@@Hugh_Jurrection Correct. They were agreeing with what the other had to say (most of the time) but then adding their own view/opinion onto the topic. Many ideas are the same for both parties. It’s just how or why is the difference
@@Hugh_Jurrection Correct. They were agreeing with what the other had to say (most of the time) but then adding their own view/opinion onto the topic. Many ideas are the same for both parties. It’s just how or why is the difference
@Asim Malik funny how you left out the "one for all" half of the quote. All for one, and only all for one, is how systems collapse and millions die. I understand your argument, but you don't deserve to have as much as everyone else if you don't produce as much as everyone else. That's not to say you don't deserve to have a comfortable life, because you do. But the place you come from is gluttony, from envy
Presidential debate would never be like this. This is a conversation, not a debate. Rogan and Peterson aren't trying to "win" or prevail over one another. They're having a conversation, and that's why it's so chill.
@@Ndogg012 does he "deserve" to have a comfortable life if he doesn't intend to make it comfortable himself and expects us to communally make his life better for him?
@@ESunshine24 I don't think anyone is on another level. They are both well mannered and intelligent people with original and interesting ideas worth listening to.
@@abrodking6584 idk. Someone like Thomas Sowell always has such solid arguments that it didn’t seem like they could be countered even when strong opposition spoke against. In fact opposition only seemed to strengthen his argument. Of course he only talked about thinks he studied strongly so they weren’t really opinions but closer to facts.
Both guests have incredible command of the English language, especially Peterson. I am amazed at how he is able to select his words so carefully and so quickly, choosing just the right words so as not to mess up the meaning. .
@@brianagee2790 SO wholeheartedly agree. He never gets to the goddamn point! He just uses coagulative conjunctual vocabularization to communicate his cognitive disposition upon our auricular sensory reception to convey an intermediary disposition communaly acquiesced by society to dispositionally divide us into psycologically coalescent paradigms that we subliminally define ourselves to hope that we can, one day, excel and conquer our own divisive self definition to succumb to ourselves...Fuck I can't think of more useless words to use.
Watched Andrew Yang, then Ben Shapiro, now Jordan Peterson. If you put them 3 together with Joe Rogan hosting the conversation, that would be like the final episode of a TV series.
It would go somthing like this. Yang would just be repeating his talking points, Jordan would be giving us some logical ideas. Ben would be there talking over everone to try to "win" his argument. And Joe would be gettin high talkin about DMT. Lol
I agree you should listen but I also believe you do learn by talking because it forces you to put your thoughts in a coherent streamline fashion. Just like writing. But I agree to much talking is sub optimal
@@oneeyeopen2094 no, as you try to form your thoughts into coherent verbal sentences, you often encounter places where you arguments fall apart and have to find the missing links... Hence you learn as you go.
Jake Andersson Yes! That’s what I’ve gathered. I’ve been following Jordan for the past year and a half and been on Andrew for several weeks only. Both of them makes sense! 😊
Jake Andersson Yup, apparently a lot of Canadians are wishing for Jordan to run against Trudeau. He can’t speak French which is apparently a requirement.
I do agree, universally basic income is not the answer. Im actually kinda scared it will cause unnatural inflation. Universal basic income HAS to be based on buying power, not on absolute numbers. F.e. it's has to be enough to have basic housing + food and water. (Or whatever criteria you want to add or remove). But it seems the most simple solution is just taxing rich people and companies more. And distributing that wealth back into the lower layer of the society. It seems unfair, but in my country it's quite normal and it's creates massive equallity of opportunity. But almost no equallity of outcome. I'm a prime example. My parents would not have been able to my healthcare, school etc if it wasn't heavily subsidized. Now I'm quite rich because of that, and I pay 56% taxes over my income. But I don't mind, because I have had: healthcare-, rent-, school subsidized when I wasn't rich and I payed only 26% taxes.
Dani Londen it doesn’t have to be if it’s not meant as full living wage. A constant dollar value would just incentivize poor people to move to cheap places to live.
@@danilonden3782 Maybe we can go for universal basic credit. The whole purpose of the idea is to give an offset (adjusted baseline) for people to start and to obtain a realistic chance to succeed for them or their children. I mean like a monthly credit that can only be used for education or innovation or startup.
@@ahmadchamseddine6891 I would say that's a better solution then a true universal basic income. But its very similar to the welfare system.in place in Holland right now.
Some issue's simple as "left" or "right" black and white mate! Some problems are all shades of grey and everything in between! The fact that everything has to be hard locked either to the left or right politically these days is the very reason why things are going of the rails lately; Populism both right and left is leading to a downfall in society because some issues are just to complex to simplify for people that don't and can't understand.................
@@TheSampleSlayer Populism gave me a door into politics while I was young and naive. It helped me to discover different perspectives in ways I had never seen before. Yes it's not where someone should stay but it's bloody good at getting people to talk.
@@TheSampleSlayer Left and right is in USA (and maybe UK). In other countries (at least I see it in EU) they have different voting system which creates more competition. It's not unusual to see 6 or more parties as the result of elections. To make a government they might need a coallition of 2-4 parties. Currently there are 4 parties in my country who is making the government. From those 1 is a new party, other is one election cycle old (so formed about 4-5 years ago), other 2 formed around year 2010. Only one of them was part of the government before. There are usually 20 parties which you can choose during the elections. Lot of former big parties which were in control of government they are now practically dead. One party which was in control in the past in 2000s (probably over 20% share) they received under 1% of votes in the next election (due to some stupid mistakes, corruption scandals and new competition). Few other parties ended up the same, they are history. This is the system which I really like. Not 2 parties which have monopoly last 40 years.
Peterson and Yang actually agree. Peterson sees economic utility of UBI, he just doesn't think it solves the bigger problem which has to do more with mental health & purpose. Peterson looks at things from more of a psychological point of view whereas Yang focuses more on economic well being. People often ask Yang, what are people going to do? Yang always says " who knows man that's the question of our era." Yang also doesn't think that UBI solves the entire problem, but he sees it as necessary to keep the economy functioning. That however does not mean that Yang doesn't see the potential psychological ramifications of mass automation, nor does it mean that he thinks throwing money at people will fix those mental health issues. He often points out that nearly half of the people who lost their manufacturing jobs are no longer in the workforce, and that suicide, drug abuse, and depression rates have skyrocketed in those communities.
UBI can be argued as just a band-aid to keep capitalism alive... it doesn't really solve a great deal - but is an interesting 'solution' that should be explored
"Men don't need *money,* they need *function."* That single sentence by Jordan Peterson is the single most powerful statement I've ever heard in the entire UBI conversation. The need for people to have meaningful work is as important as the need for food, or water, or any other basic human need. Here's the problem: The game is fixed, and it will stay that way. The only way that monarchies are overturned are through violent means. From the French Revolution to the Revolutionary War, it seems that the only way the ruling class deals with the peasants is through wealth, power, influence, and control, the only thing that all politicians truly understand.
That is not true. Peaceful protests against dictators/regimes are more often successful than violent ones. The game isn't fixed, it's quite likely partially fixed. Do you know what society/economy was fixed? India as a colony. What happened? Ghani. I'm not saying peaceful protests will magically fix everything, I'm just saying it's not as easy as you made it out to be. Also it's not as doom & gloom as you made it out to be.
@@hanspeterqwe6620 Don't get me wrong. Peaceful protests are ALWAYS the best option. But try telling that to the millions of violent looters and rioters tearing apart nearly every major city in America, as we speak. It appears that your positive comments aren't exactly having any positive effect on THEM, are they???
@@tiffsaver If they were actually planning to get rid of all the crooks and the corruption in America then yes, they would need to burn everything to the ground
@@tiffsaver You are distracting. Looters and rioters are not interested in the cause to begin with. They are just waiting for an opportunity to do what they do. The people we need to talk about are the people who actually want to change things to the better, not people who don't give a shit (like looters and rioters).
@@MyReligionIs2DoGood I am not "distracting." I am talking about supporting LEGITIMATE PROTESTORS, not the criminals and hooligans the government often PAYS to loot and burn cities down, then blames the entire thing on these same individuals. All of these staged events are planned by the members of the Democratic party.
This is one of the best clips from the entire JRE catalog. Really thought provoking stuff. I watch entire 3 hour episodes in the hopes of getting a little nugget of wisdom like these two shared here.
This is the real kind of conversation my brain craves. Whether I agree with them or not, it provokes thoughts, not some shitty catharsis I was taught to have when someone on my team wins an argument with better talking points.
I really just want to hear smart people talk on either side whether it’s Peterson or slavo zizek (the communist philosopher) Maybe because it’s just so rare to hear good discussions
IMANFBIAGENT That is one of the most honest self analysis I have ever read in the comments section. Our ego is so invested in the reward system of our side "winning" the argumwnt we forget why we had the argument and what needed to be solved in the first place.
WTF- 3 people had a conversation and let each other speak without talking over each other incessantly?? Joe- you're slipping pal- Lol. Was actually a good podcast. Well done.
I managed stores in Michigan, my employees were college kids, young adults going to college and single mothers. Many, many times these employees showed up to work sick because they couldn't afford to take time off from work. The mothers reluctantly sent sick kids to school because they needed the paycheck and couldn't take the time off of work to care for the sick child.
@Twiddly Stosh yeah definitely but people make it seem like a racial issue, its not, its an economic and legislative issue. In the US in the 60s when it was still under the Gold standard you could buy a house with like 3 years worth of salary, and can buy a brand new car with like 4 months worth of salary. But that changed because the whole world left the gold standard and paper currency is losing value yet prices going up.
That’s what a Keynesian left winger (like me) would want, something akin to a new Breton woods model that would redress the balance between wages and growth. Maybe use crypto instead of gold?
@@christianround2774 i don't see what is fundamentally wrong with gold. My issue with crypto is that hypothetically a cyber attack or a super duper virus could take out the entire internet and then all the crypto would be gone. Gold on the other hand doesn't fear anything, including fire, water, cyber attacks etc. Gold will probably outlast nuclear Armageddon whereas crypto is wholely dependant on our infrastructure remaining at peak operation. Hell a pretty bad solar flare that temporarily halts internet traffic for a few days could potentially disrupt the block chain so bad that it either breaks or a few people acting quickly enough could steal all the worlds crypto or some shit. Why reinvent the wheel? We should stay on the gold standard.
@@ivan_says_hi crypto is stored locally, so it wouldn’t just disappear. The actual scientific likelyhood of an event like you are describing is pretty much 0. Modern infrastructure would never fail to that extent except for under cataclysmic world ending events, which at that point- goods matter more than any form of currency, even gold.
Well then you might like very calm, rational and intelligent critique Peter Joseph did on a Peterson debate on Capitalism vs Socialism, posted on TZMOfficialChannel. Very thought-provoking. Hard to argue with since each point is so logically stated.
In capitalism everyone gets what they deserve. And that's not an oversimplification. Leftist view is however. Right Jordan? So I guess low IQ people who don't earn enough should die, so that the new high IQ race will prevail. Yay!
The irony of arguments made by people like Peterson, that somehow aspiration or desperation breed innovation, that financial incentive is what advances society, is that this has LITERALLY never been the case. Sure money is important, but if you look through history at who accomplished greats leaps forward for civilization, or innovated technology, or created beauty in art, literature or architecture... you'll find a bunch of "idle rich people" Granting people the autonomy that they don't need to work to sustain themselves. Hell, look at modern success stories and you'll find plenty of "I ate ramen and lived with my parents" and think that means "sacrifice and hard work" but what it ACTUALLY meant is that they cut their costs to the point they could devote their time to something better. I wonder how many geniuses we've lost to poverty, lack of education or rigid class structure. Considering the progress we've made in a short few decades since universal education became common, I'm thinking a lot. (the very idea of universal literacy wasn't even considered before the industrial revolution required a more educated kind of worker. Before 200~ years ago education was mostly reserved for the prvileged few) "in capitalism everyone gets what they deserve" may be the most idiotic statement I've ever heard. What was never the purpose of the system nor is it something it ever addresses. Your argument here is essentially that poverty is a punishment for the sinful. You can argue that capitalism had increased social mobility & features in the fairest societies we've build, but even THAT is over simplifying.
