Jordan Peterson | Pareto Distributions & Wealth Inequality
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 ก.พ. 2018
- FULL EPISODE ► bit.ly/SimJP
Welcome ✌🏽 We Uncover The Nature of Reality
1 Interview Smart People
2️ Synthesize First Principles
3️ Elevate Planetary Consciousness
⭐ Our trusted funnel of projects ► allensaakyan.com
💗 Build DAOs for the New Earth. Meet Basic Needs for All and Maximize Our Potential.
We're doing this at HOME DAO, join us if it resonates ► thehomedao.com
🎨 DR. JORDAN PETERSON
Website ► jordanbpeterson.com
Twitter ► / jordanbpeterson
Instagram ► / jordan.b.peterson
12 Rules For Life ► amzn.to/2AgPtZ9
20% OFF DISCOUNT CODE ► SanFran
SELF AUTHORING ► selfauthoring.com
UNDERSTAND MYSELF ► understandmyself.com - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
Thanks for watching! What do you guys think about Pareto distributions being part of almost everything and wealth inequality being evident since neolithic times? What do we do about surplus and maximizing human potential? We'd love to hear your thoughts below. There are tons of other incredible interviews on our channel, check them out!
Liking your own pinned comment is rather tasteless.
@gespilk I would say that Peterson isn't a corporate apologist at all. Peterson is a meta thinker. He's saying that in any system the pareto rule would apply. My humble conclusion would be that any social system is going to have to deal with this problem. Stalin did so by killing the Kulaks in the Ukraine who rather than have their property and cattle confiscated, they chose to burn their fields and property and kill the cattle. The Ukraine, the Breadbasket, ended up with no bread because of installing collective farming and getting rid of the rich. The solution to wealth distribution is not so easy as Peterson reminds us if we keep the Pareto rule in mind.
The inequality of neolithic times is not comparable, no stone age man held more wealth - maybe an extra stone axe or more comfy cave, and most neolithic societies we have evidence for showed great egalitarianism and lack of horading. Humans (naturally perhaps) for at least 200,000 years never pursued the amassing of wealth of any kind, only after the introduction of scarcity during agriculture do we see the start of wealth differentiation that is meaningful.
@@mick7557 You obviously didn't watch the video. The question was in direct reference to JP's mention of archeological digs which reported findings that very few ancient peoples were buried with gold, but those who were buried with gold had loads of it.
@@johnbowman3630 those graves and gold you reference are rather more recent than those I meant of the stone age. Those rich buried with gold signify grossly unequal societies where slaves were common and even those seemed free were serfs. It was a fuedal system of gross inequality that we are starting to resemble again. My point was that humans by nature are not greedy hoarding pricks that we seem to celebrate so much today
I can confirm after doing more research(wikipedia), that Jordan Peterson's guess for the wealth statistic was far more accurate than that of the person who tried to correct him.
Not much of a surprise. Everyone wants to take a shot at Jordan Peterson's metrics. Pat, the thing that makes him special is his grasp of the theories
It explains why people get aggressive at monopoly
whoa, this is a brilliantly insightful point that expands upon his example
.9 correlation. That's some crazy shit.
All of human life is a monopoly game to one extent or another, of course I think why the fuk wasn’t I told about this when I was younger perhaps he whole world would’ve different
Monopoly was created by a leftwing feminist named Lizzie Magie and was originally called the Landlord's Game.
"Lizzie created two sets of rules: an anti-monopolist set in which all were rewarded when wealth was created, and a monopolist set in which the goal was to create monopolies and crush opponents. Her vision was an embrace of dualism and contained a contradiction within itself, a tension trying to be resolved between opposing philosophies."
Parker Brothers threw out the anti-monopoly side of the game, changed it from Landlord's Game to MONOPOLY, and never gave Liz credit for her creation.
@@gofoucaultspendulumyoursel3496 crushing opponents is more fun.
