus tryna firgure everything out whilst on lockdown
Lol I'm just randomly watching whatever youtube throws at me.
Welcome to quarantine.
MeatSword oh cool I’m not the only one
MeatSword oh perhaps everyone dont just implode in anxiety from having to actually deal with being present, or disappear into dopamine flux -netflix, you give hope to the world
@@katarina2438 How are u more present while at home tho? Yeah u might be more aware of ur situtation but cmon..
And why are these two people, and Mr. Yang, and several others not sitting in a debate on national television to decide which philosophy might better the nation as a whole....ie running for President as opposed to the dreadful hand full of clowns that actually are? The people of this country need to back people like this.....give them support, give them money....I somehow feel we would all be much, much better off regardless of which side of the isle you occupy. Could we all perhaps agree on this one single point as a starting place...We have to demand it first or it won't happen.
Oooh! I like this idea a lot. National debates with non-politicians.
Exactly what you said. Yet we must start the demand.
turn off the tv... ; )
The media is too controlled to be productive
@@SC-ye3kw You don't understand the word politician.
This is what debates should be. Full of rational and well-constructed arguments. Full of respect on each other time and explanations. Period.
Well then you might like very calm, rational and intelligent critique Peter Joseph did on a Peterson debate on Capitalism vs Socialism, posted on TZMOfficialChannel. Very thought-provoking. Hard to argue with since each point is so logically stated.
I've been listening to Jordan Peterson for a year, I've watched at least one 3-10 minute video a day, first time I've heard him drop the F-bomb.
punishercork he does it on the reg
You have to when you go on Joe Rogan's show.
First time I heard him swear was on the Stefan Molyneux interview... :D
I just heard Peterson say "fuck it!"... Holy shit
Dont call me a faggot dude ? Sometimes you gotta say "fuck it."
Powerful
Nothing protects the little guy like honest money, which we haven't had in the United States since 1933.
Brian Bagent meh, not entirely true but your point is well-made. We haven’t had a healthy middle class since the end of WWII and through into the 1950’s. The 1960’s was where things began to change. And then from the 1980’s onwards we had a steep decline in the middle class with 2008 being the final straw that destroyed it.
@@Xpistos510 - "we the people" didn't have access to honest money after 1933. the federal government still traded in gold with other nation states, per the Bretton Woods agreement, but Nixon ended that.
From my reading, the real decline began in 1973 when Bretton Woods ended and the "petro dollar" was born.
Any way you slice it, currency harms most those who works for a wage (salaried or hourly, doesn't matter). And the lower the wage, the more harmful currency is to the wage earner.
The fact that many (most, maybe) households had 2 income earners (starting in the 60s or 70s) masked what was happening, but at some point, even 2 income earners won't mask the debauching of the currency.
If you stop and think about it, a kid in 1960 making minimum wage of $1 or maybe $1.25, who was getting paid in silver coin, had more in purchasing power than those making minimum wage today. Trade value for circulated junk silver is about $14 for $1 face value of the junk silver.
It is only going to get worse until the dollar ultimately and inevitably is debauched all the way to zero, as all currencies have always done, sooner or later.
@@smokedbrisket3033 but without debasing the currency or taking it off the gold standard, how is a Government supposed keep enough money in circulation for an ever growing population?
@@EvilSapphireR - it is a Keynesian myth that the supply of currency needs to keep up with population/GDP/whatever. It isn't about how much currency is in circulation (which increases indefinitely until it is worthless), it is about what you can buy with what you have.
My suspicion is that you are assigning purchase parity to, for example, a $10 gold eagle and a $10 federal reserve note. There are 247 1/2 grains of pure (or 270 gr of standard) gold in a $10 gold eagle. It would take 78 $10 FRNs to equal the value of a single $10 gold eagle right now.
Distilled down to essential elements, monetarists hold that we must debauch our currency in order to keep the economy running strong. That's a logical absurdity. The fact is that never in the history of the world have there been a group of people who are trustworthy enough to control those reins. Just like socialism's advocates, "it would work if we only had the right people in charge." We're $23 trillion in debt because of monetarists. If that debt were paid off, it would in reality be a deflation which would destroy the USD.
We have 2 courses of action possible to us: suffer some pain and switch back to gold (and silver), or suffer severe pain when the dollar is inflated to the point of worthlessness, which it inevitably will be, as all currencies in the history of the world have inevitably done.
Since 1913 you mean.
Jordan Peterson: "Don't let the inequality in your neighborhood get out of hand, because the crime rate will skyrocket."
Me: * Thinks about Mexico's crazy powerful drug cartels, super corrupt police forces and politicians and it's extremely poor citizens *
Also Me : Yup, that sound about right.
The Cartel gets its money from the black market created by the war on drugs. Let's say I am a poor villager living in Mexico, what can I realistically do?
@@MrMetalhorse rhetorical questions are meant to make you think, not to be answered. You offered two callous answers that I have a hard time believing were made in good faith. Do you care about seriously considering the situation of someone born in Mexico? I have worked with and become close to people from Mexico, who made the most sensible decision available to them, and fled to America. I asked this question because I wanted the author of this comment to consider the life of someone born there and whether theyre able to do anything at all about the inequality in their neighborhood. Dr. Peterson says we should be precise in our speech, and I think he's right.
@@kevinbeck8836 nothing the cartel supports its people so the people can get support from a corrupt backbone. Practically corrupting everything around them. Once the economy and people get education the cartels will fall.
Echo
The cartels can't fall while the US keeps pumping money into them and Mexico can't much improve while the cartels still have so much power
That's until Cardenas comes back to life and re-nationalizes the oil industry bruh.
i don't know why but the statement "no, and increasingly no" is hilarious to me.
Same I hear it in the same way I'd hear something like 'infinity + 10 equals more infinity.'
Lmao like it's a vector
lol, I haven't got to that yet but it has to be JP :-)
I'm gonna use that one. Not for debates, but for disagreeing with doing something.
Phillip Greene it’s hilarious and I love it
I managed stores in Michigan, my employees were college kids, young adults going to college and single mothers. Many, many times these employees showed up to work sick because they couldn't afford to take time off from work. The mothers reluctantly sent sick kids to school because they needed the paycheck and couldn't take the time off of work to care for the sick child.
@Twiddly Stosh yeah definitely but people make it seem like a racial issue, its not, its an economic and legislative issue. In the US in the 60s when it was still under the Gold standard you could buy a house with like 3 years worth of salary, and can buy a brand new car with like 4 months worth of salary. But that changed because the whole world left the gold standard and paper currency is losing value yet prices going up.
