Excellent. I think the book correctly identifies the major problems but is too timid in suggested solutions. A bit like the current Labour government. But I do worry we are in a doom loop of decline this country.
Don't worry, it ain't going to change until it completely unravels and people die. "Once all hope is gone you ain't got anything to worry about." - Cactus Ed
Well, if that is the case, then the supposed intelligence of our species isn't worth much! Maybe we are just glorified ChatGPTs hallucinating just a little more convincingly 😂 But, until all hope is indeed gone, I'll keep on being optimistic that we can find a path through this mess 😀
This is my sentiment too. Media, government, billionaires, and public ignorance have been conspiring against progress for decades and thing will have to collapse before there’s any chance for people to recognize the problems that need fixing.
@@TennesseeJed Some of us are more sapient than others but we are also being fed bad information and deprived of proper education. How much better would the world be if we were immunized against lies and disinformation campaigns?
The change we need to make is in the workplace itself. We need to democratize the economy so that we can actually have real democracy in politics. Why we have artificially confined democracy to the political sphere I'll never know. It's ironic that the revolutionary move we need to make is right under our nose in the organization of the workplace not in our perennial appeals to the relatively higher order obstructions of the free market versus planning or private ownership versus state ownership etc. etc. etc. No! It's how we relate to other human beings when we come together in space and time to accomplish things.
Hi, really interesting issue you raise. Of course, there is no barrier to prevent companies and organisations from being more democratic and there are examples where some level of democratic participation is facilitated (like the John Lewis chain of shops in the UK: www.jlpjobs.com/about/our-values/) But, I don't think it is trivial at all, and unless it was forced on all companies, the extra time and monetary cost of all of the additional interactions it requires will probably make fully democratic companies less competitive compared to other companies in their market. And, it's not clear to me that democratic style deliberation will always be the best way for companies to make key decisions. Sometimes you really do want a small group of experts to make the choice. But maybe you were thinking more about representative democracy rather than direct democracy. It's certainly an interesting question, especially as our workplace has such a huge impact on our day to day life.
Hi Oli, thanks for your videos! My experiences with things like animal abuse in factory farms, employee exploitation, and AI shenanigans have really soured me on our implementations of capitalism. I really appreciated the nuance of proposing reform and appropriate checking of capitalism rather than complete removal. I really appreciate your strong support for democracy and for voting reform, and I like your reference to sortition-I agree it sounds quite interesting and I’m hoping to read more on it! Thanks so much :)
I look forward to reading this new book. Thank you! {I'd suggest Arthur Okun's seminal work on efficiency and equality should be read by many more of us.} Oli, thank you not just for a book review, but also your keen observations as to the far left 'versus" the far right. "Agency" is absolutely essential (as Jefferson recognized so long ago, with other so-called founding fathers who had wished to set-up a a system that would allow for healthful gyrations arising from a vibrant middle class), and we see the Agency of individual citizens being deflated or undermined. Theil's mindset seems self-serving in the main, and wrongminded broadly; his contentious views may help the discourse, but they do seem contrary to the underpinning of OUR American Experiment; perhaps, "he's living in his own private Idaho". [B52s, not the movie.]
I recall talking about a "diversity of ideas", which I think is essential if we're going to keep our societies innovating well, but I'm assuming you are referring to multicultural diversity. And there I would just note that in my experience many major cities that are highly diverse are often places where people are most comfortable with living in a multicultural society. Living in such a city, they do not fear multiculturalism, indeed they usually relish the vibrant energy it often brings. London and New York are good examples of this. Some people may fear diversity, but surely an entirely homogenous society would be terribly dull! 🙂
@@Go-Meta Give me a break. Contemporary cosmopolitan cities are completely atomized with no social cohesion whatsoever. And a homogeneous society is dull? At no point were countries like France or Italy dull. In fact, Europe used to be a lot more innovative and full of vibrant energy a century ago. If anything it's the major cities of today that are dull and full of bland mediocrity. Global homogenization is incredibly lame.
We clearly have been reading different history books. From what I've read, the history of central Europe has been one of multicultural intermixing for millennia. There is no time when countries like France or Italy were homogenous, monocultures of a single ethnicity with a single culture and language. It's just never been like that. And, indeed, if you've ever traced your own ancestry back to your great, great grandparents, I would be very surprised if they all came from the country you live in today. People moved around a lot in the past. And certainly for all of our lifetimes (however old or young you may be! 🙂) cities like London, Paris and New York have been thriving, multicultural cross-roads of ideas. So, I'm not sure what you are afraid of in the continuation of this mixing and movement of people and ideas that has moulded Europe, and indeed the world, into what it is today.
With sufficiently powerful AI, automation, tooling and robotics we will eventually have to move away from a Money based economy and embrace a Resource based economy that is fair and balanced 😊
I certainly agree that AI is going to very soon challenge the merits of our existing economic systems. What we end up moving towards is another question, and indeed I think will become *the* big political debate of the next 10 years or so. It's not at all clear that we'll end up with something "fair and balanced" unless we really all push for it! 🙂 You may well enjoy this video of mine where I lay out some likely future scenarios for AI: th-cam.com/video/TC9Op30QghI/w-d-xo.html Thanks for the comment.
Well, depends on how you define capitalism. In my view, it is silly, because a socially regulated, free market does not require capitalism. Free entreprise is utterly different from capitalism. I think that the world is a mess, as Wolf says, precisely because capitalism is not understood. When you have interest in combination with a stock market, a corporate-state is inevitable as wealth concentrates and accumulates. It has been the case throughout centuries and even millennia, because Rome was a capitalist, colonial state, just as the US is now. The observation that Aristotle makes of money breeding money as utterly perverse, is exactly what capitalism is. Capitalism IS actually rentierism as opposed to socially regulated free entrprise and a mixed economy, which is the best model, demonstrably.
So, yes, there are long debates that could be had about what the term "capitalism" ought to mean to everyone. But, the author, Martin Wolf, says, "By *capitalism*, I mean an economy in which markets, competition, private economic initiative, and private property play central roles. This system is "market capitalism". " So, it is in this sense of capitalism that I describe myself as being "pro-capitalism" and just like Wolf that doesn't mean that I'm in favour of the extreme financialisation of our economy, or the monopolistic rent extraction that so many companies achieve, partly through regulatory capture. There is lots wrong with our particular forms of capitalism, but I do think it is an appropriate way to organise *certain sectors* of the economy. So I think the real debate is between "good" capitalism (e.g. along the lines you describe as, "socially regulated free enterprise and a mixed economy") and "bad" capitalism (e.g. rentierism, financialisation and extreme pushes for minimal state). Indeed, I am also aware that lots of online discussions descend into a forced, false dichotomy from the mid-20th century, where if you say you are against "capitalism" then many seem to insist that that logically implies that you are in favour of "central planning" of the economy by the government (even if you say you are not!! 😀) So, personally I'd rather get away from the old school left/right debate and instead declare myself to be pro-capitalism (in the Wolf sense) and pro-liberal democracy. But, I do get that many people identify the term "capitalism" with the worst aspects of our current capitalist system.
Hmm, but even libertarians recognise some roles for the state (e.g. law, police, military), and crucially those roles are necessary to support the existence of a market with enforceable contracts. No state, no market. But, I haven't yet read Aristotle's politics on oligarchy! Hopefully I'll get the chance someday.