So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights
'The oaks are just too greedy
We will make them give us light'
Now there's no more oak oppression
For they passed a noble law
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet,
Axe,
And saw
-Rush
Perfect.
Great song.
David Tonkovich Indeed.
And analogy.
Leave it to Rush to write a song about maples and leaves
This man never ceases to amaze me!
@gespilk You sound like one of those people he talks about who have an IQ of 80.
Yes his reservoir of bullshit amazes me too.
gespilk because he pointed out the Pareto Principle?
lawrie cremin he didn’t come up with the Pareto Principle. He’s just pointing it out. You don’t like the facts. Boo hoo for you. Lol
"Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them." (Matt 13:12, NIV)
Jordan is smart but misunderstanding the meaning of this scripture. The Lord isn't talking about the accumulation of wealth/property etc just going to certain people. The Lord is saying HE speaks in parables so that those who have the spiritual ears to understand will receive more of his words and greater understanding. Those who lack the ability to understand his words (they lack the holy spirit or desire to seek to understand his words) will lose the understanding (and blessings) they have.
such a scary line
@@halcooper6059It's the same principle tough...
I am yet to watch a video of JP without learning something. Prior to seeing this video, I'd never heard of the Gini coefficient or Walter Scheidel and his book The Great Leveler: It's amazing to see how JP manages to look subtly at the big questions having set them up with clear fact and reason. He's an intellectual heavy-weight for sure.
Of course he uses hockey as an example, he's Canadian
He could have used a moose or maple syrup
The "It's like, well... okay" always gets me.
I wish they would teach this in school
A good companion video to this one is Petersons discussion of Prices Law. And then there is Paretos Rule, where 80% of the land ends up controlled by 20% of the people, and this can easily be generalized to any ownership.
What I think generally breaks this is the advent of pension/retirement funds, as there are now trillions of dollars in the capital markets being invested for the benefit of the multitudes.
In fact, in todays world, with the mixed government/private sector economic model, the main reason people become spectacularly wealthy (eg Bezos and Gates) is by building companies, listing on the stock exchanges with a large founding shareholding, and then adding value over decades when the price per share eventually moves into the hundreds of dollars (if not thousands); thus amplifying the wealth. However, it is not a function of absolute rule of the landowning classes, but value creation in the markets (windows crashed all the time, but still added a lot of value to the economy).
Hear hear! One of the most important voices in the world right now.
You are joking
1:04 Wait, How did the table and the guy go from Peterson's right to left? His watch was on his right hand then the left. Is this a Simulation? Glitch in the Matrix?
Lol, I was wondering the same thing..I thought it was a lens flip problem, something like mirror image.
I was just looking to see if anyone else noticed that... Lol
The only thing that makes sense is a clean edit of 2 or more talks. There is a pause just where the change occurs. They could have had a 2 day event and wore the same clothes for the shoot.
Later when Peterson starts talking about the Soviet gulags he goes back to the right.
Jordan Peterson is our man :)
gespilk because he points out the Pareto Principle? You should thank the stars that such a man exists to help morons like you understand the world. Corporate apologist. Lol
The problem is that when you are in a position of power, if nothing can stop a person, and the person can abuse it, sometimes it is indeed abused.
Yep, there are examples of it going back into antiquity.
If you listen to pop music. Look up max martin. Perfect example.
With all the riots going on this is what I thought of when it was happening. This is the equalization of the inequality. And almost every time it's achieved with violence
Messed up but true. Hopefully another solution is found.
Equality of outcome for store windows.
@@BboyCorrosive 😂
You should think back to your comment every time more money is pumped into education, health, free drugs, free vaccinations, public works...people take so much for granted. There is no perfect competition anymore, no wild west; at least not in the advanced economies and their jurisdictions.
Ive heard people returning from communist china telling me it was more economically laissez faire than the US; just dont criticize the party, etc.