Social Media makes up 1% of the accessible 1% of the internet most people have access to. It's a powerful tool people still don't utilize adequately to harness its potential
I agree with that 120% I just really hope that if UBI ever becomes a thing, I really don't want the majority of people to rely on it as "solving the problem." The problem is... How much faith do you have in the common people?
I much prefer a negative income tax. It is better than both welfare and ubi in every way possible. Its only fault is that it still gives people free money. But I think the two most crucial differences between welfare and ubi and nit are dependence and cost: 1) DEPENDENCE: Welfare actively creates dependence and disincentivizes work by effectively taxing the earned income of welfare recipients at a rate of 100% or more. Ubi doesn't create dependence and disincentive like welfare does (as your stipend doesn't stand to go away), but it doesn't incentivize earning income either. Nit, however, effectively taxes your early income at 50%, but as your income increases past a certain threshold, your tax rate drops to 20%, thus incentivizing earning more... without ever ending up with less total income like with welfare. 2) COST: Welfare currently costs a little over $1 trillion every year. A ubi of $1000/mo would just about triple that, and even Yang's best speculations (including taxing big corps) don't come close to paying for it; _furthermore_ his program wouldn't even replace welfare, as welfare recipients who get more welfare than the ubi offers can opt out, so this would actually cost _more_ than the initial 3 trillion. But nit _from the beginning_ would cost only half to a third of what we already spend on welfare, and that's assuming that all 30 million people currently in poverty simply stop trying to work... If we don't assume the worst and rather estimate that the average income of all those people equals the exemption threshold, then the entire program will pay for itself at no cost to current taxpayers. An added bonus to nit compared to ubi is that the money only goes to people who need it. Either Yang doesn't understand what MLK, Nixon, and Friedman were getting at by their minimum guaranteed income proposals, or he's just pretending for his uneducated base that these conservatives agree with his atrocious and potentially disastrous ubi idea. Either way, he's either a fool or a fraud. TL;DR: ubi is dangerously stupid, costing easily thrice what we already spend, but nit would immediately halve our spending and even stands to pay for itself within a generation. And Yang is an idiot... Not Yang Xiao Long... She's cool.
@@Clancey65 The game Monopoly was created in part to educate the masses about capitalism. BTW, I'd love to hear a conversation between Rutger Bregman and Jordan Peterson.
Summary of JP's opinion: some inequality is needed for innovation and productivity, but too much incites a revolution that helps no one. People at the bottom of the hierarchy will remain content with the hope of future success so long as the system doesn't feel rigged. Therefore rich people rigging the system are destroying the stability of society, so this behaviour must be stamped out at all costs. Some people on the left unfortunately believe that all people in power are rigging the system so need to be removed, which is incorrect and dangerous.
The left's vision is dangerous in my opinion. They want to get rid of rich people and create equality. That sounds great on paper for a perfect utopia, but in practice they will disincentive anyone doing anything productive since there is no point if you cannot advance and improve yourself financially. Economy sputters, the only people rich are the politicians in charge and the people are equally suffering.
@@itsatrap7215 Human behaviour and its decision making ability cannot be predicted in any terms. You can't say that in reality socialism or any other form of political or economic system can't work because of "human nature". We can use it in regards to anything. Hume's law literally constitutes inability of moral or ethical relations between human being to be calculated and predicted because of their subjectivity.
Bret Weinstein adds that modern technology (like social media) makes us all less content with our rung in society by nurturing jealousy. He seems to imply that this has led to increased left wing popularity. He adds that no one has studied the extent of 'rule-breaking' in the economy, but he suspects it is sadly very high, and therefore can sympathize people's cries for change.
@@aykhansalmanov5993 Yes we can say exactly that, because we can look at history to prove it. They tried socialism in over 50 countries last century. None of them worked well. All of them ended up as totalitarian regimes. 100 million people died. Humans are not ants.
@@AdelaeR As I said earlier humans are living creatures with minds and decision making ability which can't be predicted. The fact that socialism failed in 20th century doesn't make it any worse than capitalism. When we talk about capitalism for some reason we look at only successful and prosperous nations of Western Europe and North America but we don't look at tens of other unsuccessful capitalist countries which live in poverty. The reason for that is global imperial domination of big European countries over the course of history which in the end resulted in their prosperity.
Jordan Peterson: "Don't let the inequality in your neighborhood get out of hand, because the crime rate will skyrocket." Me: * Thinks about Mexico's crazy powerful drug cartels, super corrupt police forces and politicians and it's extremely poor citizens * Also Me : Yup, that sound about right.
The Cartel gets its money from the black market created by the war on drugs. Let's say I am a poor villager living in Mexico, what can I realistically do?
@@MrMetalhorse rhetorical questions are meant to make you think, not to be answered. You offered two callous answers that I have a hard time believing were made in good faith. Do you care about seriously considering the situation of someone born in Mexico? I have worked with and become close to people from Mexico, who made the most sensible decision available to them, and fled to America. I asked this question because I wanted the author of this comment to consider the life of someone born there and whether theyre able to do anything at all about the inequality in their neighborhood. Dr. Peterson says we should be precise in our speech, and I think he's right.
@@kevinbeck8836 nothing the cartel supports its people so the people can get support from a corrupt backbone. Practically corrupting everything around them. Once the economy and people get education the cartels will fall.
Yes he did, it involves a theoretical "value added" tax that corporations pay. Even if he defined it, it's a stupid idea.. For as smart of a businessman as he claims to be, he forgets how businesses function. This does one of two things (if not both): If the tax is centralized to the corporation's localities (highly unlikely, since he wants a national program), they're just going to leave. If the tax is pushed on purchases, like he implies, the cost gets passed to the consumer. So welcome to inflation. This isn't even a bandaid, and Friedman is rolling in his grave when Yang tries to pass this as something he would have advocated for.
MeatSword oh perhaps everyone dont just implode in anxiety from having to actually deal with being present, or disappear into dopamine flux -netflix, you give hope to the world
Thank you for this I’ve literally come to many of these realisations myself and although I’m put out that these ideas aren’t just my own grandiose thinking… they have been well fleshed out already and I’m grateful to learn and incorporate these ideas and your perspectives into my argument/proposal… Wonderful lesson in the art of debating too, great video!
@@myview9923 actually it's not necessary to figure out, you can perceive game is fixed and that's enough to feed the resentment, there's plenty of Social Justice Warriors feeding resentment and using it in theyr own benefit
There is sooo much past knowledge out there and needs to be shared. But there is so much more bullshit out there that would need to be eliminated. This problem can never be resolved.
Yeah, the clear solution for all of our troubles is to go back to a fuedal system where us regular serfs are beholden to the government to survive. Basic income for all, woo!!
Funny. It isn't the concept though. I think the idea behind the basic income is you're suppose todo whatever you want. Work, not work. I'm deeply against btw
The idea is that UBI gives each person the opportunity to decide what the best way to spend their time is. What they're good at and what is worth doing. There is no freedom without this.
its amazing to watch this 3 years down the line and to hear what Jordan Peterson has to say. His take on the situation is exactly what is taking place in South Africa today. Its like he is talking about RSA but without mentioning its name.
THE most competent discussion I have ever heard on this subject that didn't follow extreme ideologies and politicize it. I wish the news media knew how to foster this kind of discussion. The world would be a better place.
My takeouts: - Inequality has a linear relationship with crime - The universal basic income may not be the solution - Men need to feel a sense of social responsibility, ie. Give them work and not just money - Technology & innovation kills jobs - People don't mind inequality if there is equal opportunity and the game isn't rigged - Rich people caused the 2008 recession but then benefitted from the restabilization of the economy after
They didn't say that "rich people" caused the crisis, they said the rich benefited the most from the recovery. Markets are too big and too complex to be impacted by "the rich" or any other group alone.
@@whitestork3896 The recession was pretty clearly caused by subprime mortgage credits given out by big banks. There were decisions made by a handful of rich people that severely impacted markets.
@@jacksonkoppe7297 Rich people were a contributing factor. But honestly, you don't get a crisis of the magnitude of 2008 without multiple factors. You had banks giving out subprime loans. But you also had a government that was pushing the banks to loan to risky borrowers. That was part of Bush's 'ownership society'. That created a scenario whereby you had a large number of loans being graded A+ by rating agencies who were clueless as to how risky they were. But if one really takes a step back, the ultimate culprit was Alan Greenspan and the Fed. Their monetary policy created not one, but two massive asset bubbles. The first was the dot com boom and bust and then that was followed by the housing boom and bust. Both were fueled by interest rate policy that fueled more risk since stable asset vehicles like bonds and CDs weren't yielding enough.
@@Diomedes01 This is a great summation of the variety of factors that were at play in 2008, thank you. Underlying all of it is of course greed, to some extent and by some parties. But that is a problem much older than us. In theory, a society that fully embraced, articulated, and operated out of love and charity (not UBI) instead of greed and pride would be the only long-term solution, but that is a utopia we can currently only dream about.
And why are these two people, and Mr. Yang, and several others not sitting in a debate on national television to decide which philosophy might better the nation as a whole....ie running for President as opposed to the dreadful hand full of clowns that actually are? The people of this country need to back people like this.....give them support, give them money....I somehow feel we would all be much, much better off regardless of which side of the isle you occupy. Could we all perhaps agree on this one single point as a starting place...We have to demand it first or it won't happen.
@@JesusFriedChrist man I wish I was Canadian! ❤️ I’ve never seen a Canadian that didn’t seem to have a high IQ ❤️ They all seem so much wiser and calmer than so many of us down here 😂.
It's ok people from inner city hoods looted pharmacies and Nike stores. They also burned down a bunch of businesses, terrorized entire cities and put business owners out of business forever. I guess we should all be equal now?
You need to look up what an AGENT PROVOCATEUR is..... people not actually angry but PAID TO make trouble. Not ACTUAL inequality but a chance to loot stuff or CREATE political points.
Brian Bagent meh, not entirely true but your point is well-made. We haven’t had a healthy middle class since the end of WWII and through into the 1950’s. The 1960’s was where things began to change. And then from the 1980’s onwards we had a steep decline in the middle class with 2008 being the final straw that destroyed it.
@@Xpistos510 - "we the people" didn't have access to honest money after 1933. the federal government still traded in gold with other nation states, per the Bretton Woods agreement, but Nixon ended that. From my reading, the real decline began in 1973 when Bretton Woods ended and the "petro dollar" was born. Any way you slice it, currency harms most those who works for a wage (salaried or hourly, doesn't matter). And the lower the wage, the more harmful currency is to the wage earner. The fact that many (most, maybe) households had 2 income earners (starting in the 60s or 70s) masked what was happening, but at some point, even 2 income earners won't mask the debauching of the currency. If you stop and think about it, a kid in 1960 making minimum wage of $1 or maybe $1.25, who was getting paid in silver coin, had more in purchasing power than those making minimum wage today. Trade value for circulated junk silver is about $14 for $1 face value of the junk silver. It is only going to get worse until the dollar ultimately and inevitably is debauched all the way to zero, as all currencies have always done, sooner or later.
@@smokedbrisket3033 but without debasing the currency or taking it off the gold standard, how is a Government supposed keep enough money in circulation for an ever growing population?