So, in the USA it seems that "socialism" is sometimes used to mean any position that says anything positive about the role of the state 😀 So, is that the version of 'socialism' that you are using? My position is for a so called, 'mixed' economy. Some things, like water, are such a natural monopoly that it's just a mess to privatise it. Sadly, where I live, England, UK is one of the few places that has tried this and it has been a costly disaster that has literally led to sewage in the rivers and sea and billions of profits being taken out of the country with an absolute collapse in essential infrastructure investment. But, I'm also in favour of private ownership and private businesses competing in a market for many aspects of our political economy. Indeed, the whole point of Wolf's book, and my approval of that book, was to highlight the importance of getting a good, healthy balance between the state and the market. You need both. And I don't think most true socialists are as pro-market as I am.
@@Go-MetaI think the problem with water you pointed to should be investigated to the ground to find the reasons of it and the role of state in it. My intuition says the problem might be not "private", but exactly "mixed" 😅
Dunno why this guy's video popped up in my suggested, but wow are these some bad takes. Almost legendary--tier bad takes, but the layman probably won't notice them. You shilled for socialism throughout the video and attacked the one guy trying to preserve capitalism and our tradition of Liberty and meritocracy while defending the party who, judging by even the graphs you used, always cause economic decline every time they're in office. Which of course, you don't point out. You blame orange man and republicans. Many, many bad takes in that guy's book and not only do you not blast them, you agree with most of it. So, your solution to "saving capitalism" is to basically replace most of it with socialism? Because that definitely works historically. -_- I could eviscerate your entire video, but I do not think you would even read it, so I will leave it at that. You advocated for National Socialism here in a very sneaky, low key, soft way. Not a fan.
Hi, this is literally a video being pro-capitalism, pro-market based economies. I understand you didn't like my early comment about Trump, but it's a shame that seems to have influenced your view on the whole video. At no point did I blame Trump or Republicans uniquely for the economic structural headwinds or for rentier capitalism, indeed these issues have been the case when both Republicans and Democrats have been in power in the USA context. And I'd be surprised if you did not also believe there are ways that capitalism in the west can be improved. Trump was only brought up in the context of having a healthy democracy. Democracy is the key institution that defends our freedoms from autocratic, over centralised rule. So, I'm sorry that you've had such a negative reaction to my video, but I can't see any criticism of substance in your comments. If you wish to highlight a specific point that you disagree with then I'd happily engage in a discussion over that.
@@Go-Meta Thank you for the reply. - "And I'd be surprised if you did not also believe there are ways that capitalism in the west can be improved." That isn't the point. My argument is not that capitalism can't be improved, it's that Capitalism can be improved without adding more socialism to it. This is the fundamental issue I have with your takes, though more with the takes being takes about in the book you covered. - "Trump was only brought up in the context of having a healthy democracy. Democracy is the key institution that defends our freedoms from autocratic, over centralised rule." This is a very dishonest take. Trump has already been in office for 4 years and he was not an autocrat. Our branches of government did not disappear. Nothing eroded. Armageddon did not happen. We already know "orange man will be a dictator and steal the country" is already proven to be untrue since we have had him as president for 4 years and none of that happened despite the fake news propaganda to scare people out of voting for him. Additionally, it is the democrat party that erodes constitutional rights and seeks to centralize power over more things. Republicans literally seek to do the opposite. That is their main political tenant, less government involvement and control, not more. If you are not from the U.S., I will forgive you for not understanding this, but maybe don't keep saying that when you have it completely backwards? - "So, I'm sorry that you've had such a negative reaction to my video, but I can't see any criticism of substance in your comments. If you wish to highlight a specific point that you disagree with then I'd happily engage in a discussion over that." If you really want me to do that, fine. I think you had almost legendary--tier bad takes, but the layman probably won't notice them because you use a lot of buzzwords. I will not call you a pseudo intellectual because that's mean and there's a chance it's not accurate. But I will say that I don't think you fully understand the subject if you are not intentionally giving misleading comments. You used a lot of coded language like "collective society" and "synthesizing", which are primary language in manifestos by Socialist, Marxist, Communist, and fascist leaders or proponents of National Socialism. You then claim "everyone is equal" immediately after. . .again, Marxism, socialism, etc. An actual economist or historian would never say that because they would know it is objectively untrue. Perhaps you were being "politically correct", but you would still be wrong. You also seem to misuse the term "political economy", so I have no idea what you actually meant by that. On that poll where "24% of people thought something really stupid". . .a bit of advice: Rule of polling: About 25% of people polled always have a stupid opinion on something. Almost every poll reflects this. You can throw that out as meaningless. If the question was reworded and asked differently, you'd get different results. if that number was 35-50% or more, I would be concerned. 25%? I expect 25% stupidity. I'm not trying to dismiss the poll btw, but this is something I have observed to be true. Unless something is extremely unpopular or would be socially ostracized to day, it's going to be at worst around 25%. Strange, but this is true. For the record, I do not agree with that 25%.
Trump did not "try to stop a peaceful transfer of power". You are legally allowed to investigate election fraud. Given the fact that two of the states he was suspicious of have radically changed their voting laws (Wisconsin and Georgia), citing the 2020 and 2022 elections as compromised as reasons why. . .I think we can safely say Trump was right. He also did not try to physically throw a coup. He told the people at his rally to protest peacefully. He tried to get national guard in as security and was refused by democrats (If you want me to go in to detail about how Nancy Pelosi blocked the deployment of national guard, how she hand-installed a useless puppet to control DC security who chose to not do her job (subsequently got fired, then was hired over 3,000 miles away right next to Pelosi's district in California almost immediately) so the riots had little counterforce, or how DC police lobbed concussion grenades and tear gas in to the crowd before they even approached the building which caused them to panic and rush the building, or the body cam videos from FBI plants screaming at people to rush the building while pushing them, or the fake pipe bombs' which later got exposed as FBI training devices planted to create another fake narrative. ETC ETC ETC. J6 was a psyop, not a riot incited by Trump. Absolute hoax and fake news. The democrat censorship regime went on a crusade to hide the truth, demanding tv analysts and hosts fired for daring to bring it up. They pressured social media platforms to ban anyone who made videos about it,. It was literally impossible to discuss any details of it. Then, naturally, democrats deleted a bunch of evidence right before they lost control of the house so republicans could not do a full investigation of it. The FBI also refused to disclose how many agents they had planted in the riots (speculated to be in the 100s, but unprovable due to refusal to cooperate). No offense dude, but J6 was a setup. Look at the tapes. You can see FBI infiltrating plants nod to cameras to people can open magnetic doors. They also open the front doors and let people in like it's a tour. Democrats also spread lies that officers were killed at the event when they weren't, with multiple hoax stories pushed by Pelosi and other demcorats politicians publicly despite it being a lie. Including a tape they edited to make it seem like someone was attacking an officer which was widely publicized to show "how horrific" it was, except years later when we got the unedited video which had sound, it was clear the guy and officer bumped in to eachother and fell down. The "assailant" was actually apologizing to the elderly officer and trying to help him up. But they edited the sound out and clipped off the accidental bumping part, then edited the ending off and claimed it was "an attack" because he grabbed his arm. Many other examples of dishonest stupidity that mischaracterized what happened because the demcorats' main PR strategy is to gaslight and lie about everything. I will list more on why that comment was extremely stupid at the end of my post, and why democrats have a dark history later I will address the rest of the bad comments in the video first, because I suspect you likely already do not want to finish reading my post because the truth about J6 doesn't jive with your worldview and thus you are probably already performing mental gymnastics to block it out. Probably convincing yourself it's a "conspiracy theory" despite the multitude of proof it isn't, and that everything I said is documented and accurate. Or perhaps you will convince yourself I'm "brainwashed", when it's actually you that is if you think that. Like, I'm sorry, but I do not take the lying words of a politician over video evidence and physical facts. Especially not Pelosi or any members of the Turd Brigade like Adam Schiff who do nothing but shill democrat lies for a living.