@@wildec2 Amen
5:21 says it all
When I read on pareto distributions... A while ago I'll admit, I seem to remember that his research indicates that the vast inequity of wealth occurs irrespective of skills or personal attributes. Individual characteristics don't matter, the trend remains the same regardless of how you model the problem. The only thing that changes the curve is the amount of spending... If the flow of capital increases so inequality decreases. Safer than epidemic or war, but how do you legislate that people have to "spend as much as possible"?
Maybe not legislate, but incentivize. Maybe offer a tax deduction based on spending.
@@mattbriggs88 The answer has come out: big inflation encourages people to spend because saving does you no good.
Make homelessness looked at as a sin, not buying new phone or car as a sin. Not dating spending money at restaurants.
100% death tax.
Jordan B Peterson please comment on Ralph Ellis work!
Ha! Richard Branson just advertised before this video :)
Noice I’m currently reading the 12 rules for life
The Pareto Principle is very easy to define and explain: All productive systems are dominated by a fraction (of people involved, of individual efforts, of locations, etc.). However, demonstrating the principle's actual occurrences is a complex task. One could point the matter to Bill Gates to make it easy to tell. But within Bill Gates' story, Pareto will keep applying to so many details that the audience would lose track instantly. I think Jordan Peterson, despite his mastery of public speaking, loses the track of his own thoughts toward the end too. Talking about Pareto is like showing someone a kaleidoscope.
Does the part regarding the epidemics pertain to the 2020 covid-19 and the economy? Makes one wonder.
I acknowledge Mr. Peterson remarkably high competency,
but this video made me wonder
how can Mr. Peterson feel so strongly about male encouragement (comparison with not men)
and not so much about status competition in men? (comparison within men)
simple because he is a clinical psychologist first and for most and it has been shown that competition specially high levels increases the rate at which depression and anxiety develops. something he is try to fight against. he does not thing less of it but rather knows what result it yields... 1 man shall win and the other then shall loose half of which shall fall into hell.
Jordan speaks looking from a fundamental premise that his father provided physical things for him,
therefore his/our unwillingness to individuate from the emotional force of the patriarch is necessary and right (nested inside of truth as Jordan postulates).
A prem·ise is a reason from which another reason is inferred or follows as a conclusion.
Unwillingness to individuate is synonymous with fear of a focus of attention and consciousness that would attract the negative attention of people we depend on for care.
Individuation is synonymous with transcendence of limitations, transcendence of vicious circles of thoughts and feelings, and transcendence of self-defeating patterns of behavior.
When people individuate from the emotional force of patriarchy they become able to generate focus, enthusiasm, cooperation and workability that naturally makes evident that resignation to the will of opportunists, predators, and narcissists is an inferior choice.
The question Peterson's discussions of the Pareto Distribution lacks is an explanation for the rise of the middle classes in the West.
Free market capitalism is responsible for the middle class
The rise of the middle class may be a temporary gain according to the Pareto Principle - in the long run they also lose a a smaller few become richer. I too find this not that convincing about Pareto and like Thomas Picketty who write about inequality and has soem practical ideas about taxing the wealthy to offset the tendency of gross wealth accumulation.
Thomas Piketty has explained that- the golden age for the middle class was an anomaly.
That anomaly has ended, and the middle class has been dwindling since the late 70s/early 80s
Middle class wealth? Good one, go look at what Blackrock capital, etc. are doing. They’re buying up trillions in homes, entire subdivisions in multiple cities and making people permanently renters due to lack of availability of homes to buy and that money for rent goes to the upper class rather than what’s been the primary wealth vehicle of the middle class: Home ownership. Huge article came out recently on it and it’s quite terrifying. Here’s the thing about this wealth distribution: At first it will happen slowly then it will happen so damn rapidly you’re head will spin and you won’t know how to slow it down besides violence.
I don’t think is a problem. I think is law of reality and we just have to accept it just like we have to accept the law of gravity.