That’s what a Keynesian left winger (like me) would want, something akin to a new Breton woods model that would redress the balance between wages and growth. Maybe use crypto instead of gold?
@@christianround2774 i don't see what is fundamentally wrong with gold. My issue with crypto is that hypothetically a cyber attack or a super duper virus could take out the entire internet and then all the crypto would be gone. Gold on the other hand doesn't fear anything, including fire, water, cyber attacks etc. Gold will probably outlast nuclear Armageddon whereas crypto is wholely dependant on our infrastructure remaining at peak operation. Hell a pretty bad solar flare that temporarily halts internet traffic for a few days could potentially disrupt the block chain so bad that it either breaks or a few people acting quickly enough could steal all the worlds crypto or some shit.
Why reinvent the wheel? We should stay on the gold standard.
@@ivan_says_hi crypto is stored locally, so it wouldn’t just disappear. The actual scientific likelyhood of an event like you are describing is pretty much 0. Modern infrastructure would never fail to that extent except for under cataclysmic world ending events, which at that point- goods matter more than any form of currency, even gold.
@@christianround2774 Crypto is the most unstable currency on earth there is literally a stock ticker for it. Fuck Breton Woods
Now THIS is a conversation.
yea but poor people are sick of "conversations".
America should have had this conversation 100 years ago.
Yeah, the clear solution for all of our troubles is to go back to a fuedal system where us regular serfs are beholden to the government to survive. Basic income for all, woo!!
Funny. It isn't the concept though. I think the idea behind the basic income is you're suppose todo whatever you want. Work, not work. I'm deeply against btw
The idea is that UBI gives each person the opportunity to decide what the best way to spend their time is. What they're good at and what is worth doing. There is no freedom without this.
Two people in the comments:
1. I heard JP say a naughty.
2. Wow that other guy made some really good points.
Yes, some pre-adolescents here think swearing is cool or edgy
Please setup a show with Peterson and Andrew Yang.
A psychologist and an economist that agree on UBI as a strong improvement of wellbeing, come together to discuss how to approach what UBI doesn't solve
@@koenigsforst_ That's something that I think Jordan Peterson is missing. A UBI would allow people to take on greater roles (and greater responsibilities) in their communities. Right now adults generally trade at least 1/4 of their time for money. If you had a guaranteed source of income that would allow to potentially free up more time to find a different, and perhaps greater, purpose in life. There are hardly any men on earth who have time for a purpose beyond being a provider for their family and it's certainly detrimental to society.
I agree. At least the discussion between Yang and Peterson would be mature and logical.
@@bdbaseball17 but you are assuming that humans are innately self-motivated.
@@whenthedustfallsaway I think humans are motivated by what they place value on, and what they place value on is determined by both themselves as individuals and by the society they are a part of. That's why I think Yang is certainly on the right track with his UBI proposal, because he wants to accompany it with a completely new approach to measuring our success as a country. We rely solely on unemployment numbers, GDP, and stock market prices to measure success instead of life expectancy, mental health, personal happiness, education, financial security, and any number of measurements that more accurately depict the qualify of life for an average American.
I would go to sleep with a light heart and happy soul if/when that happens. Two of my favorite influential figures. Come on, Joe, make it happen. Peterson and Yang episode.
OMG- a civil, intelligent, productive conversation about contentious issues!
Productive like a bull
JRE: "HELLO FREAK BITCHES"
jordanpeterson: intelligent...
Joe Rogan needs to clean his room and sort himself out
Jordan did use the F word. Joe is rubbing off on him.
@@marcusk7855 🤣🤣
"Opportunity is finite. Con games aren't." Yo, ain't that the truth
"Opportunity is finite, but congames aren't."
Opportunity is particularly finite if you're a lazy slug. Con-games might be much more tempting than hard work.
you know literally nothing about him
Dick Chuckle Birds of a feather sing the same song.
You sound like you're resentful of people who succeed. That's what I think.
Duck Knuckle I'm resentful of people who outsource their problems.
Probably one of the best and educated conversations I've seen in a while..
It can be nice when people actually let each other talk until they stop in a conversation.
@@Xamarin491 yes.. Now conversations are mostly redused to one-upmen-ship..
Defeats the whole point of communication at times..
Culturally, we need to do away with this notion that money is an objective measure of man's utility. There are many a man and woman who work much harder than I do, doing things with much more utility to society, and who get paid a fraction. We've taken the concept of a market economy, monetized that, and then monetized the monetization.
And we get upset when the government can't guarantee us more jobs in the massive ponzi scheme we find ourselves in.
Then talk to the women... who invariably judge a man's utility on his wealth (or lack thereof)
It's because without money you don't get a roof, food, respect, healthcare, transportation, and you can't buy anything (which people think equates to liberty in a Capitalist nation). I wish it was as easy as getting everyone to stop being a dick, but it's legislation that drives sociological norms whether we like it or not.
@@jeffthebracketman
Both genders can be equally judgemental when someone (usually a man) isn't independent and has some sort of wealth. It's an insult to live at your parents, it's an insult if you don't work a 9-5, it's an insult if you don't have responsibility.
@@idontfeellikeit
That's implying that your profession has anything to do with who you are as a person. How many people do what they love? Your job, more often than not, is just a means to money (not to mention all the ways to earn money now that is in no way related to "working"). The government should be creating way more jobs than it does now, there's no argument against that, sorry. It should be paying teachers more and not paying cops time and a half to direct traffic. Whether you like it or not the government is responsible for the lives of millions of people and they're not doing a good job of providing a good life for enough of them.
@@idontfeellikeit
Lmao, get off of MY high horse. That's mighty hypocritical considering you're ranting about a subjective opinions, but I digress...
You're taking everything I am saying to an extreme an using it against me, as if I said that the government should be handing out everything for people so we can all just sit on our ass and be fat. It works in childish arguments, but not in what i hoped would maybe be an intelligent discussion. Trying to make my point to you is moot because the only relevant opinion to you is your own. I suggest going to a country where people all agree with you and you are never challenged. Might have to go back 100 years to get what you want though.
I don't look at others lives. No Facebook, Twitter, Instagram etc never had. I educate myself not envy, jealousy etc. Live in the real world
My last FB post was Feb 2013. It said, "Hi guys! I'm a Dad now - don't have time for this bullshit anymore. Bye".
Smart.
The real world includes the internet, bonehead.
Social Media makes up 1% of the accessible 1% of the internet most people have access to. It's a powerful tool people still don't utilize adequately to harness its potential
@@brandongerofsky4817 fr
Peterson is a treasure. he said "fuck-that." first time for me. Love this man.