@@Go-Meta As for the "household income" graph: Notice how it tanks immediately after Bill Clinton, a democrat takes office. It stagnates under Bush (not up or do), then tanks again under Obama (democrat again), and only normalizes under Trump (with a mean income spike upwards by 20%) until covid hits. Hard to salvage an inherited wrecked economy. Though Graph doesn't show it, but it tanked MASSIVELY again under Biden, another democrat with record high modern inflation rates. There is a common denominator there folks. If this graph showed what happened before Reagen took office, the economy also tanked under the previous president, Jimmy Carter, another democrat. The economy has not notably trended upward under a democrat since FDR after the Great Depression. . .which of course that was going to trend up regardless since it rock bottomed out after WWI and something else I will not mention so I'm not accused of being something negative. Real Incomes are likely declining because of increased socialist policy handouts and dumb restrictive policies like "green energy" ones which tank cheap energy production which just increases costs on top of that. There are always multiple factors for decline. "Capitalism" is always the scapegoat, but you are forgetting we have a combination of capitalism AND socialism.. "Market Capitalism by itself is not delivering increasing prosperity". Unfortunately, liar, it isn't by itself. We're massively bloated with socialist policies too. Stop pretending we have just a capitalist system and not ass tons of socialist bloat. Over 85% of our annual federal spending is on socialist policies. I am including government wages for non-elected federal officials in that, but not including military, security, or law enforcement spending which are not defined as socialist spending. You did not blame any of out socialist bloat for the problem despite it being the vast majority of our debt. I have no idea why you are quoting garbage from that book about "people who are upset at seeing others around them prosper" and refer to white people. . .when we all know the race doing that is black people, who repeatedly make insane demands for handouts or demands for white firings and black hirings. White people very rarely do that. Also, whites do not want ILLEGAL immigration because it's criminal and encourages criminals to do it. Whites do not mind LEGAL immigration at all! Nor do they mind hard working minorities. They dislike LAZY minorities who want handouts, which is yet another reason they dislike illegals (the current ones), because they get tons of handouts which drains the tax dollars even more, Actually even blacks hate them for the exact same reason. We can finally bond over something again since 9/11. Maybe they can red pill themselves out of the democrat Matrix again briefly enough so we can get some normalcy back. This garbage quote is another in a long trend of blaming the wrong things or misattributing things. But again, as I said, democrat party is a National Socialist party, so I am not surprised they are demonizing a specific race for their issues. That is what National Socialist parties do. Whites do not feel threatened by minorities except the ones who commit tons of crime. That has nothing to do with work, lol. No one feels threatened by "the rise of women". What men feel threatened by when it comes to women is the rise of refusal to want to start families or have any kids, so half of men will end up with no children because of toxic feminism unless we start importing sane women who have not been radicalized by insane man-hating feminist politics yet. Again, this has nothing to do with job opportunities. I have never met a single man who expressed any concern about women "taking their jobs". Women will not touch most available jobs because they have zero interest in them. Anything involving physical labor for example. Women only seek out the cushy jobs that require minimal physical exertion, so men have no fear of them taking their jobs. Another trash take by Wolf. I am glad you at least did not agree to that comment, but you should not have highlighted it in your video either. because doing so without denouncing it comes off like you agree with it. MAGA and Brexit have nothing to do with those stated things either, LOL. Brexit was about despising the EU's toxic asf, much hated dominance over national sovereignty. The EU is not very popular as a whole and multiple other countries want to leave as well. Unfortunately, they realize they are in a terrible position due to economic reasons. Likely they wish they never joined in the first place because they would be better off. Maybe you know more Europeans than I do, but literally every single one of them I know does not like the EU, and I did not meet them at any political gathering. I met them all in non-political context due to other shared hobbies which have nothing to do with politics. Yet they all dislike the EU and especially despise the VAT tax, and the ones who speak in depth about it feel like they have no power in the EU at all and blame EU policies for why their countries are declining rapidly as of late. Mandatory open borders is a primary stated issue that is highly despised.
Back to the MAGA movement: It is about eliminating Marxism and National Socialism's race politics from the country, and to also to get rid of the anti-american sentiments to get some patriotism back. It is also about cutting bloated bureaucracy and corruption from the government and lowering taxes. It's about increasing the wealth and quality of life of everyone in the country, not just the top 1% or top 0.001% more specifically, and to fix the economy. Lastly, it's also a rejection of globalism and rejecting the loss of our national sovereignty to corrupt and anti-american organizations like the U.N. who seems to hate our success and seek to diminish our national power by wrecking our country with floods of criminals and communists from third world countries like they the EU is doing to itself now too. It has nothing to do with "women" or law-abiding "minorities". MAGA people have NO issues with LAW-ABIDING minorities who actually work and don't break laws and do not just drain tax dollars with socialist handouts which are effectively just a Rube Goldberg-style vote-buying scheme by democrats. They have no issues with women who aren't anti-male. Again, you mischaracterize and demonize Trump supporters. You do it several times in the video. As for MAGA not "offering any solutions", actually, households gained over $4,000/year in wealth. More than 4x what they gained under Obama, and in half the time. Meaning, he was 8x more successful in increasing household wealth than Obama. And that's despite inheriting a national debt more than double what Obama did. What a magician to be that successful. Ofc you conveniently left that part out. More wealth growth in 4 years than any other time in modern history coupled with low inflation and no new wars, but he didn't "offer a solution". . .cool story bro. I don't have the cashed stats of current day family incomes to cite to you, but given how literally everyone I know across the country is suffering and complaining more than I have ever heard since the housing crisis in the late 2000s, I think that speaks for itself.
@@Go-Meta Total Factor Productivity declined when it did because of the feminist movement tanking birthrates. It's only going to get worse because the birthrate problem is getting worse. The only way to fix that is to somehow un-brainwash feminists (impossible), or import normal women from other countries. Passport Bros, if you will. That way feminists can do whatever they want and die off miserably (as they choose to do), and men can continue to have normal healthy lives without worrying too much about toxic feminists ruining civilization. TFP massively spikes as a result if you also cut out over 50% of our bloated socialist spending and entirely cut out ALL National Socialism policies entirely by 100% and make that illegal as it should have already been since we saw how socialist policies based on race turned out in Germany in WWII. Problem solved. You're welcome. And yes, I did just say the left is instituting some Nazi policies, and I absolutely meant it. I agree that "rent-extraction" is super toxic. That was one of his only good points, though he went in to zero detail about why because that would rock the boat of his corporate globalist overlords who are the main predators exploiting people for money while providing literally nothing as a service. Just being an unwanted gatekeeper between people and housing or property, standing in the way of fair exchange. That badly needs to be regulated. But that will never happen without a MAGA republican in there brazen enough to do that. But yes, this is one issue I think we can all agree on. . .so long as the solution is regulation, not state-control. Otherwise that just means we're shifting the rent-seeking profits to the government. . .something they already do through high property taxes on normal families who do not run businesses which everyone here universally hates. "Corporate tax avoidance" is a problem. . .? Excuse me? NO pushback on that comment at all? If you raise taxes on corporations, immediately they will respond with firing people, lowering wages, and raising prices. All that will do is decrease quality of life and make everyone poorer. All for the sake of bloating our already super bloated socialist government even more so they can seize more control over our economy so we can become even more socialist? -___- This whole video seems to be a shady shill video for socialism over capitalism. As Thomas Sowell puts eloquently, "There are no solutions, only tradeoffs". Raising taxes on corps will cause other problems. State intervention tends to just cause more problems. We can view that fact historically. Wolf then pushes for even more socialism, and then you agree, seemingly annoyed too that he was against UBI which is the absolute worst fking idea ever and is the most communist garbage idea I've ever heard of. I don't think I need to detail why as it should be self-evident. Let me give you a common sense response to his doom and gloom "omg robots and AI will make people obsolete" nonsense: No they won't. If AI and robots make stuff, that stuff becomes cheap and easier to obtain. People will simply do jobs that robots and AI don't, like entertainment or fixing pipes. There is always going to be something to do, so people will go do that. Such as how social media became a popular medium for income when that did not exist before. They will just do things AI And robots don't do, or just do the things AI and robots do poorly.