@@EvilSapphireR - it is a Keynesian myth that the supply of currency needs to keep up with population/GDP/whatever. It isn't about how much currency is in circulation (which increases indefinitely until it is worthless), it is about what you can buy with what you have. My suspicion is that you are assigning purchase parity to, for example, a $10 gold eagle and a $10 federal reserve note. There are 247 1/2 grains of pure (or 270 gr of standard) gold in a $10 gold eagle. It would take 78 $10 FRNs to equal the value of a single $10 gold eagle right now. Distilled down to essential elements, monetarists hold that we must debauch our currency in order to keep the economy running strong. That's a logical absurdity. The fact is that never in the history of the world have there been a group of people who are trustworthy enough to control those reins. Just like socialism's advocates, "it would work if we only had the right people in charge." We're $23 trillion in debt because of monetarists. If that debt were paid off, it would in reality be a deflation which would destroy the USD. We have 2 courses of action possible to us: suffer some pain and switch back to gold (and silver), or suffer severe pain when the dollar is inflated to the point of worthlessness, which it inevitably will be, as all currencies in the history of the world have inevitably done.
Please setup a show with Peterson and Andrew Yang. A psychologist and an economist that agree on UBI as a strong improvement of wellbeing, come together to discuss how to approach what UBI doesn't solve
@@koenigsforst_ That's something that I think Jordan Peterson is missing. A UBI would allow people to take on greater roles (and greater responsibilities) in their communities. Right now adults generally trade at least 1/4 of their time for money. If you had a guaranteed source of income that would allow to potentially free up more time to find a different, and perhaps greater, purpose in life. There are hardly any men on earth who have time for a purpose beyond being a provider for their family and it's certainly detrimental to society.
@@whenthedustfallsaway I think humans are motivated by what they place value on, and what they place value on is determined by both themselves as individuals and by the society they are a part of. That's why I think Yang is certainly on the right track with his UBI proposal, because he wants to accompany it with a completely new approach to measuring our success as a country. We rely solely on unemployment numbers, GDP, and stock market prices to measure success instead of life expectancy, mental health, personal happiness, education, financial security, and any number of measurements that more accurately depict the qualify of life for an average American.
I would go to sleep with a light heart and happy soul if/when that happens. Two of my favorite influential figures. Come on, Joe, make it happen. Peterson and Yang episode.
Honestly Brett jumps to the evolutionary response way to quickly on some of these social issues. It's true that an evolutionary analogy can be drawn, but he forgets that biological evolution is not the orchestrator of the more complex social behaviours of humans, just the origin of them.
Pretty sure he's dropped the f-bomb quite often. Just usually in context to something. It doesn't seem like it is his manner of speech, but I truly do believe that he does feels that way from time to time. He's just very, very careful with how he expresses himself.
Tom Hewitt go watch a tv show called the trailer park boys or go to a hockey game trust me that whole polite no cussing atitude is only pushed by mainstream media
Add Andrew Yang to this conversation and I can't help but feel we might get to a workable solution. Love that they are talking about real problems that we are STILL experiencing.
Interestingly, the route to this more calibrated world they speak of would likely be very mundane, somewhat gradual, and would provide news companies very few headlines.
@@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler He has mentioned other potential solutions before. EG there is a huge shortfall of carers of various types in most western countries. You do not need to be Einstein to help physically disabled people with cooking and cleaning etc. One estimate I saw was that there was a shortfall of in excess of 6 million hours in just the UK. If UBI was set at £100 but you had to earn it through being a carer and minimum wage was £10 then that would mean 600,000 unemployed people at least partly employed. The real issue is that mechanisation has taken far more jobs than immigration ever has. EG the car industry in the UK produces about the same number of cars as it did in the 70's.. There were in excess of 40,000 sprayers alone. Now the number of sprayers working for Toyota is 5. The total number of people working in the car industry is less than 20,000. Checkout staff are another classic example. These days in my local small supermarket there are usually no more than 2 checkouts open and the rest go through self scan. News stands dont exist anymore. What is also needed is a huge injection of cash into general STEM research. Keeping someone on state benefits for unemployment costs the taxpayer around £1000 per week (I can provide figures for this). That's significantly more than a post doctoral researcher in the first few years of research. The whole situation is nuts.
Quantitative easing is the result of Big Brother getting involved in the money supply. If we had a free market gold standard like we're supposed to we wouldn't have the crazy man made inflation that we do now. However just because one big government scheme is bad, quantitative easing, doesn't mean that another big government scheme is good, Universal basic income. We need to ditch that horrible idea as well as get rid of the Federal Reserve and return to a gold standard.
You don't understanding QE. What you mean to say is Corporatists/Capitalists have deficit spending and institutional access to tax schemes that cheat the American society while racking up trillions in National Debt all in the name of corporate profits for the shareholder class. Give the money back to the People!
If you want to know the answers to the economy, ask Dr Thomas Sowell. He's done extensive studies on that subject. He addresses this issue better than these two do. Dr Peterson is on the right path, but Dr Sowell has fine tuned it.
@Vlad Xavier Why do you assume that bureaucrats obeying capital interests isn't itself a part of capitalism? Why is it good for capitalists to pursue their rational self-interests at all costs, but when a politician pursues _their_ self-interest by selling out, it's a bad thing? "The executive of the modern state is nothing but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie." -- Karl Marx The state and private interests are two sides of the same capitalist mode of production. You need central authority to enforce private property, and you need capital to make authority effective in the first place. The power of one depends on the power of the other. The government isn't "strangling" the economy, it has always been doing what the economy needs it to do. It was corrupt from the moment it began to exist. Governmental power isn't useful at all unless you can use it to cash out.
Culturally, we need to do away with this notion that money is an objective measure of man's utility. There are many a man and woman who work much harder than I do, doing things with much more utility to society, and who get paid a fraction. We've taken the concept of a market economy, monetized that, and then monetized the monetization. And we get upset when the government can't guarantee us more jobs in the massive ponzi scheme we find ourselves in.
It's because without money you don't get a roof, food, respect, healthcare, transportation, and you can't buy anything (which people think equates to liberty in a Capitalist nation). I wish it was as easy as getting everyone to stop being a dick, but it's legislation that drives sociological norms whether we like it or not.
@@jeffthebracketman Both genders can be equally judgemental when someone (usually a man) isn't independent and has some sort of wealth. It's an insult to live at your parents, it's an insult if you don't work a 9-5, it's an insult if you don't have responsibility.
@@idontfeellikeit That's implying that your profession has anything to do with who you are as a person. How many people do what they love? Your job, more often than not, is just a means to money (not to mention all the ways to earn money now that is in no way related to "working"). The government should be creating way more jobs than it does now, there's no argument against that, sorry. It should be paying teachers more and not paying cops time and a half to direct traffic. Whether you like it or not the government is responsible for the lives of millions of people and they're not doing a good job of providing a good life for enough of them.
@@idontfeellikeit Lmao, get off of MY high horse. That's mighty hypocritical considering you're ranting about a subjective opinions, but I digress... You're taking everything I am saying to an extreme an using it against me, as if I said that the government should be handing out everything for people so we can all just sit on our ass and be fat. It works in childish arguments, but not in what i hoped would maybe be an intelligent discussion. Trying to make my point to you is moot because the only relevant opinion to you is your own. I suggest going to a country where people all agree with you and you are never challenged. Might have to go back 100 years to get what you want though.
@@unluckycloverfield4316 oh and the quote is intended when this was the method. i.etsystatic.com/14435134/r/il/18960b/1554153907/il_570xN.1554153907_7zg7.jpg
Yeah, it's the same argument. There's a percentage of corrupted police(the rich) so we will take away the whole police system(the rich). Like what you going to replace that? Kindless? If kindness work in the first place, police won't even exist.
I have watched this podcast and have considered it. This problem is very simple. There's two classes of people in our economy today. There's those who live on commission, and there's those who live on fixed income paid by those who live on commission. For me, either everyone lives on commission of some kind, or this problem continues.
Research on UBI shows that very few people who stay on it do not take actions to advance themselves on the job market. People work harder and become more entrepreneurial when they are not stuck in a cycle of poverty.
Constantine Kramarenko Yeah, you’re right. The issue is that those same studies admit the following: - UBI would increase prices thus reducing the purchasing power of money. - UBI depends on a massive almost total reduction of welfare, something that’s deeply improbable, and unpopular. - UBI would probably trigger deficits that would neutralize or destroy the supposed benefit.
The typical way we have always handled wealth inequality is through estate taxation. The problem is that we have overcomplicated our tax code and have weakened our society through a lack of morals, ethics, and self discipline.
What Peterson was saying is why I find the idea of Star Trek's Federation so interesting. Money has become obsolete in that fictional world, the vast majority of humans don't want or care about money because basic needs are catered for, you have replicators to feed and clothe yourself, you have Holodeck's for entertainment, the ability to travel and, most importantly, a career that makes you feel useful and gives your life meaning. Money not required.
The "Star Trek" argument again? You do realize it is science fiction? Actually, if you really want to geek out on it and delve deeper into Star Trek lets: The replicators were used on spaceships where they don't have farmland. Therefore can't raise crops or cattle. Prior to replicators you have sophisticted food storage methods like we do in the army with MRE's --however you do wind up with an issue of limited storage space for both food and waste on a space ship. Also, replicators were powered by energy in the form of mythological dilithium crystals. Often episodes of Star Trek and other sci-fi shows were written with "insert techno-babble here" in the scrips. And I am not kidding. Thus techno-babble is no way to build a sustainable economy. So the massive energy it takes to "replicate" food and other stuff was not something that people on Earth would do...that would be enormously wasteful. And being good stewards of the environment, Star Trek people would not waste energy. Lastly, the everybody gets the job they feel would be useful is also a Utopian fantasy. Have you ever worked a job? I wonder. Consider Fry from Futurama. He was a pizza delivery boy before he got frozen and woke up in the future...to be a delivery boy, the job he was most suited to. What if you don't WANT to be a delivery boy? What if you would prefer to be the captain of the Starship Enterprise? Well, not everybody will be chosen to do that, so some level of resentment is going to be built in to the human experience. The concept of communism will never work because even with a society with no money, there will still be a concept of things that people value. Without a motivation, people don't reach for their full potential. That is why communism always fails.
James Keyes Communism, as originally defined, has never even been tried anywhere. People tend to forget how vague and reactionary the Communist Manifesto was. All the details are pretty sketchy, and defined more by their effects than by their methods. Marxist communism was a materialistic criticism of 19th century industrial working conditions, but it wasn't a coherent set of proposals for an alternative, as people tend to think of it. Communism, at that time, didn't need a plan, as communism was never envisioned as a planned movement, never intended to be a choice, never meant to be the result of any sort of centralized decision making process. Marx deliberately contrasted his critical, reactionary, specific, materialistic analysis he used with command economies, which he called "utopian socialism." Marx predicted that communism would be an outgrowth of capitalism, the apotheosis of progress, and result in the withering away of the state and the abandonment of class distinctions. He believed that communism would grow naturally and inevitably out of the free market, without any sort of planning or coordination, not that it would co-exist with and act as a competitor to the free market. The most capitalistic countries of the day, namely the United States, because they were farthest along in the dialectical process, would, he thought, become the most communistic of tomorrow, spearheading the movement. He cheered on the American Civil War, as he saw the emanicipation of slavery as part of that dialectical process and as a sign of the US's transition to communism. If you believe in the historical dialectic, and define "communism" as whatever the 19th century capitalistic countries (as typified by Robber Baron-era America) have since evolved into, then the most successful communist country in the world right now would be, ironically enough, the United States... There actually was a worldwide series of civil rights protests and revolts around 1848 that culminated in the Japan's meiji restoration, the women's rights movement, and the simultaneous end of slavery in those few remained countries that still had it (Brazil, Thailand, the US). The revolution wasn't televised, so not many people know about it, but Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm wrote a good book about it, The Age of Revolution. As it happened, contrary to what Marx predicted, openly "communist" parties haven't actually come to power in any really industrially-advanced countries. They mostly win out in feudalistic dictatorships (like Czarist Russia and Qing China) or former colonies (like Cuba and Moldova). What they with these countries would probably be unrecognizable to the original 19th century communist sympathizers. If communism in the original sense exists anywhere in the world, it's not going by the name "communism." What's calling itself "communism" these days is closer to the "utopian socialism" that Marx so disdained. However, there are a few states that call themselves communist that had or have relatively enlightened policies. As best I can tell, those states are Vietnam, Nicaragua, and China post-Mao. Now, keep in mind, I'm saying "relatively." Each of these are pretty dysfunctional in their own way, but they're still doing better than the average "communist" country
The "Communism has never been tried correctly argument" is invalid. Making such supportive statements is truly immoral. As if to encourage it to be tried again and again. Communism has been tried and failed. Many times. All we get to show for it is 100 million murders. Anyone who doesn't roundly condemn communism for the pure evil that it is, but instead equivocates is an enabler. Not only do you dishonor the over 100 million people murdered by communism and a billion more enslaved by it, but to add insult to injury you allow for it to be tried again, because the rest of us dummies couldn't get it right, so we need to just try to do it your way.