0:15
hahaha he's alright
Pretty sure he's dropped the f-bomb quite often. Just usually in context to something. It doesn't seem like it is his manner of speech, but I truly do believe that he does feels that way from time to time. He's just very, very careful with how he expresses himself.
SAME
The banks already get UBI, it's called Quantitative Easing.
Down with the bank. This would solve a lot of headache in america.
And that’s fucking horrifyingly bad idea too. The fed fucking with rates hasn’t done any good.
Quantitative easing is the result of Big Brother getting involved in the money supply. If we had a free market gold standard like we're supposed to we wouldn't have the crazy man made inflation that we do now. However just because one big government scheme is bad, quantitative easing, doesn't mean that another big government scheme is good, Universal basic income. We need to ditch that horrible idea as well as get rid of the Federal Reserve and return to a gold standard.
You don't understanding QE. What you mean to say is Corporatists/Capitalists have deficit spending and institutional access to tax schemes that cheat the American society while racking up trillions in National Debt all in the name of corporate profits for the shareholder class. Give the money back to the People!
That's not, at all, what quantitative easing is.
Interestingly, the route to this more calibrated world they speak of would likely be very mundane, somewhat gradual, and would provide news companies very few headlines.
Perfection.
😜
"UBI is a horrible idea" while offering no other solutions...
@@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler He has mentioned other potential solutions before. EG there is a huge shortfall of carers of various types in most western countries. You do not need to be Einstein to help physically disabled people with cooking and cleaning etc. One estimate I saw was that there was a shortfall of in excess of 6 million hours in just the UK. If UBI was set at £100 but you had to earn it through being a carer and minimum wage was £10 then that would mean 600,000 unemployed people at least partly employed. The real issue is that mechanisation has taken far more jobs than immigration ever has. EG the car industry in the UK produces about the same number of cars as it did in the 70's.. There were in excess of 40,000 sprayers alone. Now the number of sprayers working for Toyota is 5. The total number of people working in the car industry is less than 20,000. Checkout staff are another classic example. These days in my local small supermarket there are usually no more than 2 checkouts open and the rest go through self scan. News stands dont exist anymore. What is also needed is a huge injection of cash into general STEM research. Keeping someone on state benefits for unemployment costs the taxpayer around £1000 per week (I can provide figures for this). That's significantly more than a post doctoral researcher in the first few years of research. The whole situation is nuts.
Truth 🔥
its amazing to watch this 3 years down the line and to hear what Jordan Peterson has to say. His take on the situation is exactly what is taking place in South Africa today. Its like he is talking about RSA but without mentioning its name.
anywhere, anytime
I thought Bret Weinstein was more insightful and eloquent than Peterson, but it was not a competition. It is certainly refreshing and intellectually titillating to see thoughtful people discussing issues in a rational way in an attempt to get to the fundamental truth and relevance therein. Rogan in his role acts as the catalyst for the discussion by guiding the thrust of topics and encouraging and dissuading certain lines of inquiry. Nice job all. It is quite a scary time we live in knowing how far from the norm this type of rationality is, the monumental and multifaceted nature of the dangers we face, and the fragmenting of social norms giving rise to group-think and mob mentality. It is hard to see a safe way through and out to the other side without first suffering some major calamity such as ecological collapse or nuclear war.
I keep hearing from progressives that there is some great awakening of consciousness taking place but I don't see it. We have been hearing that since the sixties anyway. What I do see is a great and growing understanding of just how manipulated and screwed the masses of humanity have been, continue to be, and through technology will ever more so be. Unfortunately, this understanding takes myriad forms depending on how it is perceived and from what ideological social viewpoint it is received. The response, therefore, will commiserate with the perception and so lead to growing conflict.
Pablo Ucan I wonder if you can get this same sense of mental awakening and expanding, coupled with substantial intellectual stimulation for enhancement...in a Jake Paul video?..........
I'll show myself out now...
I didn't mention any mental awakening that I am aware of but Jake Paul would not likely provide that in any event.
Pablo Ucan all intellectual Jews make convoluted arguments that simply act as a goalie blocking your view of the real problem: Jews.
Don't fall for their bullshit.
Pablo Ucan I have to disagree about Bret his last argument he even said wasn’t based on evidence but just a feeling that a large fraction of the market is running a Con, I’m paraphrasing. I don’t think that it is appropriate for a scholar to make an argument they can’t support with facts especially if they are in the position to spread those argument to students. Now it is fine to hypothesize but before making statements on that hypothesis you need evidence. Sorry I know that wasn’t really your point and I got carried away a little.
Funny, I thought the opposite. Peterson always comes across so clear, even when he is just spit-balling an argument that he hasn't fully developed yet. Weinstein seemed so unclear and obfuscated and didn't seem to be bringing facts to the table. I know Weinstein just settled for a big pile of money from Evergreen and has the resources to do the media circuit for a while, but I predict he will fade away due to his lack of clarity while Peterson continues to grow in popularity.
Research on UBI shows that very few people who stay on it do not take actions to advance themselves on the job market. People work harder and become more entrepreneurial when they are not stuck in a cycle of poverty.
That's because now they have enough resources to do anything beyond simply trying not to starve to death.
@@renanfelipedossantos5913 or limit themselves for fear of losing benefits.
Starve to death in a nation of obesity
@@eksadiss old topic bra
Constantine Kramarenko Yeah, you’re right. The issue is that those same studies admit the following:
- UBI would increase prices thus reducing the purchasing power of money.
- UBI depends on a massive almost total reduction of welfare, something that’s deeply improbable, and unpopular.
- UBI would probably trigger deficits that would neutralize or destroy the supposed benefit.
Wait did Peterson drop an F bomb holy shit 0:16
Wow he must have just been really passionate
Second time I have heard him drop an F bomb
he is Canadian. its part of the Canadian vocabulary.
Tom Hewitt go watch a tv show called the trailer park boys or go to a hockey game trust me that whole polite no cussing atitude is only pushed by mainstream media
Influence from his company in the podcast room. Nothing wrong with that though.
THE most competent discussion I have ever heard on this subject that didn't follow extreme ideologies and politicize it. I wish the news media knew how to foster this kind of discussion. The world would be a better place.
Jordan Peterson: f*** it
Me: **caveman spongebob meme*
What Peterson was saying is why I find the idea of Star Trek's Federation so interesting. Money has become obsolete in that fictional world, the vast majority of humans don't want or care about money because basic needs are catered for, you have replicators to feed and clothe yourself, you have Holodeck's for entertainment, the ability to travel and, most importantly, a career that makes you feel useful and gives your life meaning. Money not required.