You then advocate for higher taxes (leading to more socialism) and more state interference in the market (even more socialism, which at this point is bordering on Fascism or National Socialism). And then you even say there needs to be "even more radical change" after that. :\ We don't have "ecological decline" besides mostly the issue of overfishing or polluting our waterways with chemicals. If you meant emissions, China's insane carbon emissions which are nearly half of the world's by itself. Nothing we do on that front will change anything when China, Iran, etc, are magnifying their emissions for profits. So you might's well chuck that out the window and go for profits too until they change their minds. The U.K.'s election systems are terrible. I have many friends in multiple countries there and they all despise their representation and current major political policies. Their system has actually made it harder to get new people in because there always ends up one dominant party and a bunch of spread out failure parties that can never pick up any steam. Lottery for elections? -_- If you want a "house of the people", go more with the Tribune of the Plebians style thing from ancient Rome, where only people under a specific income are allowed to join it. Middle class and lower, basically. So ultra rich oligarchs cannot infect it. Ofc, they can probably be bought off easily with big corporate money. So maybe it'll default be a failure like our House of Representatives pretty much has been sine it's so easy for special interests to buy them off. Pretty much nothing else to reply to. So now let me go back to that issue I had earlier where you blast Trump and republicans for not "being a threat to democracy" or whatever way you worded that. You attack Trump, the guy trying to actually preserve capitalism and our constitutional republic, but have no criticism, whatsoever for the party who constantly ruins the economy and pushes us more towards socialism? I mean, of course you don't since you shilled for socialism throughout the video. Practically fanboyed for some of the ideas of it. Trump asking for suspicious election outcomes to be investigated was LEGAL and did not "stop the peaceful transfer of power". Asking for an investigation is peaceful. You know, like how democrats demanded a recount in 2000. How they claimed the 2016 election was rigged and wanted it investigated. They still insist it was rigged. No mention of that though ofc. Do you want to also go in to which party attempted or did the most assassinations too? First Whig party president (William Henry Harrison, 1841): Dies 1 month in to office due to "medical malpractice", widely considered to have been an assassination. 2nd Whig party president dies (Zachary Taylor, 1850) one year into office, of poisoning. First republican president (Abraham Lincoln, 1865) is assassinated (this is three in a row btw). James Garfield (republican, 1881), was also shot and killed. William McKinley (republican, 1901), also assassinated. They tried to assassinate the next republican president too, Teddy Roosevelt (in 1912), but failed because he was a man-beast. Warren G Harding (republican again) dies in 1923 of suspected poisoning. The only democrat president to be shot and killed in office (JFK, 1963), is widely speculated to have been killed by his own party (via the CAI). His family also believes this to be the case. They then finally remove a president "peacefully" through the first impeachment of a president ever (Nixon), who was so wildly popular he won all but one state in that previous election in the biggest landslide of all time (to date). Then Reagan, the only guy to win an even bigger landslide victory, ALSO had an attempted assassination on him (1981) after just two months in office. Don't see many democrats on this list, do you? You also don't see any on Mount Rushmore either, which does not surprise me at all. Don't say "Jefferson" either, "Democratic Republican" doesn't count. Democrats also seceded from the union and became the Confederates after the first republican president (Lincoln) won office and started a Civil War. When they lost, they founded the KKK and tried to seize power after Lincoln was assassinated. Maybe learn your party's dark history before you throw stones at another political party. If you read through all of this cool. If not, that's pretty much what I expected and it will not bother me despite the time I spent on this post. At least I got to enjoy putting my thoughts together on "paper". tl:dr: More socialism: No More trending towards National Socialism: FK NO!!!!! More Globalism: No! More regulation: Sure, depends on what though Deregulation: Also sure, depends on what though. Cutting government bloat: Yes. Massively. At least 50% cuts to federal bureaucracy. Reduce welfare spending and make it much more conditional: Yes Reducing government control: Yes Increase manufacturing and agriculture: Yes. Self-destructive climate change agenda: No. Any political agenda that makes marriage and producing children less popular: No Any "Defund the police" garbage: No. More wars: No. More vote buying policies: No. More illegal immigration: No. Legal immigration: Sure. Deport all current illegals and increase border security: Yes. Remove all laws that give illegals voting rights: Yes. (removes political incentive to facilitate it) Fix corrupt, predatory Health Care and insurance systems: Yes etc. A lot of economic fixes do not require more socialism. The issues are more nuanced than just "capitalism isn't working". Especially when socialist policies are one of the main things dragging it down like a heavy anchor. Socialism almost always makes things worse. It's like rubbing mud in a wound to stop the bleeding. Sure, it stopped for now. . .then you got infected and died slowly later because of it. Alternate ways to address the "wound" would be better. We already know rubbing mud in it is a huge risk, so let's stop doing that.
@@snakeplissken7671 cap1tal1sm is br0ken. all your critiques on dem0crats apply to republic4ns as well. both only serve c0rporations, and have intervened in both domestic and foreign elections. you typed a whole lot of nothing. the US leans so far to the right now, do americans really still believe any party serves their interest? lol. those who actually study history become truly left leaning because the study of history radicalizes them. looks like you have been brainwashed, like every other liberal. we must move on. AI and the rise of automation, will only ruin the people under capitalism. instead of people looking up to automation, americans are scared since it will put them out of jobs. the same thing happened in the industrial revolution, and lots of "leftists" organized to advocate for a 9-5 workday. hopefully the same happens again. if it doesn't, the people will finally realize the contradictions of capital for good... and hopefully not too late. do some reading. don't forget that libertarianism was orignially "leftist." however, that isnt the case today.
Excellent. I think the book correctly identifies the major problems but is too timid in suggested solutions. A bit like the current Labour government.
But I do worry we are in a doom loop of decline this country.
Don't worry, it ain't going to change until it completely unravels and people die.
"Once all hope is gone you ain't got anything to worry about." - Cactus Ed
Well, if that is the case, then the supposed intelligence of our species isn't worth much! Maybe we are just glorified ChatGPTs hallucinating just a little more convincingly 😂
But, until all hope is indeed gone, I'll keep on being optimistic that we can find a path through this mess 😀
@@Go-Meta Can't hurt anything at all, but my faith in our sapiens sapiens taxonomy has been brutally broken beyond repair.
This is my sentiment too. Media, government, billionaires, and public ignorance have been conspiring against progress for decades and thing will have to collapse before there’s any chance for people to recognize the problems that need fixing.