Mr Joe, what does automation and A.I. contribute to this UBI equation ...or.... is UBI a suppressant to start mass automation so there won't be retaliation?
Wow, such a deep and intelligent discussion. I've been watching a lot of YT lately on, let's say, the fundamental forces at work in economic systems. I hadn't really understood before that this is a thing - and that there is good evidence for what these fundamental forces are and how they operate. And then I find that it begins to clarify your whole view of politics. Amazing.
Pretty much everyone I know admires wealthy people who got there by producing something of value. The kind of wealthy people that people don't like are the ones that either got there or remain wealthy by pushing down on working people. Most people do not like CEOs that did not start the company, don't produce anything of value, slash everyone's benefits and pay, try to outsource everything, exercise their stock options,, and then leave with a golden parachute worth millions after they get fired. Most people do not like the wealthy people that ran the big banks that were living like kings when the economy was booming and then ended up getting bailed out when the economy crashed by the only people that we hate more than them, politicians. Working people do not want to be lectured on how lazy and worthless they are by a bunch of parasites that are not treated as such only because they are getting paid to be parasites.
Problem is, the "American Dream" doesnt differentiate. In the US, just being succesful is all that matters - everything else is second. Thats the problem.
@@PLF... success is a pipe dream and completely subjective. Success to me would be to not have to worry all the time if I'll have a place to live next month or not. One crap job after another and the only ones that is me well pay me as a contractor. I give 30% of that to the government every year for my troubles. So yeah, Ubi will work for me, personally. Let bezos worry about bounced checks for a few months
@@MrZatyro suddenly rents get 1000 bunks more expensive and everything else gets even more expensive as everyobe is literally given. 1k Wow no worries dude wow it is okay let just increase UBI until all the problems of the first world goes away
It’s interesting because earlier in this podcast, they all agreed on a particular point about someone’s degree of motivation and creativity that is influenced by being lower on the socioeconomic ladder, and that some of the greatest entrepreneurs started from almost nothing. But the key is that they still had something, as Weinstein clarified (I.e. their basic needs were met and they likely had a stable family and childhood). I get Peterson’s point, that young people, particularly young men, need meaning purpose and fulfillment in life in order to be functioning and thriving human beings, but I disagree with his initial point that UBI would dissuade people from being able to discover that purpose on their own. In fact I think that Peterson could be convinced that UBI may actually be the key to helping the majority of society discover greater meaning and purpose because it gives them just enough to meet their basic needs (I.e. equality of opportunity) but not so much that no one feels motivated to do more for themselves. Regardless, I think Peterson could definitely be YangGang in the near term future, mostly because Yang rejects identity politics and is more focused on equality of opportunity than outcomes. Less government bureaucracy, which was the crux of Yang’s critique of Bernie.
Wrong. Simply disable the Government from having so much authority on the markets and people's lives and any amount of money in politics will not make much difference. The right to donate your money to politicians is no different from the right to free speech in principle.
First time I’ve heard Peterson say “fuck”. My life is changed for the better.
When?
@@jackmarshall757 dude if u literally listen to the first 20 seconds u would hear him say fuck
gold 😂😂
@@kaorichan7523 I completely didn't hear it lol. Time to get my ears checked
I heard him saying for the second time. The first time, you believe me or not, was in a biblical lecture, lol.
Note how SILENT the other parties are while another is making an opposing or different point
Yes! That's showing respect even if you don't agree with another person. Freedom of speech at its best.
They seemed to be agreeing with each other from what I could see.
@ I think they were silent just because they genuinely cared about what the other had to say, just hunger of knowing and understanding more
@@Hugh_Jurrection Correct. They were agreeing with what the other had to say (most of the time) but then adding their own view/opinion onto the topic. Many ideas are the same for both parties. It’s just how or why is the difference
@@Hugh_Jurrection Correct. They were agreeing with what the other had to say (most of the time) but then adding their own view/opinion onto the topic. Many ideas are the same for both parties. It’s just how or why is the difference
I wish the presidential debates could be this calm and collected.
@Asim Malik funny how you left out the "one for all" half of the quote. All for one, and only all for one, is how systems collapse and millions die. I understand your argument, but you don't deserve to have as much as everyone else if you don't produce as much as everyone else. That's not to say you don't deserve to have a comfortable life, because you do. But the place you come from is gluttony, from envy
N intelligent....
Presidential debate would never be like this. This is a conversation, not a debate. Rogan and Peterson aren't trying to "win" or prevail over one another. They're having a conversation, and that's why it's so chill.
@Asim Malik no thank communist, you deserve nothing but what you work for.
@@Ndogg012 does he "deserve" to have a comfortable life if he doesn't intend to make it comfortable himself and expects us to communally make his life better for him?
I didn't even realise Bret was there for nearly four minutes, hats off to him.
He simply can’t impose into Jordan’s conversation when Jordan is on a whole ‘nother level
@@ESunshine24 I don't think anyone is on another level. They are both well mannered and intelligent people with original and interesting ideas worth listening to.
@@abrodking6584 bingo
@@ESunshine24 intellectual people don't disturb another person while they are speaking
@@abrodking6584 idk. Someone like Thomas Sowell always has such solid arguments that it didn’t seem like they could be countered even when strong opposition spoke against. In fact opposition only seemed to strengthen his argument. Of course he only talked about thinks he studied strongly so they weren’t really opinions but closer to facts.
What impresses me about this is how cogently they put together their arguments. When I rant about this stuff I get looked at like a tinfoil nutter
Both guests have incredible command of the English language, especially Peterson. I am amazed at how he is able to select his words so carefully and so quickly, choosing just the right words so as not to mess up the meaning. .
Its intellectual masterbation. Rhetorical style does not equate to making a substantive argument.
I disagree it's intellectual masturbation, but agree that rhetorical style does not equate to making a substantive argument.
@@brianagee2790 SO wholeheartedly agree. He never gets to the goddamn point! He just uses coagulative conjunctual vocabularization to communicate his cognitive disposition upon our auricular sensory reception to convey an intermediary disposition communaly acquiesced by society to dispositionally divide us into psycologically coalescent paradigms that we subliminally define ourselves to hope that we can, one day, excel and conquer our own divisive self definition to succumb to ourselves...Fuck I can't think of more useless words to use.
@@sinjis75 You did very well. Much impressed.
Watched Andrew Yang, then Ben Shapiro, now Jordan Peterson. If you put them 3 together with Joe Rogan hosting the conversation, that would be like the final episode of a TV series.
Yeah and add Elon Musk to that
😂😂
Cuthbert Bracegirdle facts over feelings lmao
It would go somthing like this. Yang would just be repeating his talking points, Jordan would be giving us some logical ideas. Ben would be there talking over everone to try to "win" his argument. And Joe would be gettin high talkin about DMT. Lol
And Peter Schiff, that would be great
You can judge someone's intelligence by their willingness to listen, even when they believe they know better. You don't learn by talking.
Then my cat is a genius.
You judge intelligence on a subject, by their ability to know what they're TALKING ABOUT.
My dad always said that. You can’t learn if you’re talking only repeating what you know”❤️
I agree you should listen but I also believe you do learn by talking because it forces you to put your thoughts in a coherent streamline fashion. Just like writing.
But I agree to much talking is sub optimal
@@SovereignStatesman You literally cannot learn anything while talking. You have to listen to learn.
@@oneeyeopen2094 no, as you try to form your thoughts into coherent verbal sentences, you often encounter places where you arguments fall apart and have to find the missing links... Hence you learn as you go.
I've been watching so much toxic and disgusting politics, this is like diving into a pool in the middle of the summer
Island of calm in a sea of madness sums it up well, I think!
Right there with ya ✌️
Both are waste of time.
@@mabd7340 what is “both”
Gay
Joe Rogan should facilitate a meet between Andrew Yang and Jordan Peterson.
They actual agree, Yang and Peterson that is. Read the second top comment
Jake Andersson Yes! That’s what I’ve gathered. I’ve been following Jordan for the past year and a half and been on Andrew for several weeks only. Both of them makes sense! 😊
@@richardarcilla I wish Peterson was American so he would be yang's vp
Jake Andersson Yup, apparently a lot of Canadians are wishing for Jordan to run against Trudeau. He can’t speak French which is apparently a requirement.
Richard Arcilla the Presidential loser?
Put these guys on with Andrew Yang
curtisw0234 yesssss
I do agree, universally basic income is not the answer. Im actually kinda scared it will cause unnatural inflation.
Universal basic income HAS to be based on buying power, not on absolute numbers. F.e. it's has to be enough to have basic housing + food and water. (Or whatever criteria you want to add or remove).
But it seems the most simple solution is just taxing rich people and companies more. And distributing that wealth back into the lower layer of the society.
It seems unfair, but in my country it's quite normal and it's creates massive equallity of opportunity. But almost no equallity of outcome.
I'm a prime example. My parents would not have been able to my healthcare, school etc if it wasn't heavily subsidized. Now I'm quite rich because of that, and I pay 56% taxes over my income. But I don't mind, because I have had: healthcare-, rent-, school subsidized when I wasn't rich and I payed only 26% taxes.
Dani Londen it doesn’t have to be if it’s not meant as full living wage. A constant dollar value would just incentivize poor people to move to cheap places to live.
@@danilonden3782 Maybe we can go for universal basic credit. The whole purpose of the idea is to give an offset (adjusted baseline) for people to start and to obtain a realistic chance to succeed for them or their children. I mean like a monthly credit that can only be used for education or innovation or startup.
@@ahmadchamseddine6891 I would say that's a better solution then a true universal basic income. But its very similar to the welfare system.in place in Holland right now.
I dig the JRE podcast that start out with
"Hello Freak Bitches "
Because you're a freak bitch.
@@SovereignStatesman shut up he’s not one but you are
@@ericacannon5832
Rogan thinks his swearing gives his show an "edge." It doesn't. It's juvenile.
@@aJones-hv5ny That's because Joe is a simpleton.
Is it just me, or does joe really shut up and listen more when peterson is on?
He does with a lot of his guests. Jordan is a lecturer so it’s natural
Not a.good thing
@@basengelblik5199 it's a podcast, letting the guest speak is the whole fucking point
@@Noclaff especially when the guest has a lot of things to say. People like JBP shouldn't be stopped every 30 seconds.
People like Peterson love hearing themselves talk.