Localism might cure it, because as you globalise the pool within which Pareto applies becomes absurdly large. If, in theory, I can accumulate wealth from anywhere in the world (aside from DPRK and such 'rogue states' many conglomerates can) then this would suggest that 83,000 people should control half of the world's wealth- or about $120 trillion, or about $1.5 billion each on a mean average. So let's say this elect group have around 40,000 times the mean average wealth of a citizen of the world. We are nowhere near that point in terms of inequality, but it could happen I'm sure. Whereas if I live in a community of 10,000 people (assume $40,000 of wealth per capita) and all of my wealth is drawn from within that, even if I part of the Pareto elect (the 100 people in that community who control half of its wealth) I would have an average net worth of $2 million, or about 50 times (vs 40,000!!) the mean average wealth of my fellow citizens.
But the Left will never accept it... "fighting" inequality is too tempting a political tool for them. Feigning compassion gets them money and power.
JP IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT HUMANS WALKING THE EARTH TODAY
I think IBI will be the answer soon.
"The Great Leveler" by Walter Scheidel
"the" "of" "and" and "to" really tell a lot about a book.
we should pay them more. /s
What it is strange is that whatever factors can be assumed to influence creativity such as IQ is normally distributed; there is no reason to think that effort, dexterity, imagination, etcetera, are not normally distributed as well.
The only thing that levels inequality is war and pandemics
>2020 viewers: "well fuck"
Anyone knows whom work is he talking about !!!???? Searching for the literature he says his name on 1:33 somebody called "shidell" or something that sound like that
"The great leveler" by walter scheidel - a Brilliant book.
I do think the hyper success of people to create inequality is not always so pessimistic. For example quality of life and wealth is growing at incredible rates and is on the tails of very smart people solving difficult problems.
I mean we still don't know exactly what is going on. Why are we here who are we. How are we existing
Status competition, also known as women, young men killing each other over a girl basically.
Or multiple girls, female choice basically.
Drug dealers dont fight for corners to get laid, they can just empty some blow on the table and get laid whenever they like. Its fighting for territory. Control the territory, control the power hierarchy, control the values, control the laws, control the culture...humans are not gorillas, one male doesnt grow massive and control a harem, there is minimal sexual dimorphism in homo sapiens compared to other apes, thats what we expect from complex society based on teamwork.
Even with the chimps, I was watching a doco about this chimp troop that became unusually large, and there were a few males out hunting, killing and being territorial with monkeys and other chimps, but there was a comment that the chimp with a more thoughtful personality and whites in his eyes had more offspring (the females liked him); so even there, with the huge upper body strength, much larger canines, there was complex society.
My marxist lecturer absolutely hates this 😆
Wait... did he just say epidemic??? 5:20
Yup
COVID doesn’t have a high enough death rate to have an impact
@@Dialogos1989death rate doesn't matter doesn't it, if they lock down entire countries, economies, families... deadly or not, is affecting us big time
@@armandblake I’m sure that’s not what Peterson meant, or the guy he referenced. War or epidemics in the sense that large swaths of people get wiped out
"War and EPIDEMICS" *wink*
Cue Wuhan !
And now with corona pandemic what should I do with this insight? Does it mean that inequality has vanished now? Somehow the rich is still being rich.. when the poors got hit the most..
And also I am living in Indonesia where the Gini Coefficient is above average, Should I move to more equal country like Australia, new Zealand or Japan where the gini coefficient there is bellow average.? But at the same time these country are still enjoying economic growth.. thank you
Needed something more like the black death to match what Scheidel was talking about.
The more things change the more they stay the same?
maybe social scientists should call it the 'Monopoly problem', so that it's more conceptual. then, you can actually attack the problem, without being overwhelmed by it.
5:09 jim keller's in the audience, not so sure he needs to clean his room
meritocracy does not drive inequality.
he even says it himself 2 seconds later!:
"think of monopoly, the game- its a perfect example of how inequality emerges...monopoly's basically A RANDOM GAME...i mean, there's some skill in it, BUT NOT MUCH...so what happens when you play a random game? one person ends up with everything and everyone else with zero"
the rich inherit their wealth and are then like snowballs growing larger (wealthier) as they effortlessly glide down the snowy mountain.