@gking407 A damned shame that we ain't as sapient as we named our taxonomy.
@@TennesseeJed Some of us are more sapient than others but we are also being fed bad information and deprived of proper education. How much better would the world be if we were immunized against lies and disinformation campaigns?
The change we need to make is in the workplace itself. We need to democratize the economy so that we can actually have real democracy in politics. Why we have artificially confined democracy to the political sphere I'll never know. It's ironic that the revolutionary move we need to make is right under our nose in the organization of the workplace not in our perennial appeals to the relatively higher order obstructions of the free market versus planning or private ownership versus state ownership etc. etc. etc. No! It's how we relate to other human beings when we come together in space and time to accomplish things.
Hi, really interesting issue you raise. Of course, there is no barrier to prevent companies and organisations from being more democratic and there are examples where some level of democratic participation is facilitated (like the John Lewis chain of shops in the UK: www.jlpjobs.com/about/our-values/)
But, I don't think it is trivial at all, and unless it was forced on all companies, the extra time and monetary cost of all of the additional interactions it requires will probably make fully democratic companies less competitive compared to other companies in their market. And, it's not clear to me that democratic style deliberation will always be the best way for companies to make key decisions. Sometimes you really do want a small group of experts to make the choice. But maybe you were thinking more about representative democracy rather than direct democracy.
It's certainly an interesting question, especially as our workplace has such a huge impact on our day to day life.
This channel is spectacularly refreshing. Balanced and intelligent discussion. The algorithm is obviously broken 😔
😂 ... hope it stays broken then 🙂. And, thank you! 🙏
Hi Oli, thanks for your videos! My experiences with things like animal abuse in factory farms, employee exploitation, and AI shenanigans have really soured me on our implementations of capitalism. I really appreciated the nuance of proposing reform and appropriate checking of capitalism rather than complete removal. I really appreciate your strong support for democracy and for voting reform, and I like your reference to sortition-I agree it sounds quite interesting and I’m hoping to read more on it! Thanks so much :)
Great analysis
Thank you!
Intermediate disruption hypothesis in ecology is a good analogy to this argument.
I look forward to reading this new book. Thank you! {I'd suggest Arthur Okun's seminal work on efficiency and equality should be read by many more of us.} Oli, thank you not just for a book review, but also your keen observations as to the far left 'versus" the far right. "Agency" is absolutely essential (as Jefferson recognized so long ago, with other so-called founding fathers who had wished to set-up a a system that would allow for healthful gyrations arising from a vibrant middle class), and we see the Agency of individual citizens being deflated or undermined. Theil's mindset seems self-serving in the main, and wrongminded broadly; his contentious views may help the discourse, but they do seem contrary to the underpinning of OUR American Experiment; perhaps, "he's living in his own private Idaho". [B52s, not the movie.]
Thanks for the suggestion of Okun's book, it looks good. I've added it to my list. (sadly an all too long list! 😀)
Diversity destroys social trust.
I recall talking about a "diversity of ideas", which I think is essential if we're going to keep our societies innovating well, but I'm assuming you are referring to multicultural diversity. And there I would just note that in my experience many major cities that are highly diverse are often places where people are most comfortable with living in a multicultural society. Living in such a city, they do not fear multiculturalism, indeed they usually relish the vibrant energy it often brings. London and New York are good examples of this.
Some people may fear diversity, but surely an entirely homogenous society would be terribly dull! 🙂
@@Go-Meta Give me a break. Contemporary cosmopolitan cities are completely atomized with no social cohesion whatsoever. And a homogeneous society is dull? At no point were countries like France or Italy dull. In fact, Europe used to be a lot more innovative and full of vibrant energy a century ago. If anything it's the major cities of today that are dull and full of bland mediocrity. Global homogenization is incredibly lame.
@UploadPicture-ye2qw Everyone I hate is Hitler.
@UploadPicture-ye2qw If you want large scale fraud and graft, look no further than the DEI-industrial complex.
We clearly have been reading different history books. From what I've read, the history of central Europe has been one of multicultural intermixing for millennia. There is no time when countries like France or Italy were homogenous, monocultures of a single ethnicity with a single culture and language. It's just never been like that.
And, indeed, if you've ever traced your own ancestry back to your great, great grandparents, I would be very surprised if they all came from the country you live in today. People moved around a lot in the past.
And certainly for all of our lifetimes (however old or young you may be! 🙂) cities like London, Paris and New York have been thriving, multicultural cross-roads of ideas.
So, I'm not sure what you are afraid of in the continuation of this mixing and movement of people and ideas that has moulded Europe, and indeed the world, into what it is today.
With sufficiently powerful AI, automation, tooling and robotics we will eventually have to move away from a Money based economy and embrace a Resource based economy that is fair and balanced 😊
I certainly agree that AI is going to very soon challenge the merits of our existing economic systems. What we end up moving towards is another question, and indeed I think will become *the* big political debate of the next 10 years or so. It's not at all clear that we'll end up with something "fair and balanced" unless we really all push for it! 🙂
You may well enjoy this video of mine where I lay out some likely future scenarios for AI: th-cam.com/video/TC9Op30QghI/w-d-xo.html
Thanks for the comment.
Oh, I've just seen that you've already watched and commented on that other video! Thanks!
Well, depends on how you define capitalism. In my view, it is silly, because a socially regulated, free market does not require capitalism. Free entreprise is utterly different from capitalism. I think that the world is a mess, as Wolf says, precisely because capitalism is not understood. When you have interest in combination with a stock market, a corporate-state is inevitable as wealth concentrates and accumulates. It has been the case throughout centuries and even millennia, because Rome was a capitalist, colonial state, just as the US is now. The observation that Aristotle makes of money breeding money as utterly perverse, is exactly what capitalism is. Capitalism IS actually rentierism as opposed to socially regulated free entrprise and a mixed economy, which is the best model, demonstrably.
So, yes, there are long debates that could be had about what the term "capitalism" ought to mean to everyone. But, the author, Martin Wolf, says,
"By *capitalism*, I mean an economy in which markets, competition, private economic initiative, and private property play central roles. This system is "market capitalism". "
So, it is in this sense of capitalism that I describe myself as being "pro-capitalism" and just like Wolf that doesn't mean that I'm in favour of the extreme financialisation of our economy, or the monopolistic rent extraction that so many companies achieve, partly through regulatory capture. There is lots wrong with our particular forms of capitalism, but I do think it is an appropriate way to organise *certain sectors* of the economy.
So I think the real debate is between "good" capitalism (e.g. along the lines you describe as, "socially regulated free enterprise and a mixed economy") and "bad" capitalism (e.g. rentierism, financialisation and extreme pushes for minimal state).
Indeed, I am also aware that lots of online discussions descend into a forced, false dichotomy from the mid-20th century, where if you say you are against "capitalism" then many seem to insist that that logically implies that you are in favour of "central planning" of the economy by the government (even if you say you are not!! 😀)
So, personally I'd rather get away from the old school left/right debate and instead declare myself to be pro-capitalism (in the Wolf sense) and pro-liberal democracy.
But, I do get that many people identify the term "capitalism" with the worst aspects of our current capitalist system.
Great review
Thank you!
Hey it's all about the market. There is no polity, just the market. Read Aristotle's politics on oligarchy.
Hmm, but even libertarians recognise some roles for the state (e.g. law, police, military), and crucially those roles are necessary to support the existence of a market with enforceable contracts. No state, no market.