This is how a healthy left/right debate should look like.
Some issue's simple as "left" or "right" black and white mate! Some problems are all shades of grey and everything in between! The fact that everything has to be hard locked either to the left or right politically these days is the very reason why things are going of the rails lately; Populism both right and left is leading to a downfall in society because some issues are just to complex to simplify for people that don't and can't understand.................
I disagree because Peterson Strawmanned leftist arguments and no one challenged him
You guys are all right (no pun intended).
@@TheSampleSlayer Populism gave me a door into politics while I was young and naive. It helped me to discover different perspectives in ways I had never seen before. Yes it's not where someone should stay but it's bloody good at getting people to talk.
@@TheSampleSlayer Left and right is in USA (and maybe UK). In other countries (at least I see it in EU) they have different voting system which creates more competition. It's not unusual to see 6 or more parties as the result of elections. To make a government they might need a coallition of 2-4 parties. Currently there are 4 parties in my country who is making the government. From those 1 is a new party, other is one election cycle old (so formed about 4-5 years ago), other 2 formed around year 2010. Only one of them was part of the government before. There are usually 20 parties which you can choose during the elections.
Lot of former big parties which were in control of government they are now practically dead. One party which was in control in the past in 2000s (probably over 20% share) they received under 1% of votes in the next election (due to some stupid mistakes, corruption scandals and new competition). Few other parties ended up the same, they are history.
This is the system which I really like. Not 2 parties which have monopoly last 40 years.
Peterson and Yang actually agree. Peterson sees economic utility of UBI, he just doesn't think it solves the bigger problem which has to do more with mental health & purpose. Peterson looks at things from more of a psychological point of view whereas Yang focuses more on economic well being. People often ask Yang, what are people going to do? Yang always says " who knows man that's the question of our era." Yang also doesn't think that UBI solves the entire problem, but he sees it as necessary to keep the economy functioning. That however does not mean that Yang doesn't see the potential psychological ramifications of mass automation, nor does it mean that he thinks throwing money at people will fix those mental health issues. He often points out that nearly half of the people who lost their manufacturing jobs are no longer in the workforce, and that suicide, drug abuse, and depression rates have skyrocketed in those communities.
thank god your comment is up here. you got it exactly right, they dont disagree.
UBI can be argued as just a band-aid to keep capitalism alive...
it doesn't really solve a great deal - but is an interesting 'solution' that should be explored
I think the best option would be to move the truckers to trade skills. Carpenters, electricians, construction, plumbers, welders, etc.
@@NickOloteo You forget supply and demand problem, once again......
@@1flash3571 what do you mean? Aren't we in serious need of trade jobs?
"Men don't need *money,* they need *function."* That single sentence by Jordan Peterson is the single most powerful statement I've ever heard in the entire UBI conversation. The need for people to have meaningful work is as important as the need for food, or water, or any other basic human need. Here's the problem: The game is fixed, and it will stay that way. The only way that monarchies are overturned are through violent means. From the French Revolution to the Revolutionary War, it seems that the only way the ruling class deals with the peasants is through wealth, power, influence, and control, the only thing that all politicians truly understand.
That is not true. Peaceful protests against dictators/regimes are more often successful than violent ones. The game isn't fixed, it's quite likely partially fixed. Do you know what society/economy was fixed? India as a colony. What happened? Ghani.
I'm not saying peaceful protests will magically fix everything, I'm just saying it's not as easy as you made it out to be. Also it's not as doom & gloom as you made it out to be.
@@hanspeterqwe6620
Don't get me wrong. Peaceful protests are ALWAYS the best option. But try telling that to the millions of violent looters and rioters tearing apart nearly every major city in America, as we speak. It appears that your positive comments aren't exactly having any positive effect on THEM, are they???
@@tiffsaver If they were actually planning to get rid of all the crooks and the corruption in America then yes, they would need to burn everything to the ground
@@tiffsaver You are distracting. Looters and rioters are not interested in the cause to begin with. They are just waiting for an opportunity to do what they do.
The people we need to talk about are the people who actually want to change things to the better, not people who don't give a shit (like looters and rioters).
@@MyReligionIs2DoGood
I am not "distracting." I am talking about supporting LEGITIMATE PROTESTORS, not the criminals and hooligans the government often PAYS to loot and burn cities down, then blames the entire thing on these same individuals. All of these staged events are planned by the members of the Democratic party.
This is one of the best clips from the entire JRE catalog. Really thought provoking stuff. I watch entire 3 hour episodes in the hopes of getting a little nugget of wisdom like these two shared here.
This is the real kind of conversation my brain craves. Whether I agree with them or not, it provokes thoughts, not some shitty catharsis I was taught to have when someone on my team wins an argument with better talking points.
Do your part and spread the word! It actually could get much better too, but we're just used to any conversation being better than none
IMANFBIAGENT omfg yes agreed
I really just want to hear smart people talk on either side whether it’s Peterson or slavo zizek (the communist philosopher)
Maybe because it’s just so rare to hear good discussions
IMANFBIAGENT That is one of the most honest self analysis I have ever read in the comments section. Our ego is so invested in the reward system of our side "winning" the argumwnt we forget why we had the argument and what needed to be solved in the first place.
I actually just found Peterson, and even though I find myself disagreeing with him, I still like listening to what he has to say
WTF- 3 people had a conversation and let each other speak without talking over each other incessantly?? Joe- you're slipping pal- Lol. Was actually a good podcast. Well done.
John C Shut the fuck up
I managed stores in Michigan, my employees were college kids, young adults going to college and single mothers. Many, many times these employees showed up to work sick because they couldn't afford to take time off from work. The mothers reluctantly sent sick kids to school because they needed the paycheck and couldn't take the time off of work to care for the sick child.
@Twiddly Stosh yeah definitely but people make it seem like a racial issue, its not, its an economic and legislative issue. In the US in the 60s when it was still under the Gold standard you could buy a house with like 3 years worth of salary, and can buy a brand new car with like 4 months worth of salary. But that changed because the whole world left the gold standard and paper currency is losing value yet prices going up.
That’s what a Keynesian left winger (like me) would want, something akin to a new Breton woods model that would redress the balance between wages and growth. Maybe use crypto instead of gold?
@@christianround2774 i don't see what is fundamentally wrong with gold. My issue with crypto is that hypothetically a cyber attack or a super duper virus could take out the entire internet and then all the crypto would be gone. Gold on the other hand doesn't fear anything, including fire, water, cyber attacks etc. Gold will probably outlast nuclear Armageddon whereas crypto is wholely dependant on our infrastructure remaining at peak operation. Hell a pretty bad solar flare that temporarily halts internet traffic for a few days could potentially disrupt the block chain so bad that it either breaks or a few people acting quickly enough could steal all the worlds crypto or some shit.
Why reinvent the wheel? We should stay on the gold standard.
@@ivan_says_hi crypto is stored locally, so it wouldn’t just disappear. The actual scientific likelyhood of an event like you are describing is pretty much 0. Modern infrastructure would never fail to that extent except for under cataclysmic world ending events, which at that point- goods matter more than any form of currency, even gold.
@@christianround2774 Crypto is the most unstable currency on earth there is literally a stock ticker for it. Fuck Breton Woods
This is what debates should be. Full of rational and well-constructed arguments. Full of respect on each other time and explanations. Period.
Well then you might like very calm, rational and intelligent critique Peter Joseph did on a Peterson debate on Capitalism vs Socialism, posted on TZMOfficialChannel. Very thought-provoking. Hard to argue with since each point is so logically stated.
UBI won't give you meaning or purpose, but neither will working a menial job for pitiful wages. And soon, there won't even BE menial jobs.
But at least you'll have enough funds to find meaning or purpose.
In capitalism everyone gets what they deserve. And that's not an oversimplification. Leftist view is however. Right Jordan? So I guess low IQ people who don't earn enough should die, so that the new high IQ race will prevail. Yay!
The irony of arguments made by people like Peterson, that somehow aspiration or desperation breed innovation, that financial incentive is what advances society, is that this has LITERALLY never been the case.
Sure money is important, but if you look through history at who accomplished greats leaps forward for civilization, or innovated technology, or created beauty in art, literature or architecture... you'll find a bunch of "idle rich people"
Granting people the autonomy that they don't need to work to sustain themselves.
Hell, look at modern success stories and you'll find plenty of "I ate ramen and lived with my parents" and think that means "sacrifice and hard work" but what it ACTUALLY meant is that they cut their costs to the point they could devote their time to something better.
I wonder how many geniuses we've lost to poverty, lack of education or rigid class structure.
Considering the progress we've made in a short few decades since universal education became common, I'm thinking a lot. (the very idea of universal literacy wasn't even considered before the industrial revolution required a more educated kind of worker. Before 200~ years ago education was mostly reserved for the prvileged few)
"in capitalism everyone gets what they deserve" may be the most idiotic statement I've ever heard.
What was never the purpose of the system nor is it something it ever addresses.
Your argument here is essentially that poverty is a punishment for the sinful. You can argue that capitalism had increased social mobility & features in the fairest societies we've build, but even THAT is over simplifying.
Michael Jones not everyone does. Some people work 2 jobs just to pay their bills.
Dm Gray more times than not though those people came from rich families and turned 50 MIL into 400 MIL.
woah, first time i heard Peterson drop an F bomb! had to rewind and refocus. sort myself out.
JackSather same, I was momentarily taken aback, ahaha
I must be desensitized because I didn't even notice...
its kinda of a quote
better _get my act together_
JackSather One time on Dutch media he said something like "Well, watch the fuck out". I died
"Opportunity is finite. Con games aren't." Yo, ain't that the truth
I don't look at others lives. No Facebook, Twitter, Instagram etc never had. I educate myself not envy, jealousy etc. Live in the real world
My last FB post was Feb 2013. It said, "Hi guys! I'm a Dad now - don't have time for this bullshit anymore. Bye".
Smart.
The real world includes the internet, bonehead.
Social Media makes up 1% of the accessible 1% of the internet most people have access to. It's a powerful tool people still don't utilize adequately to harness its potential
@@brandongerofsky4817 fr
The money doesnt solve the problem. It sets the stage to solve the problem.
Andrew Yang
I agree with that 120% I just really hope that if UBI ever becomes a thing, I really don't want the majority of people to rely on it as "solving the problem."
The problem is... How much faith do you have in the common people?
No that's just dumb
I much prefer a negative income tax. It is better than both welfare and ubi in every way possible. Its only fault is that it still gives people free money.
But I think the two most crucial differences between welfare and ubi and nit are dependence and cost:
1) DEPENDENCE:
Welfare actively creates dependence and disincentivizes work by effectively taxing the earned income of welfare recipients at a rate of 100% or more.
Ubi doesn't create dependence and disincentive like welfare does (as your stipend doesn't stand to go away), but it doesn't incentivize earning income either.
Nit, however, effectively taxes your early income at 50%, but as your income increases past a certain threshold, your tax rate drops to 20%, thus incentivizing earning more... without ever ending up with less total income like with welfare.
2) COST:
Welfare currently costs a little over $1 trillion every year.
A ubi of $1000/mo would just about triple that, and even Yang's best speculations (including taxing big corps) don't come close to paying for it; _furthermore_ his program wouldn't even replace welfare, as welfare recipients who get more welfare than the ubi offers can opt out, so this would actually cost _more_ than the initial 3 trillion.
But nit _from the beginning_ would cost only half to a third of what we already spend on welfare, and that's assuming that all 30 million people currently in poverty simply stop trying to work... If we don't assume the worst and rather estimate that the average income of all those people equals the exemption threshold, then the entire program will pay for itself at no cost to current taxpayers.
An added bonus to nit compared to ubi is that the money only goes to people who need it.