You ever read the Star Trek chronology? You read about what the human race went through before the Federation was established?
Whats interesting is that you *BOTH* have excellent points that I agree 100% with.... Simultaneously.
The "Star Trek" argument again? You do realize it is science fiction? Actually, if you really want to geek out on it and delve deeper into Star Trek lets: The replicators were used on spaceships where they don't have farmland. Therefore can't raise crops or cattle. Prior to replicators you have sophisticted food storage methods like we do in the army with MRE's --however you do wind up with an issue of limited storage space for both food and waste on a space ship. Also, replicators were powered by energy in the form of mythological dilithium crystals. Often episodes of Star Trek and other sci-fi shows were written with "insert techno-babble here" in the scrips. And I am not kidding. Thus techno-babble is no way to build a sustainable economy. So the massive energy it takes to "replicate" food and other stuff was not something that people on Earth would do...that would be enormously wasteful. And being good stewards of the environment, Star Trek people would not waste energy.
Lastly, the everybody gets the job they feel would be useful is also a Utopian fantasy. Have you ever worked a job? I wonder. Consider Fry from Futurama. He was a pizza delivery boy before he got frozen and woke up in the future...to be a delivery boy, the job he was most suited to. What if you don't WANT to be a delivery boy? What if you would prefer to be the captain of the Starship Enterprise? Well, not everybody will be chosen to do that, so some level of resentment is going to be built in to the human experience. The concept of communism will never work because even with a society with no money, there will still be a concept of things that people value. Without a motivation, people don't reach for their full potential. That is why communism always fails.
James Keyes Communism, as originally defined, has never even been tried anywhere.
People tend to forget how vague and reactionary the Communist Manifesto was. All the details are pretty sketchy, and defined more by their effects than by their methods. Marxist communism was a materialistic criticism of 19th century industrial working conditions, but it wasn't a coherent set of proposals for an alternative, as people tend to think of it.
Communism, at that time, didn't need a plan, as communism was never envisioned as a planned movement, never intended to be a choice, never meant to be the result of any sort of centralized decision making process. Marx deliberately contrasted his critical, reactionary, specific, materialistic analysis he used with command economies, which he called "utopian socialism."
Marx predicted that communism would be an outgrowth of capitalism, the apotheosis of progress, and result in the withering away of the state and the abandonment of class distinctions. He believed that communism would grow naturally and inevitably out of the free market, without any sort of planning or coordination, not that it would co-exist with and act as a competitor to the free market.
The most capitalistic countries of the day, namely the United States, because they were farthest along in the dialectical process, would, he thought, become the most communistic of tomorrow, spearheading the movement. He cheered on the American Civil War, as he saw the emanicipation of slavery as part of that dialectical process and as a sign of the US's transition to communism.
If you believe in the historical dialectic, and define "communism" as whatever the 19th century capitalistic countries (as typified by Robber Baron-era America) have since evolved into, then the most successful communist country in the world right now would be, ironically enough, the United States... There actually was a worldwide series of civil rights protests and revolts around 1848 that culminated in the Japan's meiji restoration, the women's rights movement, and the simultaneous end of slavery in those few remained countries that still had it (Brazil, Thailand, the US).
The revolution wasn't televised, so not many people know about it, but Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm wrote a good book about it, The Age of Revolution.
As it happened, contrary to what Marx predicted, openly "communist" parties haven't actually come to power in any really industrially-advanced countries. They mostly win out in feudalistic dictatorships (like Czarist Russia and Qing China) or former colonies (like Cuba and Moldova). What they with these countries would probably be unrecognizable to the original 19th century communist sympathizers.
If communism in the original sense exists anywhere in the world, it's not going by the name "communism." What's calling itself "communism" these days is closer to the "utopian socialism" that Marx so disdained. However, there are a few states that call themselves communist that had or have relatively enlightened policies. As best I can tell, those states are Vietnam, Nicaragua, and China post-Mao. Now, keep in mind, I'm saying "relatively." Each of these are pretty dysfunctional in their own way, but they're still doing better than the average "communist" country
The "Communism has never been tried correctly argument" is invalid. Making such supportive statements is truly immoral. As if to encourage it to be tried again and again. Communism has been tried and failed. Many times. All we get to show for it is 100 million murders. Anyone who doesn't roundly condemn communism for the pure evil that it is, but instead equivocates is an enabler. Not only do you dishonor the over 100 million people murdered by communism and a billion more enslaved by it, but to add insult to injury you allow for it to be tried again, because the rest of us dummies couldn't get it right, so we need to just try to do it your way.
We all knew Jordan was smart as fuck, but this Bret Weinstein dude is fucking awesome.
RB5Network yeah I think they're a great combo
They should have their own "Window". So I can stare into it and think I should have worked harder at school :)
Yeah, Weinstein is a genius.
Jonas Lindberg lmao
Eric is even better imo
I like how Peterson and Shapiro both basically chalked the issues up to the sense of purpose. It’s 100% true.
Peterson said"people would become resentful if they feel the game is fixed"...#gamestonk
Not "if they feel" it's "if they figure out"
@@myview9923 actually it's not necessary to figure out, you can perceive game is fixed and that's enough to feed the resentment, there's plenty of Social Justice Warriors feeding resentment and using it in theyr own benefit
Pretty much everyone I know admires wealthy people who got there by producing something of value. The kind of wealthy people that people don't like are the ones that either got there or remain wealthy by pushing down on working people. Most people do not like CEOs that did not start the company, don't produce anything of value, slash everyone's benefits and pay, try to outsource everything, exercise their stock options,, and then leave with a golden parachute worth millions after they get fired. Most people do not like the wealthy people that ran the big banks that were living like kings when the economy was booming and then ended up getting bailed out when the economy crashed by the only people that we hate more than them, politicians. Working people do not want to be lectured on how lazy and worthless they are by a bunch of parasites that are not treated as such only because they are getting paid to be parasites.
The irony is that the parasites are the ones who are all Ayn Rand evangelists.
@@itWouldBeWise How so?
Problem is, the "American Dream" doesnt differentiate. In the US, just being succesful is all that matters - everything else is second. Thats the problem.
@@PLF... success is a pipe dream and completely subjective. Success to me would be to not have to worry all the time if I'll have a place to live next month or not. One crap job after another and the only ones that is me well pay me as a contractor. I give 30% of that to the government every year for my troubles. So yeah, Ubi will work for me, personally. Let bezos worry about bounced checks for a few months
@@MrZatyro suddenly rents get 1000 bunks more expensive and everything else gets even more expensive as everyobe is literally given. 1k Wow no worries dude wow it is okay let just increase UBI until all the problems of the first world goes away
It is really interesting watching this with the riots in the States...