But, I haven't yet read Aristotle's politics on oligarchy! Hopefully I'll get the chance someday.
Math is platonic yet discovered [Kepler's Angle].
Lipstick on a pig. It's not going to change anything because it's the status quo.
We're all going down - big time.
I hope not 😲 ! .... at least we've got to *try* to avoid that 🙂! Can't give up just yet!
Ridiculed to think inflation is coming down at all lol.
6:49 Trump inspired attempt to stop... 😂
OK, I see...
You seem to be pro socialism.
So, in the USA it seems that "socialism" is sometimes used to mean any position that says anything positive about the role of the state 😀 So, is that the version of 'socialism' that you are using?
My position is for a so called, 'mixed' economy. Some things, like water, are such a natural monopoly that it's just a mess to privatise it. Sadly, where I live, England, UK is one of the few places that has tried this and it has been a costly disaster that has literally led to sewage in the rivers and sea and billions of profits being taken out of the country with an absolute collapse in essential infrastructure investment.
But, I'm also in favour of private ownership and private businesses competing in a market for many aspects of our political economy.
Indeed, the whole point of Wolf's book, and my approval of that book, was to highlight the importance of getting a good, healthy balance between the state and the market. You need both. And I don't think most true socialists are as pro-market as I am.
@@Go-MetaI think the problem with water you pointed to should be investigated to the ground to find the reasons of it and the role of state in it.
My intuition says the problem might be not "private", but exactly "mixed" 😅
Dunno why this guy's video popped up in my suggested, but wow are these some bad takes. Almost legendary--tier bad takes, but the layman probably won't notice them.
You shilled for socialism throughout the video and attacked the one guy trying to preserve capitalism and our tradition of Liberty and meritocracy while defending the party who, judging by even the graphs you used, always cause economic decline every time they're in office. Which of course, you don't point out. You blame orange man and republicans.
Many, many bad takes in that guy's book and not only do you not blast them, you agree with most of it.
So, your solution to "saving capitalism" is to basically replace most of it with socialism? Because that definitely works historically. -_- I could eviscerate your entire video, but I do not think you would even read it, so I will leave it at that. You advocated for National Socialism here in a very sneaky, low key, soft way. Not a fan.
Hi, this is literally a video being pro-capitalism, pro-market based economies. I understand you didn't like my early comment about Trump, but it's a shame that seems to have influenced your view on the whole video.
At no point did I blame Trump or Republicans uniquely for the economic structural headwinds or for rentier capitalism, indeed these issues have been the case when both Republicans and Democrats have been in power in the USA context. And I'd be surprised if you did not also believe there are ways that capitalism in the west can be improved.
Trump was only brought up in the context of having a healthy democracy. Democracy is the key institution that defends our freedoms from autocratic, over centralised rule.
So, I'm sorry that you've had such a negative reaction to my video, but I can't see any criticism of substance in your comments. If you wish to highlight a specific point that you disagree with then I'd happily engage in a discussion over that.
@@Go-Meta Thank you for the reply.
- "And I'd be surprised if you did not also believe there are ways that capitalism in the west can be improved."
That isn't the point. My argument is not that capitalism can't be improved, it's that Capitalism can be improved without adding more socialism to it. This is the fundamental issue I have with your takes, though more with the takes being takes about in the book you covered.
- "Trump was only brought up in the context of having a healthy democracy. Democracy is the key institution that defends our freedoms from autocratic, over centralised rule."
This is a very dishonest take. Trump has already been in office for 4 years and he was not an autocrat. Our branches of government did not disappear. Nothing eroded. Armageddon did not happen. We already know "orange man will be a dictator and steal the country" is already proven to be untrue since we have had him as president for 4 years and none of that happened despite the fake news propaganda to scare people out of voting for him. Additionally, it is the democrat party that erodes constitutional rights and seeks to centralize power over more things. Republicans literally seek to do the opposite. That is their main political tenant, less government involvement and control, not more. If you are not from the U.S., I will forgive you for not understanding this, but maybe don't keep saying that when you have it completely backwards?
- "So, I'm sorry that you've had such a negative reaction to my video, but I can't see any criticism of substance in your comments. If you wish to highlight a specific point that you disagree with then I'd happily engage in a discussion over that."
If you really want me to do that, fine.
I think you had almost legendary--tier bad takes, but the layman probably won't notice them because you use a lot of buzzwords. I will not call you a pseudo intellectual because that's mean and there's a chance it's not accurate. But I will say that I don't think you fully understand the subject if you are not intentionally giving misleading comments.
You used a lot of coded language like "collective society" and "synthesizing", which are primary language in manifestos by Socialist, Marxist, Communist, and fascist leaders or proponents of National Socialism. You then claim "everyone is equal" immediately after. . .again, Marxism, socialism, etc. An actual economist or historian would never say that because they would know it is objectively untrue. Perhaps you were being "politically correct", but you would still be wrong. You also seem to misuse the term "political economy", so I have no idea what you actually meant by that.
On that poll where "24% of people thought something really stupid". . .a bit of advice: Rule of polling: About 25% of people polled always have a stupid opinion on something. Almost every poll reflects this. You can throw that out as meaningless. If the question was reworded and asked differently, you'd get different results. if that number was 35-50% or more, I would be concerned. 25%? I expect 25% stupidity. I'm not trying to dismiss the poll btw, but this is something I have observed to be true. Unless something is extremely unpopular or would be socially ostracized to day, it's going to be at worst around 25%. Strange, but this is true. For the record, I do not agree with that 25%.
Trump did not "try to stop a peaceful transfer of power". You are legally allowed to investigate election fraud. Given the fact that two of the states he was suspicious of have radically changed their voting laws (Wisconsin and Georgia), citing the 2020 and 2022 elections as compromised as reasons why. . .I think we can safely say Trump was right. He also did not try to physically throw a coup. He told the people at his rally to protest peacefully. He tried to get national guard in as security and was refused by democrats (If you want me to go in to detail about how Nancy Pelosi blocked the deployment of national guard, how she hand-installed a useless puppet to control DC security who chose to not do her job (subsequently got fired, then was hired over 3,000 miles away right next to Pelosi's district in California almost immediately) so the riots had little counterforce, or how DC police lobbed concussion grenades and tear gas in to the crowd before they even approached the building which caused them to panic and rush the building, or the body cam videos from FBI plants screaming at people to rush the building while pushing them, or the fake pipe bombs' which later got exposed as FBI training devices planted to create another fake narrative. ETC ETC ETC. J6 was a psyop, not a riot incited by Trump. Absolute hoax and fake news. The democrat censorship regime went on a crusade to hide the truth, demanding tv analysts and hosts fired for daring to bring it up. They pressured social media platforms to ban anyone who made videos about it,. It was literally impossible to discuss any details of it. Then, naturally, democrats deleted a bunch of evidence right before they lost control of the house so republicans could not do a full investigation of it. The FBI also refused to disclose how many agents they had planted in the riots (speculated to be in the 100s, but unprovable due to refusal to cooperate). No offense dude, but J6 was a setup. Look at the tapes. You can see FBI infiltrating plants nod to cameras to people can open magnetic doors. They also open the front doors and let people in like it's a tour. Democrats also spread lies that officers were killed at the event when they weren't, with multiple hoax stories pushed by Pelosi and other demcorats politicians publicly despite it being a lie. Including a tape they edited to make it seem like someone was attacking an officer which was widely publicized to show "how horrific" it was, except years later when we got the unedited video which had sound, it was clear the guy and officer bumped in to eachother and fell down. The "assailant" was actually apologizing to the elderly officer and trying to help him up. But they edited the sound out and clipped off the accidental bumping part, then edited the ending off and claimed it was "an attack" because he grabbed his arm. Many other examples of dishonest stupidity that mischaracterized what happened because the demcorats' main PR strategy is to gaslight and lie about everything.