Either Yang doesn't understand what MLK, Nixon, and Friedman were getting at by their minimum guaranteed income proposals, or he's just pretending for his uneducated base that these conservatives agree with his atrocious and potentially disastrous ubi idea. Either way, he's either a fool or a fraud.
TL;DR: ubi is dangerously stupid, costing easily thrice what we already spend, but nit would immediately halve our spending and even stands to pay for itself within a generation.
And Yang is an idiot... Not Yang Xiao Long... She's cool.
Life is like playing monopoly with no initial bank.
@@Clancey65 The game Monopoly was created in part to educate the masses about capitalism. BTW, I'd love to hear a conversation between Rutger Bregman and Jordan Peterson.
Summary of JP's opinion: some inequality is needed for innovation and productivity, but too much incites a revolution that helps no one. People at the bottom of the hierarchy will remain content with the hope of future success so long as the system doesn't feel rigged. Therefore rich people rigging the system are destroying the stability of society, so this behaviour must be stamped out at all costs. Some people on the left unfortunately believe that all people in power are rigging the system so need to be removed, which is incorrect and dangerous.
The left's vision is dangerous in my opinion. They want to get rid of rich people and create equality. That sounds great on paper for a perfect utopia, but in practice they will disincentive anyone doing anything productive since there is no point if you cannot advance and improve yourself financially. Economy sputters, the only people rich are the politicians in charge and the people are equally suffering.
@@itsatrap7215 Human behaviour and its decision making ability cannot be predicted in any terms. You can't say that in reality socialism or any other form of political or economic system can't work because of "human nature". We can use it in regards to anything. Hume's law literally constitutes inability of moral or ethical relations between human being to be calculated and predicted because of their subjectivity.
Bret Weinstein adds that modern technology (like social media) makes us all less content with our rung in society by nurturing jealousy. He seems to imply that this has led to increased left wing popularity. He adds that no one has studied the extent of 'rule-breaking' in the economy, but he suspects it is sadly very high, and therefore can sympathize people's cries for change.
@@aykhansalmanov5993 Yes we can say exactly that, because we can look at history to prove it. They tried socialism in over 50 countries last century. None of them worked well. All of them ended up as totalitarian regimes. 100 million people died.
Humans are not ants.
@@AdelaeR As I said earlier humans are living creatures with minds and decision making ability which can't be predicted. The fact that socialism failed in 20th century doesn't make it any worse than capitalism. When we talk about capitalism for some reason we look at only successful and prosperous nations of Western Europe and North America but we don't look at tens of other unsuccessful capitalist countries which live in poverty. The reason for that is global imperial domination of big European countries over the course of history which in the end resulted in their prosperity.
Jordan Peterson: "Don't let the inequality in your neighborhood get out of hand, because the crime rate will skyrocket."
Me: * Thinks about Mexico's crazy powerful drug cartels, super corrupt police forces and politicians and it's extremely poor citizens *
Also Me : Yup, that sound about right.
The Cartel gets its money from the black market created by the war on drugs. Let's say I am a poor villager living in Mexico, what can I realistically do?
@@MrMetalhorse rhetorical questions are meant to make you think, not to be answered. You offered two callous answers that I have a hard time believing were made in good faith. Do you care about seriously considering the situation of someone born in Mexico? I have worked with and become close to people from Mexico, who made the most sensible decision available to them, and fled to America. I asked this question because I wanted the author of this comment to consider the life of someone born there and whether theyre able to do anything at all about the inequality in their neighborhood. Dr. Peterson says we should be precise in our speech, and I think he's right.
@@kevinbeck8836 nothing the cartel supports its people so the people can get support from a corrupt backbone. Practically corrupting everything around them. Once the economy and people get education the cartels will fall.
Echo
The cartels can't fall while the US keeps pumping money into them and Mexico can't much improve while the cartels still have so much power
That's until Cardenas comes back to life and re-nationalizes the oil industry bruh.
Two people in the comments:
1. I heard JP say a naughty.
2. Wow that other guy made some really good points.
Yes, some pre-adolescents here think swearing is cool or edgy
Andrew Yang said at least a thousand times now that this isn’t an end all solutions.
Chris Simmons did he say where the money was coming from and how long it’ll last? No
@@tangodelta7809 (he did)
@@tangodelta7809 you havent done any research clearly
Yes he did, it involves a theoretical "value added" tax that corporations pay. Even if he defined it, it's a stupid idea.. For as smart of a businessman as he claims to be, he forgets how businesses function.
This does one of two things (if not both):
If the tax is centralized to the corporation's localities (highly unlikely, since he wants a national program), they're just going to leave.
If the tax is pushed on purchases, like he implies, the cost gets passed to the consumer. So welcome to inflation.
This isn't even a bandaid, and Friedman is rolling in his grave when Yang tries to pass this as something he would have advocated for.
Collin Yates Bezos has a $600 million deal with the CIA over what shutbyotch stated
Who’s here during corona-virus tryna firgure everything out whilst on lockdown
Lol I'm just randomly watching whatever youtube throws at me.
Welcome to quarantine.
MeatSword oh cool I’m not the only one
MeatSword oh perhaps everyone dont just implode in anxiety from having to actually deal with being present, or disappear into dopamine flux -netflix, you give hope to the world
@@katarina2438 How are u more present while at home tho? Yeah u might be more aware of ur situtation but cmon..
Thank you for this I’ve literally come to many of these realisations myself and although I’m put out that these ideas aren’t just my own grandiose thinking… they have been well fleshed out already and I’m grateful to learn and incorporate these ideas and your perspectives into my argument/proposal…
Wonderful lesson in the art of debating too, great video!
Peterson said"people would become resentful if they feel the game is fixed"...#gamestonk
Not "if they feel" it's "if they figure out"
@@myview9923 actually it's not necessary to figure out, you can perceive game is fixed and that's enough to feed the resentment, there's plenty of Social Justice Warriors feeding resentment and using it in theyr own benefit
It's crazy that this was recorded nearly two years ago. Needs to be shared everywhere.
There is sooo much past knowledge out there and needs to be shared. But there is so much more bullshit out there that would need to be eliminated. This problem can never be resolved.
3 years ago
Now THIS is a conversation.
yea but poor people are sick of "conversations".
America should have had this conversation 100 years ago.
Yeah, the clear solution for all of our troubles is to go back to a fuedal system where us regular serfs are beholden to the government to survive. Basic income for all, woo!!
Funny. It isn't the concept though. I think the idea behind the basic income is you're suppose todo whatever you want. Work, not work. I'm deeply against btw
The idea is that UBI gives each person the opportunity to decide what the best way to spend their time is. What they're good at and what is worth doing. There is no freedom without this.
its amazing to watch this 3 years down the line and to hear what Jordan Peterson has to say. His take on the situation is exactly what is taking place in South Africa today. Its like he is talking about RSA but without mentioning its name.
anywhere, anytime
I like how Peterson and Shapiro both basically chalked the issues up to the sense of purpose. It’s 100% true.
I just heard Peterson say "fuck it!"... Holy shit
Dont call me a faggot dude ? Sometimes you gotta say "fuck it."
Powerful
i don't know why but the statement "no, and increasingly no" is hilarious to me.
Same I hear it in the same way I'd hear something like 'infinity + 10 equals more infinity.'
Lmao like it's a vector
lol, I haven't got to that yet but it has to be JP :-)
I'm gonna use that one. Not for debates, but for disagreeing with doing something.
Phillip Greene it’s hilarious and I love it
THE most competent discussion I have ever heard on this subject that didn't follow extreme ideologies and politicize it. I wish the news media knew how to foster this kind of discussion. The world would be a better place.
What a great interview. I love when people who disagree (at least on some points) can discuss calmly and rationally.
My takeouts:
- Inequality has a linear relationship with crime
- The universal basic income may not be the solution
- Men need to feel a sense of social responsibility, ie. Give them work and not just money
- Technology & innovation kills jobs
- People don't mind inequality if there is equal opportunity and the game isn't rigged
- Rich people caused the 2008 recession but then benefitted from the restabilization of the economy after
They didn't say that "rich people" caused the crisis, they said the rich benefited the most from the recovery. Markets are too big and too complex to be impacted by "the rich" or any other group alone.
@@whitestork3896 The recession was pretty clearly caused by subprime mortgage credits given out by big banks. There were decisions made by a handful of rich people that severely impacted markets.
One thing we can be sure of is that once a “universal income” is established, it won’t be long before it’s worthless. Then what?
@@jacksonkoppe7297 Rich people were a contributing factor. But honestly, you don't get a crisis of the magnitude of 2008 without multiple factors. You had banks giving out subprime loans. But you also had a government that was pushing the banks to loan to risky borrowers. That was part of Bush's 'ownership society'. That created a scenario whereby you had a large number of loans being graded A+ by rating agencies who were clueless as to how risky they were.
But if one really takes a step back, the ultimate culprit was Alan Greenspan and the Fed. Their monetary policy created not one, but two massive asset bubbles. The first was the dot com boom and bust and then that was followed by the housing boom and bust. Both were fueled by interest rate policy that fueled more risk since stable asset vehicles like bonds and CDs weren't yielding enough.
@@Diomedes01 This is a great summation of the variety of factors that were at play in 2008, thank you. Underlying all of it is of course greed, to some extent and by some parties. But that is a problem much older than us. In theory, a society that fully embraced, articulated, and operated out of love and charity (not UBI) instead of greed and pride would be the only long-term solution, but that is a utopia we can currently only dream about.
And why are these two people, and Mr. Yang, and several others not sitting in a debate on national television to decide which philosophy might better the nation as a whole....ie running for President as opposed to the dreadful hand full of clowns that actually are? The people of this country need to back people like this.....give them support, give them money....I somehow feel we would all be much, much better off regardless of which side of the isle you occupy. Could we all perhaps agree on this one single point as a starting place...We have to demand it first or it won't happen.
Oooh! I like this idea a lot. National debates with non-politicians.
Exactly what you said. Yet we must start the demand.
turn off the tv... ; )
The media is too controlled to be productive
@@SC-ye3kw You don't understand the word politician.
I remember watching this whole podcast; Best one in Rogan's library!
The daryl davis one is my favorite
Conversation like this needs to be protected at all costs.
I've been listening to Jordan Peterson for a year, I've watched at least one 3-10 minute video a day, first time I've heard him drop the F-bomb.
punishercork he does it on the reg
You have to when you go on Joe Rogan's show.
First time I heard him swear was on the Stefan Molyneux interview... :D
"Opportunity is finite, but congames aren't."
Opportunity is particularly finite if you're a lazy slug. Con-games might be much more tempting than hard work.
you know literally nothing about him
Dick Chuckle Birds of a feather sing the same song.
You sound like you're resentful of people who succeed. That's what I think.
Duck Knuckle I'm resentful of people who outsource their problems.
Wow man, the quality of this discussion made me emotional. This is how we should discuss issues.
0:15 the rare Jordan Peterson "fuck it"
Fuck is one of the most used words in Canadian vocabulary, along with bud, buddy, right, and eh.
@@JesusFriedChrist man I wish I was Canadian! ❤️ I’ve never seen a Canadian that didn’t seem to have a high IQ ❤️ They all seem so much wiser and calmer than so many of us down here 😂.
This is so relevant is this moment rn
It will become increasingly more relevant
It needs to be structured and processed at the moment and society for reasons that doesn’t matter refuse to start working on it.
It's ok people from inner city hoods looted pharmacies and Nike stores. They also burned down a bunch of businesses, terrorized entire cities and put business owners out of business forever. I guess we should all be equal now?
You need to look up what an AGENT PROVOCATEUR is..... people not actually angry but PAID TO make trouble. Not ACTUAL inequality but a chance to loot stuff or CREATE political points.