Yeah!
Yeah, it's the same argument. There's a percentage of corrupted police(the rich) so we will take away the whole police system(the rich). Like what you going to replace that? Kindless? If kindness work in the first place, police won't even exist.
@@timon20061995 Look at CHAZ. They´ll replace it with anarchy.
Not just in USA in London we have looting and rioting too 👎
@@shanahaim5935 Yeah because these radicals think they live in a rascist and oppresive system. These riots aren´t really motivated by economics.
2023 and Jordan Peterson has changed so much. I miss this version.
Best line from Peterson I ever heard "Men who are men don't need money, they need function". The only problem is men who are men want women who are women and they do need money.
Loved this take even if its unpopular
Well said!
Female mate selection is a massive driver for what men do.
And the corruption in female dating these days is a major problem.
A man who desires to support his family will perceive that he needs money.
@@Invert_Scrub Thats why I never got married or had kids...my lack of stress is so rare I feel survivor's guilt.
@@overimagination2812 😂😂😂😂
Who's here in June 2020, realizing these nerds are spitting prophesy?
Nerds? He's a Harvard professor. I don't think that classifies as being a "nerd"
@@razzakksa yeah thats a nerd allright
razzakksa definitely a nerd
Not prophesy, it's not hard to conclude these things from studying history. His viewpoint I disagree with. But he presents the facts somewhat
@@razzakksa top of the dominance hierarchy of nerds fundamentally
Jordan Peterson dropping an F bomb for once! I love it!
Timestamp?
@@shiskeyoffles You're Sherlock Holmes, figure it out bro
@@shiskeyoffles 0:15
@@junior.69420 hahahahahha
If you want to know the answers to the economy, ask Dr Thomas Sowell. He's done extensive studies on that subject. He addresses this issue better than these two do. Dr Peterson is on the right path, but Dr Sowell has fine tuned it.
Thomas Sowell is just another grifter
@Vlad Xavier Why do you assume that bureaucrats obeying capital interests isn't itself a part of capitalism? Why is it good for capitalists to pursue their rational self-interests at all costs, but when a politician pursues _their_ self-interest by selling out, it's a bad thing?
"The executive of the modern state is nothing but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie." -- Karl Marx
The state and private interests are two sides of the same capitalist mode of production. You need central authority to enforce private property, and you need capital to make authority effective in the first place. The power of one depends on the power of the other. The government isn't "strangling" the economy, it has always been doing what the economy needs it to do. It was corrupt from the moment it began to exist. Governmental power isn't useful at all unless you can use it to cash out.
I'll never understand why its considered greedy for me to keep what I have worked for but it's not considered greedy for someone else to take it from me.
because sadly you dont live alone in the woods which means you a part of a bigger society and if you dont want the poor running over your country you better start thinking differently
but on the other side you also got the back from the society you live in if your time (or your loved ones) get bad
so you dont get an existential crisis after 1 bad event in your live
and history shows clearly what happens with wealth inequality
@@yoruichixx6951 you just ran circles around yourself to justify theft.
@@em3sis so its not theft if the rich are fuckibg the poor and paying them shit?
you live in a human society shithead if you only take people are gonna steal
open history books shithead
french revolution
@@yoruichixx6951 your language is a clear indicator of where you are in life. What entry level position are you working in? People think they can work at a gas station their whole life and make a career out of it. Get some people skills.
Exactly how are the rich "fucking" the poor? Have you seen the work ethic of the average employee? It's dog shit. Idiot kids would rather play fortnite than take an economics class. Fathers and mothers are neglecting their children. Schools are prioritizing dogma over useful curriculum.
And your solution is what exactly? UBI? That won't solve anything. You'll just be artificially raising the floor for entitlement.
@@em3sis "
And your solution is what exactly? "
doesnt matter the last resort solution will be some rich people will get headless
thats what history says
it doesnt matter what your values are
it doesnt mater how you feel
ethics also dont matter
at the moment people are desperate and hungry people gonna steal
shit to be a human aint it, caring and stuff
thats so gay
wealth inequality will get people outside and kill people who have money
thats the reality, and i dont care what the solution is
im just telling you how that will play out
if noone presents any solution
but your conservative ass doesnt understand that concept its to difficult to understand for the average american
because even understanding the reasoning behind universal healthcare is so god damn socialistic
that you rather pay way more in privat insurance then paying less in taxes
its funny because thats exactly how an insurance works
exactly the same
"It's hard to light a candle, easy to curse the dark instead."
lighting a candle isn't that hard, just most people don't got a match.
@@unluckycloverfield4316 most people don't have a candle.
@@unluckycloverfield4316 oh and the quote is intended when this was the method. i.etsystatic.com/14435134/r/il/18960b/1554153907/il_570xN.1554153907_7zg7.jpg
@@stimpsonjcat67 it's metaphor right. Doesnt matter how you light the candle, my point was many people lack resources.
Shiddd I like Nightwish too. "this moment the dawn of humanity, last ride of the day"
my sincere hope is that people don't take out of this podcast what they 'want' to take out of this podcast
You hope for what never was, and never will be. People who hold an idea on faith will do so regardless of any argument or evidence to the contrary.
I take out of it that communism is bad.
I have watched this podcast and have considered it. This problem is very simple. There's two classes of people in our economy today. There's those who live on commission, and there's those who live on fixed income paid by those who live on commission. For me, either everyone lives on commission of some kind, or this problem continues.
Eddie 7000 This is a good interpretation of a solution to the problem. Have a jug of Brawndo on the house!
"inequality drives crime"... "the problem isnt that people dont have enough money"....wait what?
Conversation like this needs to be protected at all costs.
Jordan Peterson is such a breath of fresh air of an intellectual conversation.
UBI will eliminate large part of the pressure of merely survival and support the need for creative expression and personality/mental care, I personally think an universal basic income will be the next big evolution in economy. And rightfully so. People who are not struggling to survive are happier, and happier people are better and more productive members of society. Just my 2 cents.
Merely surviving is not fun, progressing and thriving is fun. UBI that covers just the simplest levels of wealth does not curb ambition and wants, but it gives a safety net for taking risks and going after opportunity, given opportunity is present. UBI is not inherently bad, but like Peterson said, opportunity is what's neccesary to actually solve the problem completely. Therefore UBI in conjunction with increased opportunity is a viable solution.
Finland tested that and the results were not good. People with ubi were happy, but less willing to seek jobs. Being productive was never a matter of happiness, but necessity or at least social pressure.