I will list more on why that comment was extremely stupid at the end of my post, and why democrats have a dark history later I will address the rest of the bad comments in the video first, because I suspect you likely already do not want to finish reading my post because the truth about J6 doesn't jive with your worldview and thus you are probably already performing mental gymnastics to block it out. Probably convincing yourself it's a "conspiracy theory" despite the multitude of proof it isn't, and that everything I said is documented and accurate. Or perhaps you will convince yourself I'm "brainwashed", when it's actually you that is if you think that. Like, I'm sorry, but I do not take the lying words of a politician over video evidence and physical facts. Especially not Pelosi or any members of the Turd Brigade like Adam Schiff who do nothing but shill democrat lies for a living.
@@Go-Meta As for the "household income" graph: Notice how it tanks immediately after Bill Clinton, a democrat takes office. It stagnates under Bush (not up or do), then tanks again under Obama (democrat again), and only normalizes under Trump (with a mean income spike upwards by 20%) until covid hits. Hard to salvage an inherited wrecked economy. Though Graph doesn't show it, but it tanked MASSIVELY again under Biden, another democrat with record high modern inflation rates. There is a common denominator there folks. If this graph showed what happened before Reagen took office, the economy also tanked under the previous president, Jimmy Carter, another democrat. The economy has not notably trended upward under a democrat since FDR after the Great Depression. . .which of course that was going to trend up regardless since it rock bottomed out after WWI and something else I will not mention so I'm not accused of being something negative.
Real Incomes are likely declining because of increased socialist policy handouts and dumb restrictive policies like "green energy" ones which tank cheap energy production which just increases costs on top of that. There are always multiple factors for decline. "Capitalism" is always the scapegoat, but you are forgetting we have a combination of capitalism AND socialism..
"Market Capitalism by itself is not delivering increasing prosperity". Unfortunately, liar, it isn't by itself. We're massively bloated with socialist policies too. Stop pretending we have just a capitalist system and not ass tons of socialist bloat. Over 85% of our annual federal spending is on socialist policies. I am including government wages for non-elected federal officials in that, but not including military, security, or law enforcement spending which are not defined as socialist spending. You did not blame any of out socialist bloat for the problem despite it being the vast majority of our debt.
I have no idea why you are quoting garbage from that book about "people who are upset at seeing others around them prosper" and refer to white people. . .when we all know the race doing that is black people, who repeatedly make insane demands for handouts or demands for white firings and black hirings. White people very rarely do that. Also, whites do not want ILLEGAL immigration because it's criminal and encourages criminals to do it. Whites do not mind LEGAL immigration at all! Nor do they mind hard working minorities. They dislike LAZY minorities who want handouts, which is yet another reason they dislike illegals (the current ones), because they get tons of handouts which drains the tax dollars even more, Actually even blacks hate them for the exact same reason. We can finally bond over something again since 9/11. Maybe they can red pill themselves out of the democrat Matrix again briefly enough so we can get some normalcy back. This garbage quote is another in a long trend of blaming the wrong things or misattributing things. But again, as I said, democrat party is a National Socialist party, so I am not surprised they are demonizing a specific race for their issues. That is what National Socialist parties do.
Whites do not feel threatened by minorities except the ones who commit tons of crime. That has nothing to do with work, lol. No one feels threatened by "the rise of women". What men feel threatened by when it comes to women is the rise of refusal to want to start families or have any kids, so half of men will end up with no children because of toxic feminism unless we start importing sane women who have not been radicalized by insane man-hating feminist politics yet. Again, this has nothing to do with job opportunities. I have never met a single man who expressed any concern about women "taking their jobs". Women will not touch most available jobs because they have zero interest in them. Anything involving physical labor for example. Women only seek out the cushy jobs that require minimal physical exertion, so men have no fear of them taking their jobs. Another trash take by Wolf. I am glad you at least did not agree to that comment, but you should not have highlighted it in your video either. because doing so without denouncing it comes off like you agree with it.
MAGA and Brexit have nothing to do with those stated things either, LOL. Brexit was about despising the EU's toxic asf, much hated dominance over national sovereignty. The EU is not very popular as a whole and multiple other countries want to leave as well. Unfortunately, they realize they are in a terrible position due to economic reasons. Likely they wish they never joined in the first place because they would be better off. Maybe you know more Europeans than I do, but literally every single one of them I know does not like the EU, and I did not meet them at any political gathering. I met them all in non-political context due to other shared hobbies which have nothing to do with politics. Yet they all dislike the EU and especially despise the VAT tax, and the ones who speak in depth about it feel like they have no power in the EU at all and blame EU policies for why their countries are declining rapidly as of late. Mandatory open borders is a primary stated issue that is highly despised.
Back to the MAGA movement: It is about eliminating Marxism and National Socialism's race politics from the country, and to also to get rid of the anti-american sentiments to get some patriotism back. It is also about cutting bloated bureaucracy and corruption from the government and lowering taxes. It's about increasing the wealth and quality of life of everyone in the country, not just the top 1% or top 0.001% more specifically, and to fix the economy. Lastly, it's also a rejection of globalism and rejecting the loss of our national sovereignty to corrupt and anti-american organizations like the U.N. who seems to hate our success and seek to diminish our national power by wrecking our country with floods of criminals and communists from third world countries like they the EU is doing to itself now too. It has nothing to do with "women" or law-abiding "minorities". MAGA people have NO issues with LAW-ABIDING minorities who actually work and don't break laws and do not just drain tax dollars with socialist handouts which are effectively just a Rube Goldberg-style vote-buying scheme by democrats. They have no issues with women who aren't anti-male. Again, you mischaracterize and demonize Trump supporters. You do it several times in the video.
As for MAGA not "offering any solutions", actually, households gained over $4,000/year in wealth. More than 4x what they gained under Obama, and in half the time. Meaning, he was 8x more successful in increasing household wealth than Obama. And that's despite inheriting a national debt more than double what Obama did. What a magician to be that successful. Ofc you conveniently left that part out. More wealth growth in 4 years than any other time in modern history coupled with low inflation and no new wars, but he didn't "offer a solution". . .cool story bro. I don't have the cashed stats of current day family incomes to cite to you, but given how literally everyone I know across the country is suffering and complaining more than I have ever heard since the housing crisis in the late 2000s, I think that speaks for itself.
@@Go-Meta Total Factor Productivity declined when it did because of the feminist movement tanking birthrates. It's only going to get worse because the birthrate problem is getting worse. The only way to fix that is to somehow un-brainwash feminists (impossible), or import normal women from other countries. Passport Bros, if you will. That way feminists can do whatever they want and die off miserably (as they choose to do), and men can continue to have normal healthy lives without worrying too much about toxic feminists ruining civilization. TFP massively spikes as a result if you also cut out over 50% of our bloated socialist spending and entirely cut out ALL National Socialism policies entirely by 100% and make that illegal as it should have already been since we saw how socialist policies based on race turned out in Germany in WWII. Problem solved. You're welcome. And yes, I did just say the left is instituting some Nazi policies, and I absolutely meant it.