Nothing protects the little guy like honest money, which we haven't had in the United States since 1933.
Brian Bagent meh, not entirely true but your point is well-made. We haven’t had a healthy middle class since the end of WWII and through into the 1950’s. The 1960’s was where things began to change. And then from the 1980’s onwards we had a steep decline in the middle class with 2008 being the final straw that destroyed it.
@@Xpistos510 - "we the people" didn't have access to honest money after 1933. the federal government still traded in gold with other nation states, per the Bretton Woods agreement, but Nixon ended that.
From my reading, the real decline began in 1973 when Bretton Woods ended and the "petro dollar" was born.
Any way you slice it, currency harms most those who works for a wage (salaried or hourly, doesn't matter). And the lower the wage, the more harmful currency is to the wage earner.
The fact that many (most, maybe) households had 2 income earners (starting in the 60s or 70s) masked what was happening, but at some point, even 2 income earners won't mask the debauching of the currency.
If you stop and think about it, a kid in 1960 making minimum wage of $1 or maybe $1.25, who was getting paid in silver coin, had more in purchasing power than those making minimum wage today. Trade value for circulated junk silver is about $14 for $1 face value of the junk silver.
It is only going to get worse until the dollar ultimately and inevitably is debauched all the way to zero, as all currencies have always done, sooner or later.
@@smokedbrisket3033 but without debasing the currency or taking it off the gold standard, how is a Government supposed keep enough money in circulation for an ever growing population?
@@EvilSapphireR - it is a Keynesian myth that the supply of currency needs to keep up with population/GDP/whatever. It isn't about how much currency is in circulation (which increases indefinitely until it is worthless), it is about what you can buy with what you have.
My suspicion is that you are assigning purchase parity to, for example, a $10 gold eagle and a $10 federal reserve note. There are 247 1/2 grains of pure (or 270 gr of standard) gold in a $10 gold eagle. It would take 78 $10 FRNs to equal the value of a single $10 gold eagle right now.
Distilled down to essential elements, monetarists hold that we must debauch our currency in order to keep the economy running strong. That's a logical absurdity. The fact is that never in the history of the world have there been a group of people who are trustworthy enough to control those reins. Just like socialism's advocates, "it would work if we only had the right people in charge." We're $23 trillion in debt because of monetarists. If that debt were paid off, it would in reality be a deflation which would destroy the USD.
We have 2 courses of action possible to us: suffer some pain and switch back to gold (and silver), or suffer severe pain when the dollar is inflated to the point of worthlessness, which it inevitably will be, as all currencies in the history of the world have inevitably done.
Since 1913 you mean.
Who's here after Reddit crashed Wallstreet?
Wall Street is part of the unproductive economy
This is a brilliant clip. We need more of this kind of talk and thinking from people in Washington DC. It is HIGHLY consequential!
Please setup a show with Peterson and Andrew Yang.
A psychologist and an economist that agree on UBI as a strong improvement of wellbeing, come together to discuss how to approach what UBI doesn't solve
@@koenigsforst_ That's something that I think Jordan Peterson is missing. A UBI would allow people to take on greater roles (and greater responsibilities) in their communities. Right now adults generally trade at least 1/4 of their time for money. If you had a guaranteed source of income that would allow to potentially free up more time to find a different, and perhaps greater, purpose in life. There are hardly any men on earth who have time for a purpose beyond being a provider for their family and it's certainly detrimental to society.
I agree. At least the discussion between Yang and Peterson would be mature and logical.
@@bdbaseball17 but you are assuming that humans are innately self-motivated.
@@whenthedustfallsaway I think humans are motivated by what they place value on, and what they place value on is determined by both themselves as individuals and by the society they are a part of. That's why I think Yang is certainly on the right track with his UBI proposal, because he wants to accompany it with a completely new approach to measuring our success as a country. We rely solely on unemployment numbers, GDP, and stock market prices to measure success instead of life expectancy, mental health, personal happiness, education, financial security, and any number of measurements that more accurately depict the qualify of life for an average American.
I would go to sleep with a light heart and happy soul if/when that happens. Two of my favorite influential figures. Come on, Joe, make it happen. Peterson and Yang episode.
OMG- a civil, intelligent, productive conversation about contentious issues!
Productive like a bull
2023 and Jordan Peterson has changed so much. I miss this version.
Who else feels like they may have been hypnotized by the pendulum in the background?
JRE: "HELLO FREAK BITCHES"
jordanpeterson: intelligent...
Joe Rogan needs to clean his room and sort himself out
Jordan did use the F word. Joe is rubbing off on him.
@@marcusk7855 🤣🤣
Probably one of the best and educated conversations I've seen in a while..
It can be nice when people actually let each other talk until they stop in a conversation.
@@Xamarin491 yes.. Now conversations are mostly redused to one-upmen-ship..
Defeats the whole point of communication at times..
It’s January 7th 2021
This is still relevant
Honestly Brett jumps to the evolutionary response way to quickly on some of these social issues. It's true that an evolutionary analogy can be drawn, but he forgets that biological evolution is not the orchestrator of the more complex social behaviours of humans, just the origin of them.
Maybe, but what other informed position should he take considering his background?
Peterson is a treasure. he said "fuck-that." first time for me. Love this man.
0:15
hahaha he's alright
Pretty sure he's dropped the f-bomb quite often. Just usually in context to something. It doesn't seem like it is his manner of speech, but I truly do believe that he does feels that way from time to time. He's just very, very careful with how he expresses himself.
SAME
Wait did Peterson drop an F bomb holy shit 0:16
Wow he must have just been really passionate
Second time I have heard him drop an F bomb
he is Canadian. its part of the Canadian vocabulary.
Tom Hewitt go watch a tv show called the trailer park boys or go to a hockey game trust me that whole polite no cussing atitude is only pushed by mainstream media
Influence from his company in the podcast room. Nothing wrong with that though.
This is why I listen to you guys. Very realistic grasp on the problems and discussion that is honest. No angle, no agenda
Add Andrew Yang to this conversation and I can't help but feel we might get to a workable solution. Love that they are talking about real problems that we are STILL experiencing.
Interestingly, the route to this more calibrated world they speak of would likely be very mundane, somewhat gradual, and would provide news companies very few headlines.
Perfection.
😜
"UBI is a horrible idea" while offering no other solutions...
@@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler He has mentioned other potential solutions before. EG there is a huge shortfall of carers of various types in most western countries. You do not need to be Einstein to help physically disabled people with cooking and cleaning etc. One estimate I saw was that there was a shortfall of in excess of 6 million hours in just the UK. If UBI was set at £100 but you had to earn it through being a carer and minimum wage was £10 then that would mean 600,000 unemployed people at least partly employed. The real issue is that mechanisation has taken far more jobs than immigration ever has. EG the car industry in the UK produces about the same number of cars as it did in the 70's.. There were in excess of 40,000 sprayers alone. Now the number of sprayers working for Toyota is 5. The total number of people working in the car industry is less than 20,000. Checkout staff are another classic example. These days in my local small supermarket there are usually no more than 2 checkouts open and the rest go through self scan. News stands dont exist anymore. What is also needed is a huge injection of cash into general STEM research. Keeping someone on state benefits for unemployment costs the taxpayer around £1000 per week (I can provide figures for this). That's significantly more than a post doctoral researcher in the first few years of research. The whole situation is nuts.
Truth 🔥
The banks already get UBI, it's called Quantitative Easing.
Down with the bank. This would solve a lot of headache in america.
And that’s fucking horrifyingly bad idea too. The fed fucking with rates hasn’t done any good.
Quantitative easing is the result of Big Brother getting involved in the money supply. If we had a free market gold standard like we're supposed to we wouldn't have the crazy man made inflation that we do now. However just because one big government scheme is bad, quantitative easing, doesn't mean that another big government scheme is good, Universal basic income. We need to ditch that horrible idea as well as get rid of the Federal Reserve and return to a gold standard.
You don't understanding QE. What you mean to say is Corporatists/Capitalists have deficit spending and institutional access to tax schemes that cheat the American society while racking up trillions in National Debt all in the name of corporate profits for the shareholder class. Give the money back to the People!
That's not, at all, what quantitative easing is.
If you want to know the answers to the economy, ask Dr Thomas Sowell. He's done extensive studies on that subject. He addresses this issue better than these two do. Dr Peterson is on the right path, but Dr Sowell has fine tuned it.
Thomas Sowell is just another grifter
@Vlad Xavier Why do you assume that bureaucrats obeying capital interests isn't itself a part of capitalism? Why is it good for capitalists to pursue their rational self-interests at all costs, but when a politician pursues _their_ self-interest by selling out, it's a bad thing?
"The executive of the modern state is nothing but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie." -- Karl Marx
The state and private interests are two sides of the same capitalist mode of production. You need central authority to enforce private property, and you need capital to make authority effective in the first place. The power of one depends on the power of the other. The government isn't "strangling" the economy, it has always been doing what the economy needs it to do. It was corrupt from the moment it began to exist. Governmental power isn't useful at all unless you can use it to cash out.
Oversimplification and no communication is the real problem - I completely agree with JP
Obfuscation isn't the antidote
Culturally, we need to do away with this notion that money is an objective measure of man's utility. There are many a man and woman who work much harder than I do, doing things with much more utility to society, and who get paid a fraction. We've taken the concept of a market economy, monetized that, and then monetized the monetization.
And we get upset when the government can't guarantee us more jobs in the massive ponzi scheme we find ourselves in.
Then talk to the women... who invariably judge a man's utility on his wealth (or lack thereof)
It's because without money you don't get a roof, food, respect, healthcare, transportation, and you can't buy anything (which people think equates to liberty in a Capitalist nation). I wish it was as easy as getting everyone to stop being a dick, but it's legislation that drives sociological norms whether we like it or not.
@@jeffthebracketman
Both genders can be equally judgemental when someone (usually a man) isn't independent and has some sort of wealth. It's an insult to live at your parents, it's an insult if you don't work a 9-5, it's an insult if you don't have responsibility.
@@idontfeellikeit
That's implying that your profession has anything to do with who you are as a person. How many people do what they love? Your job, more often than not, is just a means to money (not to mention all the ways to earn money now that is in no way related to "working"). The government should be creating way more jobs than it does now, there's no argument against that, sorry. It should be paying teachers more and not paying cops time and a half to direct traffic. Whether you like it or not the government is responsible for the lives of millions of people and they're not doing a good job of providing a good life for enough of them.
@@idontfeellikeit
Lmao, get off of MY high horse. That's mighty hypocritical considering you're ranting about a subjective opinions, but I digress...
You're taking everything I am saying to an extreme an using it against me, as if I said that the government should be handing out everything for people so we can all just sit on our ass and be fat. It works in childish arguments, but not in what i hoped would maybe be an intelligent discussion. Trying to make my point to you is moot because the only relevant opinion to you is your own. I suggest going to a country where people all agree with you and you are never challenged. Might have to go back 100 years to get what you want though.
Jordan Peterson: f*** it
Me: **caveman spongebob meme*
How refreshingly, a well thought and civil discussion.
Such a refreshing conversation where the debate opponents aren’t at each other’s throats.
Jordan Peterson dropping an F bomb for once! I love it!
Timestamp?
@@shiskeyoffles You're Sherlock Holmes, figure it out bro
@@shiskeyoffles 0:15
@@junior.69420 hahahahahha
"It's hard to light a candle, easy to curse the dark instead."
lighting a candle isn't that hard, just most people don't got a match.
@@unluckycloverfield4316 most people don't have a candle.
@@unluckycloverfield4316 oh and the quote is intended when this was the method. i.etsystatic.com/14435134/r/il/18960b/1554153907/il_570xN.1554153907_7zg7.jpg
@@stimpsonjcat67 it's metaphor right. Doesnt matter how you light the candle, my point was many people lack resources.