Noone that advocates for UBI ever solved the issue of inevitable inflation and till that one is solved I ain't even listening to the "hypothetical happyness of its recipients".
@@bakpfeife2224 The last decade in the west was spend trying to fight deflation. I think that was the right time to try any of this policies that are getting rejected based on inflation issues. Higher minimum wage, UBI, etc.
@@ivofena83 I mean the EU has basically almost no Inflation and they are doing pretty decent so we are talking about different wests. And trying out those policies never helped to reach the goals even in the Finnland tests....but ya still didn't even really adress a potential solution to the inflation problem so ima stop here.
Add Andrew Yang to this conversation and I can't help but feel we might get to a workable solution. Love that they are talking about real problems that we are STILL experiencing.
0:15 the rare Jordan Peterson "fuck it"
Fuck is one of the most used words in Canadian vocabulary, along with bud, buddy, right, and eh.
@@JesusFriedChrist man I wish I was Canadian! ❤️ I’ve never seen a Canadian that didn’t seem to have a high IQ ❤️ They all seem so much wiser and calmer than so many of us down here 😂.
I love how the Category tag on this video is “Comedy” 😂
Dylan Browder if you aren’t laughing then you don’t get it
Well well, so it is😁
The thing about UBI that I found enlightening is that it's leveraging on basic human instinct that is inherently capitalistic: most people won't get enough with basic income. If someone fell down to poverty level, they would lose hope and become a burden to society. But if they're given enough money to stand on their own feet, to be able to afford basic stuffs, they surely wouldn't stay that way. They would want to achieve and earn more. That would motivate them to be more capitalistic, to learn more skills and earn more money. UBI is just a stepping stone for people to achieve and earn more in life, and ultimately, to make them contribute more to the society. It's not enough to just give them freedom of opportunity to make more innovators, you'll also need to give them a little bit of taste of money, so that they're more motivated to innovate and learn skills and get down to work.
right and one of the more practical, realistic ways of widening that area of opportunity is giving people that "money cushion" in which they can stand on. Basically, in our society some are born with longer ladders to get the apples while others have ladders that a tiny fraction of that size too short to even bother reaching for the apples.
They surely wouldn’t stay that way is a big hopeful guess. I’m not saying UBI wouldn’t work I just don’t think surely they wouldn’t stay that way is a reason for it to work.
No not true. I have a family member that keeps falling back again and again on government assistants he cant support his family.
@@marge3477 He needs it because he literally can't support his family or he doesn't have his act together and is being a leech.
Nathan Slocum vbvot v v
Peterson and Yang don’t actually disagree on anything. They both identify that run away inequality will upend the system. They both understand that UBI is a bandaid.
TheHzh82 No. Yang considers UBI the first step...
I'm wondering what you think Peterson would consider the root cause then? Because to me the end goal is socialism/communism, and ubi is just a band-aid/first step towards that. Based on how Yang has talked, I don't think he necessarily views UBI as a band-aid, he's made many comments kinda disavowing socialism.
not really. I dont know how you got that out of this interview, other than you have a cognitive bias. He simply said that run-away inequality will destroy that society, but he NEVER said we have that in the present. Then he goes on a intellectual rant on IQ. I agree with him. That rant leads towards welfare, not UBI. UBI helps everyone, while welfare helps those, most of which have a low IQ, who have slipped through the cracks. Huge Difference but whatever. You, dumb fuckers, get so married to ideas its not worth discussing. By the way, I think UBI is a good system, however interrupting, or misrepresenting, someones words is not what any system should be built on.
yeah.. they both ask the right question... the solution we can debate and argue later
it's not a bandaid it's a god damn tourniquet
I remember watching this whole podcast; Best one in Rogan's library!
The daryl davis one is my favorite
0:14 First time I've heard Peterson swear in my whole life that's crazy
The argument for universal basic income, at the end of the day, is really about artificial intelligence. It's going to replace most jobs in the next 100 years. What does that do to society when the bottom 80% aren't needed?
Exactly. ubi is a question of time.
Jonathan Greete you don’t know what AI is then. Yes it will takes ages until it’s here, distant future, but as said a question of time. AI can literally replace every single job in existence. Every product would exist without the need of a human. So only consumers are left.
Work no longer will be a necessity but rather something that will help fulfill our desires. Like some sort of Hobby. People for sure will still like contact with real people, maybe they don’t want to be served by a robot in a restaurant for example. So yes, there will he work, but it will serve a different purpose than today.
It’s a complicated topic and difficult to foresee how this will go, but it’s certain a lot will have to change.
That’s only the end result, a lot will happen gradually. Ubi seems to be an obvious thing along the way in this context.
@@jgreete You're grossly underestimating the difference between AI and things like steam power or animal husbandry. It doesn't need to be a general artificial intelligence to replace most jobs. Truly dynamic problem solving will be secure for a while longer, but how many jobs actually require that?
@@jgreete Technology advances almost exponentially. In the past, if your job became obsolete, you could retrain yourself and do another job for 20 to 30 years and further your qualifications at a pace that is humanly possible. Now, as the pace of advancements increase, this might mean that your expensive degree or qualification might be obsolete in 10, possibly 5 years. On top of that, there will be downward pressure on wages as masses of people are laid off and enter into professions that are still safe from automation. We absolutely will need to tax automation in some way, otherwise the system will become unsustainable for humans.
When AI takes over the majority of jobs in approx. 300-500 years from now, people will need UBI and most people will go on Soma vacations (in the virtual world) all the time. Read George Orwell - he predicted this! What a genius. But right now, it’s still too early to discuss UBI.
This has been done as an experiment in Saskatchewan in a couple of communities and they found that entrepreneurial behavior rose because people were not bound to a particular job to survive. The same holds true for universal health insurance as people's access to health care is not tied to their employment, they are free to go to a different job or start their own business without fear of the loss of health coverage. That explains why countries like Denmark are more entrepreneurial than the US and have higher rates of social mobility.
the statement "when people have their basic needs met, it leaves them open to pursue higher education and do entrepreneurial stuff" is so obvious that it hurts to say. And aren't conservatives supposed to be all about the economy and small business?
That’s the altruistic side of the coin. And it’s a valid argument. The problem is that it’s usually put forth by UBI proponents who choose to ignore the other side of that coin which is that unearned comfort breeds indolence and any number of other pathologies that go with it. So, hypothetically, for every entrepreneur you unshackle from their menial, soul-killing job, you’re also going to create another societal parasite.