I agree that "rent-extraction" is super toxic. That was one of his only good points, though he went in to zero detail about why because that would rock the boat of his corporate globalist overlords who are the main predators exploiting people for money while providing literally nothing as a service. Just being an unwanted gatekeeper between people and housing or property, standing in the way of fair exchange. That badly needs to be regulated. But that will never happen without a MAGA republican in there brazen enough to do that. But yes, this is one issue I think we can all agree on. . .so long as the solution is regulation, not state-control. Otherwise that just means we're shifting the rent-seeking profits to the government. . .something they already do through high property taxes on normal families who do not run businesses which everyone here universally hates.
"Corporate tax avoidance" is a problem. . .? Excuse me? NO pushback on that comment at all? If you raise taxes on corporations, immediately they will respond with firing people, lowering wages, and raising prices. All that will do is decrease quality of life and make everyone poorer. All for the sake of bloating our already super bloated socialist government even more so they can seize more control over our economy so we can become even more socialist? -___- This whole video seems to be a shady shill video for socialism over capitalism. As Thomas Sowell puts eloquently, "There are no solutions, only tradeoffs". Raising taxes on corps will cause other problems. State intervention tends to just cause more problems. We can view that fact historically.
Wolf then pushes for even more socialism, and then you agree, seemingly annoyed too that he was against UBI which is the absolute worst fking idea ever and is the most communist garbage idea I've ever heard of. I don't think I need to detail why as it should be self-evident. Let me give you a common sense response to his doom and gloom "omg robots and AI will make people obsolete" nonsense: No they won't. If AI and robots make stuff, that stuff becomes cheap and easier to obtain. People will simply do jobs that robots and AI don't, like entertainment or fixing pipes. There is always going to be something to do, so people will go do that. Such as how social media became a popular medium for income when that did not exist before. They will just do things AI And robots don't do, or just do the things AI and robots do poorly.
You then advocate for higher taxes (leading to more socialism) and more state interference in the market (even more socialism, which at this point is bordering on Fascism or National Socialism). And then you even say there needs to be "even more radical change" after that. :\
We don't have "ecological decline" besides mostly the issue of overfishing or polluting our waterways with chemicals. If you meant emissions, China's insane carbon emissions which are nearly half of the world's by itself. Nothing we do on that front will change anything when China, Iran, etc, are magnifying their emissions for profits. So you might's well chuck that out the window and go for profits too until they change their minds.
The U.K.'s election systems are terrible. I have many friends in multiple countries there and they all despise their representation and current major political policies. Their system has actually made it harder to get new people in because there always ends up one dominant party and a bunch of spread out failure parties that can never pick up any steam.
Lottery for elections? -_- If you want a "house of the people", go more with the Tribune of the Plebians style thing from ancient Rome, where only people under a specific income are allowed to join it. Middle class and lower, basically. So ultra rich oligarchs cannot infect it. Ofc, they can probably be bought off easily with big corporate money. So maybe it'll default be a failure like our House of Representatives pretty much has been sine it's so easy for special interests to buy them off.
Pretty much nothing else to reply to. So now let me go back to that issue I had earlier where you blast Trump and republicans for not "being a threat to democracy" or whatever way you worded that.
You attack Trump, the guy trying to actually preserve capitalism and our constitutional republic, but have no criticism, whatsoever for the party who constantly ruins the economy and pushes us more towards socialism? I mean, of course you don't since you shilled for socialism throughout the video. Practically fanboyed for some of the ideas of it. Trump asking for suspicious election outcomes to be investigated was LEGAL and did not "stop the peaceful transfer of power". Asking for an investigation is peaceful. You know, like how democrats demanded a recount in 2000. How they claimed the 2016 election was rigged and wanted it investigated. They still insist it was rigged. No mention of that though ofc.
Do you want to also go in to which party attempted or did the most assassinations too? First Whig party president (William Henry Harrison, 1841): Dies 1 month in to office due to "medical malpractice", widely considered to have been an assassination.
2nd Whig party president dies (Zachary Taylor, 1850) one year into office, of poisoning.
First republican president (Abraham Lincoln, 1865) is assassinated (this is three in a row btw).
James Garfield (republican, 1881), was also shot and killed.
William McKinley (republican, 1901), also assassinated.
They tried to assassinate the next republican president too, Teddy Roosevelt (in 1912), but failed because he was a man-beast.
Warren G Harding (republican again) dies in 1923 of suspected poisoning.
The only democrat president to be shot and killed in office (JFK, 1963), is widely speculated to have been killed by his own party (via the CAI). His family also believes this to be the case.
They then finally remove a president "peacefully" through the first impeachment of a president ever (Nixon), who was so wildly popular he won all but one state in that previous election in the biggest landslide of all time (to date).
Then Reagan, the only guy to win an even bigger landslide victory, ALSO had an attempted assassination on him (1981) after just two months in office.
Don't see many democrats on this list, do you? You also don't see any on Mount Rushmore either, which does not surprise me at all. Don't say "Jefferson" either, "Democratic Republican" doesn't count.
Democrats also seceded from the union and became the Confederates after the first republican president (Lincoln) won office and started a Civil War. When they lost, they founded the KKK and tried to seize power after Lincoln was assassinated. Maybe learn your party's dark history before you throw stones at another political party.
If you read through all of this cool. If not, that's pretty much what I expected and it will not bother me despite the time I spent on this post. At least I got to enjoy putting my thoughts together on "paper".
tl:dr:
More socialism: No
More trending towards National Socialism: FK NO!!!!!
More Globalism: No!
More regulation: Sure, depends on what though
Deregulation: Also sure, depends on what though.
Cutting government bloat: Yes. Massively. At least 50% cuts to federal bureaucracy.
Reduce welfare spending and make it much more conditional: Yes
Reducing government control: Yes
Increase manufacturing and agriculture: Yes.
Self-destructive climate change agenda: No.
Any political agenda that makes marriage and producing children less popular: No
Any "Defund the police" garbage: No.
More wars: No.
More vote buying policies: No.
More illegal immigration: No.
Legal immigration: Sure.
Deport all current illegals and increase border security: Yes.
Remove all laws that give illegals voting rights: Yes. (removes political incentive to facilitate it)
Fix corrupt, predatory Health Care and insurance systems: Yes
etc.
A lot of economic fixes do not require more socialism. The issues are more nuanced than just "capitalism isn't working". Especially when socialist policies are one of the main things dragging it down like a heavy anchor.
Socialism almost always makes things worse. It's like rubbing mud in a wound to stop the bleeding. Sure, it stopped for now. . .then you got infected and died slowly later because of it. Alternate ways to address the "wound" would be better. We already know rubbing mud in it is a huge risk, so let's stop doing that.
@@snakeplissken7671 cap1tal1sm is br0ken. all your critiques on dem0crats apply to republic4ns as well. both only serve c0rporations, and have intervened in both domestic and foreign elections. you typed a whole lot of nothing. the US leans so far to the right now, do americans really still believe any party serves their interest? lol. those who actually study history become truly left leaning because the study of history radicalizes them. looks like you have been brainwashed, like every other liberal. we must move on. AI and the rise of automation, will only ruin the people under capitalism. instead of people looking up to automation, americans are scared since it will put them out of jobs. the same thing happened in the industrial revolution, and lots of "leftists" organized to advocate for a 9-5 workday. hopefully the same happens again. if it doesn't, the people will finally realize the contradictions of capital for good... and hopefully not too late. do some reading. don't forget that libertarianism was orignially "leftist." however, that isnt the case today.