Meritocracy drive inequalities as smart people can sell lot of stuff to the rich people and thus get rich themselves.
I would love to see whether or not pareto distribution applies to sexual activity (within a confined population group- clearly nobody has the time to sleep with 10 million people in a human lifetime, but you might well find a small cadre of people who sleep with 1,000 x as many as the average and therefore 10,000 x as many as people who have only one sexual partner in a lifetime). Arguably sexual inequality is more of a sin than monetary inequality, there is basically unlimited sex available (taking away the issues of consent, desire etc) whereas it makes sense to hoard your own acorns from a survival standpoint.
Im sure there is some law that applies to it, but its not a creative activity, it is a consumption activity. Chasing sex partners is costly, having sex is costly, having children is costly (and somewhat disabling to the female, at least eventually), and looking after all the children is very costly.
It must be more of an opportunism/cost shifting exercise; but without producing offspring, its probably better explained by definitions of mental illness and developmental disorders than it is by laws of high achievement.
It apples but there are physical limitations which keep the process from reaching the Pareto expectation. However I am reminded that 1/3 of the worlds population can be traced to Genghis Khan. He must have been quite busy.
Wait, so you mean to tell me the only way that we know to redistribute wealth is either revolution or epidemic. And since a revolution would prevent most of not all in power, we now suffer prom pandemic and epidemic cases year after year…. This just proves a point for 2021 that I think people need to realize.
Original video?
link in top of bio or here: th-cam.com/video/8sSe6FSrylc/w-d-xo.html
You could change the outcome of the monopoly game by changing the rules so that there is no one winning too much. Simple as that.
the original Monopoly game (called the Landlord's Game) actually did have an anti-monopoly side to it where- when one player gained wealth- all the other players gained wealth.
But Parker Brothers decided to take that part out...for _some_ reason.
@@gofoucaultspendulumyoursel3496 Wow did not know that. Just checked. Very interesting. Big fan of Henry George. That would explain "Go" - a universal basic income to make this capitalist game function.
just wanted to know about the real pareto distribution and end up here lol
1:20 ADD
This is why we have covid-19
Why do they keep flipping the picture so it is reversed? It is really distracting from an interesting conversation.
So the league of shadows' philosophy is actually backed by logic/math and reasoning.
Sorry UBI
He mentioned left wing and right wing govt does not predict inequality
However aren't Scandinavian countries more left wing AND has less inequality ?
To a small degree, artificially... but for the most part no. In Scandinavia the top 20% do 80% of the productive work and are still mostly rewarded for it with the majority of the wealth. They pay higher taxes but still make out like bandits.
Its so hard with scandinavia, they are all lumped together, but they are quite different economically. Norway is an oil and gas superpower, the rest arent, etc. They are very leftist though, so there is a much more generous welfare system (in some ways).
the happiest countries in the world also have high wealth gini coefficients (low wealth inequality), while the united states has the lowest gini and is very depressed.
id rather take happiness over a "surplus". what defines this "surplus" anyway?
modern surpluses are much different than surpluses millennia ago. there were no surpluses of smart phones in the stone age. if government or apple suddenly decided that there arent enough rare earth minerals to make new iphones, no one would die of starvation from not having the latest iphone model.
We can have a Cap on wealth like we can have a cap on how much pollution comes from the exhaust pipe of a car, or a salary cap to stop one team poaching all the best players, we tell teach our children not to be greedy and know when enough is enough but the wealthier a person gets the more scared they become that someone wealthier will take it from them, usually because they became wealthy dominating those weaker than themselves.
A surplus can be used for the common good, why would we want to get rid of it? Obviously only a narrow view is being given by this author. Just because one thing can take it all doesn't mean we have to let it, if a tree is too tall we can cut it down. Many societies tried to stop people becoming too wealthy like ancient Greece so this is just cherry-picking the narrative that suits.