@@WhiskeySam1 Okay. The keyword in your argument is "hypothetically". Many other countries have done this. You don't end up with a significant number of people who just leech. Believe it or not, not doing anything ever and just getting a check every week is not a very fun way to live. A few really sad individuals will inevitably just be content to eat instant ramen noodles and bottled water for the rest of their life, living in a one-room studio apartment. But humans don't just stop doing stuff as soon as our basic needs are met. Most people, now with the burden off their backs, will get that college education they never had time for (free college) and then, with a good higher education, pursue a real job, maybe a craft, maybe an accounting job, maybe a research job. Now that they have a reliable, well-paying job and a good education, they can be weaned off the UBI, and they start paying higher taxes as they climb up the social ladder, paying back their debt to society, and their tax money will soon be used for another person. Would you be content to not do any of that and just stay at the bare minimum for the rest of your life? I doubt it.
@@WhiskeySam1 dude living in a dirty one-room apartment eating nothing but instant ramen and fast food is hardly comfort
Vanad1um That simply isn’t so. We have mountains of data that show people tend to stay on unemployment (which is essentially temporary UBI) until it runs out. Finland had a 2 year study on this which showed people were no more likely to pursue work when given unconditional UBI benefits. Your assertion that overwhelming percentages of would be UBI recipients are productive entrepreneurs just waiting for some free time to suddenly become productive just flies in the face of observed social science data over decades. There’s a conditional argument to be made in favor of UBI, but the idea that you’ll get more productive workers than takers isn’t one of them. There are millions of Americans whose basic needs are met: housing, transportation, food, medical care who chose not to work. We’re seeing this play out in real time as I type this with the COVID unemployment benefits. Employers can’t get people to come back to work.
A dirty apartment can and should be cleaned, but shelter over ones head and food to eat is the definition of comfort. It isn’t luxury by any means, but there’s also no acute pressure or discomfort either.
Honestly Brett jumps to the evolutionary response way to quickly on some of these social issues. It's true that an evolutionary analogy can be drawn, but he forgets that biological evolution is not the orchestrator of the more complex social behaviours of humans, just the origin of them.
Maybe, but what other informed position should he take considering his background?
It’s interesting because earlier in this podcast, they all agreed on a particular point about someone’s degree of motivation and creativity that is influenced by being lower on the socioeconomic ladder, and that some of the greatest entrepreneurs started from almost nothing. But the key is that they still had something, as Weinstein clarified (I.e. their basic needs were met and they likely had a stable family and childhood).
I get Peterson’s point, that young people, particularly young men, need meaning purpose and fulfillment in life in order to be functioning and thriving human beings, but I disagree with his initial point that UBI would dissuade people from being able to discover that purpose on their own. In fact I think that Peterson could be convinced that UBI may actually be the key to helping the majority of society discover greater meaning and purpose because it gives them just enough to meet their basic needs (I.e. equality of opportunity) but not so much that no one feels motivated to do more for themselves.
Regardless, I think Peterson could definitely be YangGang in the near term future, mostly because Yang rejects identity politics and is more focused on equality of opportunity than outcomes. Less government bureaucracy, which was the crux of Yang’s critique of Bernie.
7:20 Thats the main issue i personally have with our system. I dont demand socialist welfare, redistribution or whatever. All i want is a fair game. But the fact is that the whole game is rigged. It starts with our monetary / financial system. Politicians are bought and pair for. Elections are rigged. We have revolving doors everywhere. Pay for plays. The bigger the government got the bigger the breading ground for corruption and special interests to take over got. And it got MUCH BIGGER, way too big! Competition is prevented, regulations hurt upcoming companies and favor existing big players. Just look at big pharma or your health care system in the U.S. But it effects pretty much everything! The amount of corruption increased so much, the amount of legislation that is made favoring special interests got so huge (they are basically writing the legislation themselves), that there is little to no legislation that is actually in the interest of the individual. Thats why the inequality feels so painful since the sense that the game is rigged and that it is a big club and you and i ain't in it is more and more blatantly true.
The ONLY way to fix this, is by reducing government. By freeing the free market. By cutting back regulations. By limiting governments powers (as they should be according to the constitution). By putting a stop to revolving doors and industry big players regulating themselves. No more handouts or subsidies. By reducing the breeding ground for corruption. Imagine a government that can't offer you special favors. A government where special interests could lobby as much as they want but government wouldn't have the power and authority to do shit. What would happen? Would there still be super pacs and bought and paid for politicians? Would there still be dozens of lobbyists for every politician? Would special interest groups still try to get their food in the door and have revolving doors? No of course not, since there would be no incentive to do so, since there is nothing to gain. We need a small, lean and mostly powerless government, that does not interfere in the free market, that does not "stimulate" the economy. That does not prevent competition in any way or form. That does not hand out favors, subsidies or anything of that sort. Government is supposed to be the referee not an active player. The founding fathers gave you a republic... if you can keep it. We clearly lost it.
@Cristoph Egger - you sound like one of those guys...what was their names....Washington, Jefferson, Adams and a few others - mind you they had one caveat and that was that the people had to be morally upright or else there was no hope. Replacing corrupt govt with corrupt robber barons doesn't work too well either....If you haven't read them you might enjoy The Federalist Papers - www.thefederalistpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/The-Complete-Federalist-Papers.pdf Those guys made a lot of sense..................
I agree with your premise, but not with your conclusion. I think we are at a point right now that if we just got rid of regulation, all of the big fish would eliminate the competition that the free market brings.
So completely well said.
Unfortunately, the mentality that government should intervene in everything, is the mathematical certainty of disaster on the horizon, along with, deep state corruption within government itself. Yikes.
Whilst i agree with the first part i feel yoi got a little off base at the end, sliding off into a sort of "right wing republicans have the answer."
Neither party has the answer, and the founding fathers didnt found a perfect state. No one political party or movement is The American Option, and we need to try different things to weigh the pros and cons of different ideology.
@@daanmollema6366 I think you miss understood. As it is, both parties increase government all the time, hence the problem getting bigger, corruption and special interests getting more dominant. Its just that under democrats they actually advocate for big government to fix problems government created in the first place. The left wants more government and is open about it. The right wants small government but NEVER actually makes it smaller... it only slightly increases under them. Its like choosing between the lesser of two evils.
There is no political party that actually wants to reduce and limit government. This will never happen. Why would they wanna eat themselves? They would do anything to prevent it and fight with all they got to make sure we the people would never unite and see the elephant in the room.
Money out of politics
This comment should have the most upvotes. It is the only way to take any step forward.
Tanmay Patel we'll leave it to the New York Times to tell us who to vote for
Exactly this! Doesn't matter if it's George Soros or the Koch Brothers, get their money out of politics!
Wrong. Simply disable the Government from having so much authority on the markets and people's lives and any amount of money in politics will not make much difference. The right to donate your money to politicians is no different from the right to free speech in principle.
Then get politics out of money.
Thank you for this I’ve literally come to many of these realisations myself and although I’m put out that these ideas aren’t just my own grandiose thinking… they have been well fleshed out already and I’m grateful to learn and incorporate these ideas and your perspectives into my argument/proposal…
Wonderful lesson in the art of debating too, great video!
Pretty soon you are going to see that fast food restaurants have suddenly replaced a majority of their workforce with robots and AI. And rest assured, it will happen very rapidly once the tech reaches a certain level, which is already imminent. Once McDonalds has stopped hiring minimum wage employees, the trend will already be on the way in every business sector. Something like 30-50% of job opportunities will just completely cease to exist.
Now you need to consider the impact on the economy. The current model can't possibly stay in operation. Something will give, and it all comes crashing down. What worries me most is none of the politicians are really talking about the situation. It's as if they want to keep us in the dark for just a little longer. So that when people finally realize what is going on, it's already too late for them to have prepared any personal safety net plans.
I think it's a bit scary to think our leaders could somehow be so oblivious to the immediate future. But then it's even more scary to think they are just playing along and keeping their own plan hidden...
You're entire comment is 100% correct, and I know you're being coy at the end. They are old but arent stupid, and they have plenty of people working for them telling them this stuff. Why would they care if we eventually got replaced by machines? Only reason why they keep us around is to produce goods and services for them...robots will be able to also. For relatively free
If 30%-50% of the economy could no longer be employed, they would HAVE to get some kind of basic income... otherwise the ones with jobs would soon be unemployed too because 30%-50% of their customers have no income!
@@AmericanDash no they wouldnt. Why would they need us if machines can do everything that the working class does? It would end up being the next civil war when people start getting hungry
@@tRapdontRap You just proved his point though? If there's no working class, which is the bulk of consumers, there is no economy.
AI will replace a lot of people in software development and engineering as well. It's going to be far more than just minimum wage. There are few jobs that can't be replaced by technology, and looking at recent advances this stuff will be happening in the next 5 years.
*My fear about this is that this is exactly the conditions that are going to trigger tribal population again population mayhem*
2020 here.
Oof.
Bret had the point about changing market metrics... no one (of power) listened.
Try 2021 South Africa
I don’t think I’ve gasped at someone saying “fuck” since middle school but JP got it out of me there lol
Oversimplification and no communication is the real problem - I completely agree with JP
Obfuscation isn't the antidote
"fuck it" - Dr. Jordan "Pepe" Peterson
Luis F.R. Good Lordy! My virgin ears!
It's always jarring to hear him drop f-bombs XD
The rarest of pepe f-bombs
Peterson is actually for UBI. As is Andrew Yang. But both explain their positions from very different perspectives
Maybe if you only watch this video. But Peterson has been clear that Ubi can be a path to take but it will never solve the problem alone.
If JP is for UBI then why did he say he thinks it’s a horrible idea?
@@thekensilva you dont have to think something is a great or even a good idea to admit that it just might work or help if the circumstance calls for it.
@@thekensilva he says it's a horrible idea as a be-all-end-all. which he is very correct about. if you listen to andrew yang he says basically the same thing--that men without a sense of purpose almost invariably self-destruct. yang sees ubi as a necessary stepping stone to a solution. jordan peterson would probably agree that it's not perfect but it's necessary.
@@typoded I wouldn't say neccesary, but rather a viable possibility.
I FREAKIN LOVE THIS CONVERSATION! The level of intellectual engagement and just calm, and reasonable discussion is so good. Just great stuff. Glad I have a phone that plugs me into these discussions and helps me learn to articulate things like this.
Who's here after Reddit crashed Wallstreet?
Wall Street is part of the unproductive economy
People tend to be just as satisfied with a favorable result from an unfair process as a negative result from a fair process. But perception is everything.
I'm normally quite critical of Peterson's opinions, but I have to say that this was a well reasoned discussion. I appreciate how the positioning of the arguments are about consensus rather than division.
Perhaps you were more open to his ideas and arguments here because he more openly and overtly called out conservative thinking, which perhaps runs contrary to your perception that others have created that JBP is a conservative? The thing is, Peterson very often seeks consensus rather than division, it's just that those who benefit from more division want to paint him as some crazy right wing boogy man. He's not.
@Blake D. True. Jordan is also far from a real conservative. He’s more liberal but like the old liberals I would say
I like Peterson's arguments normally but here thinks he's leaning way too hard into people needing purpose to contribute into society. Yeah, that's also important, and he's one of my favourites simply for being one of the few to acknowledge that, but it's a much lower hierarchy of need than basic survival. I totally see the positions of people like Yang who believe that, without having to worry about survival, people will have the mental freedom to really thrive.
And knowing how most government stimulus programs work, it's not like people living off UBI are exactly laughing their way to the bank; the government WILL find a way to give us the bare minimum we need to not die from lack of food and shelter (and rightfully so - it's taxpayer money), and it'll be on us to supplement our lifestyle with work, same as always.
Guess I need to learn how to program AI or repair Robots.
It may not be as difficult as you think.....
Educating yourself to make yourself a more valuable asset instead of blaming another for your station in life? You have failed at being a leftist.
Yep
@@zarategabe coding is also not as easy as some say it is
That wont work ai is self learning and robots will repair robots we are still outsiide the loop
The typical way we have always handled wealth inequality is through estate taxation. The problem is that we have overcomplicated our tax code and have weakened our society through a lack of morals, ethics, and self discipline.
identity politics needs to stop, generalizing and making sides to every fucking issue is tiresome, you're a person not a soldier in the left or right wing lol
what else should you do then.. it needs to be done eventually.
What else do you do? Try *thinking* instead of assigning "Left" or "Right" to every issue.
Unfortunately the "left " is who started assigning sides (and continues to do so) to everything as fast and wide as they can possibly manage for no gainful purposes other than to define everything that is not of their particular view/side of reality as wrong and bad even when it's easily seen to be any and everything but.
Once that single sided social sect bias source issue is fixed we as a whole of society can start to move forward in a positive way again.
This man, thank you.
"The left are the problem..... We need to stop pointing fingers." Good one.
"Idiot process of polarization"
Both sides guilty of this, really.
The best part of this clip is how it ended. "Nothing from you guys? Ok. Cool."
Who else feels like they may have been hypnotized by the pendulum in the background?