Fear is driving greed and we ignore the lessons we taught to our children, a cap on wealth solves the fear, it's not rocket science just the power lies with those who fear the most.
The gross inequality in wealth is engrained in history and he takes normal inequality between individuals and extrapolates that out to society level - this is a false equivalence. Its one thing to look at difference between people but the inequality in wealth is much more different and explained by different causal factors. Currently, wealth (not to be confused with income) of those who have it (land, savings, investments) is much more different cause and effect.
Mick However, individuals who are at the top of the distribution often pass on their wealth to their family, which is what you are trying to argue here ( inheritance ). However if you have a poor man 1 million dollars. It wouldn’t take long for him to waste it all
@@ramanthind6948 why assume they would waste it? Some buy wealth such as after a lottery. But sure some would waste it due to inexperience or ignorance.
You are correct that there are more factors driving wealth creation than simply differences in natural gifts.
@@ramanthind6948 "However if you have a poor man 1 million dollars. It wouldn’t take long for him to waste it all"
Peterson speaks about someone with low intelligence, and says: 'often they become cocaine addicts, and then lets say that theyre also alcoholics, because thats often the case...give that person a lot of money, they will get into big trouble very quickly'.
So Peterson is experienced enough that he can drill down, literally at will, and give examples of people and their behaviors.
@@wildec2 anecdotes are plural of data. The assumption hidden here is that people are poor because of intelligence and those at the top earned it.
There's many, many people with more money than me. I'm fine with it.
Pandemic? Not with the FED
That's why a global pandemic is here :D :D
Interviewer has ADD or an addiction issue xD
I guess he has never played monopoly, because when one guy have all the money game end and new one can begin and all the players again have the same amount of money. Something like jubilee that they used to have five thousand years ago!
but that brings murder. to start a new game is the revolution and burn everything down and thats the worst of the solutions
My childhood experience of monopoly often ended in revolution with the board flipped over and a need to reset the board - in hindsight I should have also rewrote the rules after the revolution.
The problem with monopoly is that poor, low iq, low achievement people will never roll the dice and be temporarily renting on Boardwalk...theyll never be starting life with a wallet full of money, and there is no 'pass go, collect 200'.
The ultimate explanation as to why we can’t have a better society, “it is what it is”… or “it’s God’s will” or “it’s nature”….
You can change the rules. what the F!
Countries whith lower GINI have better Human Development Index than countries with high GINI, in addition of lower rate crime.
Europe have most of the lower GINI countries. The lower indices are in nordic countries, countries with high level of individual freedom.
Are they mostly all white countries as well?
Wonder if that has anything to do with it!
@gespilk - It is simply a measure of inequality. google it
@gespilk Yes - it may be measured using the Gini coefficient to see how skewed it is - that inequality in wealth has grown since the industrial revolution, accelerated again during the last wave of colonialism, saw a slight bump in the WW1-WW2 period then resumed at a steady rate until supply-side economics of the 1980s where it sharply rose again, a slight wobble with the banking crisis then a steady growth for the rich and downward spiral for the rest - and now the top 8 control as much wealth as the bottom 3.5 billion! They have so much they could not spend it in a lifetime but continue to amass it as a symbol of power while it damns the world. They are like mythical dragons on their heap of gold, doing nothing productive but amassing wealth.
The problem is not always rich people but their children who inherit the money.
Why are trust fund babies a problem? Who do they persecute (except perhaps their own upper classes)? Most of them just turn into tree hugging lefties anyway until they go broke.
It sure doesn’t seem like this epidemic is helping
Cold as this is to say, it's not killing enough people to. If it wiped out half of the 60+ population we would lose parents, grandparents and suffer colossal emotional damage beyond anything experienced in a world war etc but....tens of trillions of wealth would suddenly be up for grabs, and not just to those fortunate enough to inherit money- jobs currently held by experienced baby boomers would have to be filled by 30 or 40 year olds. Tax rates would fall organically (rather than as a political stunt) as there was no longer a need to support tens or hundreds of millions of people in the West who are retired etc.
It ended up being a sacrifice of the elderly to support a political narrative against trump. Fact. Psyop.
In the sense that many populations of working class people got locked down until vaccinated, it didnt help them bridge the income or wealth gaps!
Bottom line, inequality is the nature of man.
Wealth of 8 richests = botttom 3.5 billion people.
Pareto Principle 20 % of world population in this world owns 80 % of wealth
Nordic countries do the best to lessen inequality where corporate tax is 20% but personal tax can reach 60 %.
Nordic countries try, but they actually exacerbated inequality through their efforts to equalize.
@@JohnSmith-zs1bf Not quite and not what Peterson argues. Gender roles/careers in Nordic may follow patterns such as women being drawn to social occupations but the society is very equal in terms of income, power, rights and freedoms. Sexual selection of roles may change along traditional roles but in these countries those roles are well respected and well paid.
@@mick7557 How is it not what Peterson argues?
@@JohnSmith-zs1bf don't confuse gendered differentiation of careers with inequality.
@@mick7557 What do you think JPs point was?
jp: "(shidel's solution is) you just get rid of the surplus...and thats not good"
why not? you think making anything over 100k (maybe with exception to california) a year is going to better your life?
happiness plateaus around 70-75k on average, anything else is unneeded surplus.
In fact, inequality is NOT proportional to the abilities of the wealthy as it happens in the arts.
In the arts domain the fact the Mozart sells millions of copies and others sell a little MIGHT be related to Mozarts ability to compose. The fact that the wealthy are multiply times wealthier than the poor relates to the non meritocratic criteria such as : the fact that these classes do not pay any taxes, the fact that they receive free credit and high tech from the PUBLIC sector.. and because they are allowed to operate a business to an another country and employ salves and children.
So the correct analogy would be to recognize than more capable people might perform and produce better and therefore acquire more wealth but not SO much better to justify the current degree of inequity we are experience today.
Am I gone let someone who says "climate science" is not a science lecture me about a math distribution??? pas une crisse de minute.
The great equalizer is death...The only Hope is Jesus the son of God...This is a fallen world and it is ruled by Satan. Jesus will come again. With Him is a kingdom without end. It is all in the Bible.Hope you will have time to read.God bless.
It’s crazy, I’m not a religious person. but all these mathematical laws are in the Bible. I prefer the KJV but this one will do. For to every one who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. - Matthew 25:29, RSV.
So limit the amount of money any one individual or family can have. Do we really need billionaires?
Most billionaires' wealth is far from liquid, it exists on paper only. If you capped wealth at $1 billion all that would happen is you confiscate some shares when the share price increases and refund them when it drops, unworkable imo. Maybe a 2% annual wealth tax on assets above $10 milllion as I believe the socialist party in France has proposed.
"Do we really need billionaires?"
Peterson does make a case (implying some limits on it) for having billions put into the hands of those that are most creative and productive. However, in some respects we already have this. Musk, Gates, Bezos, they all rose to the top; the cream tends to do that...
The flipside to your question is, do we really need to ban billionaires? I think not.
(pt 2) Only the the most financially successful, i.e., those who have demonstrated exceptional skill at profiting financially can be included in his curve. So perhaps the most esteemed talents in our society; that is, the talents of scientists, artists, writers, philosophers, politicians, technicians) are excluded--no Einstein, or Newton, or Da Vinci, only the Koch Brothers, the Rockefellers and the Trumps. All fine people no doubt.
That's a very good argument against capitalism.
It's not an argument against it but rather an explanation of it.
Ofc ita not. Its actually explaining why is that and why it is good. Its natural and cant be changed causw after changes people will again creat inequality
"That's a very good argument against capitalism."
I feel like capitalism is an insufficient label for what currently exists in most of the world, and particularly the West.
@@lukehumphrey7517 Exactly. So its consequences are going to be an inevitable raising of poverty since money goes permanently to fewer hands.
Pareto explain that inequalities are as high in communists country as in west country..
I like Jordan Peterson, but this isn't exactly on the mark here. In other videos, he does discuss how this distribution is also the amount of work and productivity people produce, and that is missing here.
But ONe big thing that is missing is that while the "inequality" increases, all incomes rise. We can see that for over 100 years. In 1980 44% of the world population was in abject poverty, and that was a significant improvement at that time. 2015 it was down to 9.8%, and 2018 8.3%.
2018 was also a significant time because according to the Brookings Institute half the world's population became middle class or better. That was an even more significant event.
They predicted that it would be about 2/3 of the world population by 2030, with a continued drop in abject poverty by then.
People need to understand that another person's success has nothing to do with you. But due to the way capitalism works you can benefit from their success. Directly or indirectly.
But I really hate the term "inequality", because it really means nothing. It does not show if a person or group is getting better, only the difference. It is nothing but a way to promote envy.
he says pareto principal applies everywhere you look, then says provinces where "everyone is poor" and "provinces where everyone is rich"
this guy doesnt have a clue. e_e
Lol...taking it a bit too literally my friend...
Its more speaking style than the facts of the point being made.
(pt 3) There are many criticisms that can be leveled against the use of the a so-called Pareto Principle used in this way, but the most serious is that it is moral blasphemy to judge human beings on utilitarian grounds-this is paving the way to the gas chambers.
?? The jews were killed BECAUSE of their wealth..
Yeah right life is like monopoly? Everyone starts out as equal? Ya gotta be kidding me! If you fall for this barrage of B.S. and Shell Game word salad, you need a new brain.
by this logic, the workers should own the means of production and Jordan Peterson is making a case FOR COMMUNISM.
lol self-owned.
People see what they want to see in everything I guess. In this very video he clearly states no political structure in history has proven the ability to abolish inequality (includes communism). But okay sir, you do you and try to make everything fit your political beliefs 👍
Lol...nope.
Therefore do not complain about inequality - it is ....natural.... This is a complete fallacy. Firstly the analogy with the successful books or records is pointless. Of course, there will be some variance in performing in all fields from art to science. But the reason the wealth is accumulated so unevenly is NOT the intellectual performance of the wealthy.. The wealthy have created laws and institutions so they can subtract money UNFAIRLY from society - the public sector provides free credit, high tech, infrastructure, and they don;'t even pay taxes : thats why they are superrich...... Please..
(pt 1) The idea of trumpeting a so called "Pareto Principle" to argue for capitalism (or a form there of ) demonstrates a serious lack of intellectual rigor. Peterson is unconsciously and incongruously mixing social Darwinism, meritocracy and the notion of capitalism. But in doing this, he has forgotten that, since Capitalism is exclusively an economic theory, he cannot include all forms of human talent as products of it, only financial success.
He merely pointed out the Pareto principle about how 'any resource' concentrates in a variety of examples he mentioned. However, I dont agree that it is inevitable as he describes it. Difficult though, but not inevitable!!
He did more than comment or elucidate the principle. In part, he tries to apply it to justify wealth inequality and basically a conservative non-interventionist approach to social justice. My criticism concerns (in part) whether this application of it is appropriate as a justification for a political stance in favor of wealth inequality. He's mixed up economics and ethics.
This is also a form of naturalistic fallacy, i.e., "what IS a case SHOULD therefore be the case." I don't think I can be to much clearer. I tried to develop this just a bit here and elsewhere below. I don't think it would be appropriate to offer a much longer explanation since this is TH-cam--where concision is necessary. In this sort of format one has to rely on others grasping the intent--as well as a so called "principal of charity." See the other parts to my comment below.
Capitalism is not a theory, just a marx dream