Shiddd I like Nightwish too. "this moment the dawn of humanity, last ride of the day"
It’s just refreshing to hear people speak respectfully with different viewpoints and entertain ideas without feeling attacked
Would have been nice had they spent more time on the swiftly approaching automation of myriad jobs and UBI's possible role in ameliorating that.
It is really interesting watching this with the riots in the States...
Yeah!
Yeah, it's the same argument. There's a percentage of corrupted police(the rich) so we will take away the whole police system(the rich). Like what you going to replace that? Kindless? If kindness work in the first place, police won't even exist.
@@timon20061995 Look at CHAZ. They´ll replace it with anarchy.
Not just in USA in London we have looting and rioting too 👎
@@shanahaim5935 Yeah because these radicals think they live in a rascist and oppresive system. These riots aren´t really motivated by economics.
my sincere hope is that people don't take out of this podcast what they 'want' to take out of this podcast
You hope for what never was, and never will be. People who hold an idea on faith will do so regardless of any argument or evidence to the contrary.
I take out of it that communism is bad.
I have watched this podcast and have considered it. This problem is very simple. There's two classes of people in our economy today. There's those who live on commission, and there's those who live on fixed income paid by those who live on commission. For me, either everyone lives on commission of some kind, or this problem continues.
Eddie 7000 This is a good interpretation of a solution to the problem. Have a jug of Brawndo on the house!
"inequality drives crime"... "the problem isnt that people dont have enough money"....wait what?
I could listen to these guys all day! Fountains of wisdom and humility
Jordan’s point at 8:00 is so representative of what is happening throughout Covid.
YES YES YES THIS NEEDS TO BE TOO COMMENT
Research on UBI shows that very few people who stay on it do not take actions to advance themselves on the job market. People work harder and become more entrepreneurial when they are not stuck in a cycle of poverty.
That's because now they have enough resources to do anything beyond simply trying not to starve to death.
@@renanfelipedossantos5913 or limit themselves for fear of losing benefits.
Starve to death in a nation of obesity
@@eksadiss old topic bra
Constantine Kramarenko Yeah, you’re right. The issue is that those same studies admit the following:
- UBI would increase prices thus reducing the purchasing power of money.
- UBI depends on a massive almost total reduction of welfare, something that’s deeply improbable, and unpopular.
- UBI would probably trigger deficits that would neutralize or destroy the supposed benefit.
0:14 First time I've heard Peterson swear in my whole life that's crazy
“Opportunity is finite, but con-games aren’t.”
The typical way we have always handled wealth inequality is through estate taxation. The problem is that we have overcomplicated our tax code and have weakened our society through a lack of morals, ethics, and self discipline.
What Peterson was saying is why I find the idea of Star Trek's Federation so interesting. Money has become obsolete in that fictional world, the vast majority of humans don't want or care about money because basic needs are catered for, you have replicators to feed and clothe yourself, you have Holodeck's for entertainment, the ability to travel and, most importantly, a career that makes you feel useful and gives your life meaning. Money not required.
You ever read the Star Trek chronology? You read about what the human race went through before the Federation was established?
Whats interesting is that you *BOTH* have excellent points that I agree 100% with.... Simultaneously.
The "Star Trek" argument again? You do realize it is science fiction? Actually, if you really want to geek out on it and delve deeper into Star Trek lets: The replicators were used on spaceships where they don't have farmland. Therefore can't raise crops or cattle. Prior to replicators you have sophisticted food storage methods like we do in the army with MRE's --however you do wind up with an issue of limited storage space for both food and waste on a space ship. Also, replicators were powered by energy in the form of mythological dilithium crystals. Often episodes of Star Trek and other sci-fi shows were written with "insert techno-babble here" in the scrips. And I am not kidding. Thus techno-babble is no way to build a sustainable economy. So the massive energy it takes to "replicate" food and other stuff was not something that people on Earth would do...that would be enormously wasteful. And being good stewards of the environment, Star Trek people would not waste energy.
Lastly, the everybody gets the job they feel would be useful is also a Utopian fantasy. Have you ever worked a job? I wonder. Consider Fry from Futurama. He was a pizza delivery boy before he got frozen and woke up in the future...to be a delivery boy, the job he was most suited to. What if you don't WANT to be a delivery boy? What if you would prefer to be the captain of the Starship Enterprise? Well, not everybody will be chosen to do that, so some level of resentment is going to be built in to the human experience. The concept of communism will never work because even with a society with no money, there will still be a concept of things that people value. Without a motivation, people don't reach for their full potential. That is why communism always fails.
James Keyes Communism, as originally defined, has never even been tried anywhere.
People tend to forget how vague and reactionary the Communist Manifesto was. All the details are pretty sketchy, and defined more by their effects than by their methods. Marxist communism was a materialistic criticism of 19th century industrial working conditions, but it wasn't a coherent set of proposals for an alternative, as people tend to think of it.
Communism, at that time, didn't need a plan, as communism was never envisioned as a planned movement, never intended to be a choice, never meant to be the result of any sort of centralized decision making process. Marx deliberately contrasted his critical, reactionary, specific, materialistic analysis he used with command economies, which he called "utopian socialism."
Marx predicted that communism would be an outgrowth of capitalism, the apotheosis of progress, and result in the withering away of the state and the abandonment of class distinctions. He believed that communism would grow naturally and inevitably out of the free market, without any sort of planning or coordination, not that it would co-exist with and act as a competitor to the free market.
The most capitalistic countries of the day, namely the United States, because they were farthest along in the dialectical process, would, he thought, become the most communistic of tomorrow, spearheading the movement. He cheered on the American Civil War, as he saw the emanicipation of slavery as part of that dialectical process and as a sign of the US's transition to communism.
If you believe in the historical dialectic, and define "communism" as whatever the 19th century capitalistic countries (as typified by Robber Baron-era America) have since evolved into, then the most successful communist country in the world right now would be, ironically enough, the United States... There actually was a worldwide series of civil rights protests and revolts around 1848 that culminated in the Japan's meiji restoration, the women's rights movement, and the simultaneous end of slavery in those few remained countries that still had it (Brazil, Thailand, the US).
The revolution wasn't televised, so not many people know about it, but Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm wrote a good book about it, The Age of Revolution.
As it happened, contrary to what Marx predicted, openly "communist" parties haven't actually come to power in any really industrially-advanced countries. They mostly win out in feudalistic dictatorships (like Czarist Russia and Qing China) or former colonies (like Cuba and Moldova). What they with these countries would probably be unrecognizable to the original 19th century communist sympathizers.
If communism in the original sense exists anywhere in the world, it's not going by the name "communism." What's calling itself "communism" these days is closer to the "utopian socialism" that Marx so disdained. However, there are a few states that call themselves communist that had or have relatively enlightened policies. As best I can tell, those states are Vietnam, Nicaragua, and China post-Mao. Now, keep in mind, I'm saying "relatively." Each of these are pretty dysfunctional in their own way, but they're still doing better than the average "communist" country
The "Communism has never been tried correctly argument" is invalid. Making such supportive statements is truly immoral. As if to encourage it to be tried again and again. Communism has been tried and failed. Many times. All we get to show for it is 100 million murders. Anyone who doesn't roundly condemn communism for the pure evil that it is, but instead equivocates is an enabler. Not only do you dishonor the over 100 million people murdered by communism and a billion more enslaved by it, but to add insult to injury you allow for it to be tried again, because the rest of us dummies couldn't get it right, so we need to just try to do it your way.
I love how the Category tag on this video is “Comedy” 😂
Dylan Browder if you aren’t laughing then you don’t get it
Well well, so it is😁
First time I’ve heard Mr. Peterson say “fuck it”. Its beautiful
Mr Joe, what does automation and A.I. contribute to this UBI equation ...or.... is UBI a suppressant to start mass automation so there won't be retaliation?
This is amazing and informative.
Don't forget "one-sided." This a wildly right-wing perspective.
Matthew Grimshaw UBI is right wing? Is that what you’re saying?
We all knew Jordan was smart as fuck, but this Bret Weinstein dude is fucking awesome.
RB5Network yeah I think they're a great combo
They should have their own "Window". So I can stare into it and think I should have worked harder at school :)
Yeah, Weinstein is a genius.
Jonas Lindberg lmao
Eric is even better imo
this is the best 10 min snippet I've seen of JRE
Wow, such a deep and intelligent discussion. I've been watching a lot of YT lately on, let's say, the fundamental forces at work in economic systems. I hadn't really understood before that this is a thing - and that there is good evidence for what these fundamental forces are and how they operate. And then I find that it begins to clarify your whole view of politics. Amazing.
I don’t think I’ve gasped at someone saying “fuck” since middle school but JP got it out of me there lol
Pretty much everyone I know admires wealthy people who got there by producing something of value. The kind of wealthy people that people don't like are the ones that either got there or remain wealthy by pushing down on working people. Most people do not like CEOs that did not start the company, don't produce anything of value, slash everyone's benefits and pay, try to outsource everything, exercise their stock options,, and then leave with a golden parachute worth millions after they get fired. Most people do not like the wealthy people that ran the big banks that were living like kings when the economy was booming and then ended up getting bailed out when the economy crashed by the only people that we hate more than them, politicians. Working people do not want to be lectured on how lazy and worthless they are by a bunch of parasites that are not treated as such only because they are getting paid to be parasites.
The irony is that the parasites are the ones who are all Ayn Rand evangelists.
@@itWouldBeWise How so?
Problem is, the "American Dream" doesnt differentiate. In the US, just being succesful is all that matters - everything else is second. Thats the problem.
@@PLF... success is a pipe dream and completely subjective. Success to me would be to not have to worry all the time if I'll have a place to live next month or not. One crap job after another and the only ones that is me well pay me as a contractor. I give 30% of that to the government every year for my troubles. So yeah, Ubi will work for me, personally. Let bezos worry about bounced checks for a few months
@@MrZatyro suddenly rents get 1000 bunks more expensive and everything else gets even more expensive as everyobe is literally given. 1k Wow no worries dude wow it is okay let just increase UBI until all the problems of the first world goes away
Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell great read
This is an awesome video! Great talk!
It’s interesting because earlier in this podcast, they all agreed on a particular point about someone’s degree of motivation and creativity that is influenced by being lower on the socioeconomic ladder, and that some of the greatest entrepreneurs started from almost nothing. But the key is that they still had something, as Weinstein clarified (I.e. their basic needs were met and they likely had a stable family and childhood).
I get Peterson’s point, that young people, particularly young men, need meaning purpose and fulfillment in life in order to be functioning and thriving human beings, but I disagree with his initial point that UBI would dissuade people from being able to discover that purpose on their own. In fact I think that Peterson could be convinced that UBI may actually be the key to helping the majority of society discover greater meaning and purpose because it gives them just enough to meet their basic needs (I.e. equality of opportunity) but not so much that no one feels motivated to do more for themselves.
Regardless, I think Peterson could definitely be YangGang in the near term future, mostly because Yang rejects identity politics and is more focused on equality of opportunity than outcomes. Less government bureaucracy, which was the crux of Yang’s critique of Bernie.
Money out of politics
This comment should have the most upvotes. It is the only way to take any step forward.
Tanmay Patel we'll leave it to the New York Times to tell us who to vote for
Exactly this! Doesn't matter if it's George Soros or the Koch Brothers, get their money out of politics!
Wrong. Simply disable the Government from having so much authority on the markets and people's lives and any amount of money in politics will not make much difference. The right to donate your money to politicians is no different from the right to free speech in principle.
Then get politics out of money.
10:42 this understanding of market is amazing.
He explains it so well. And is sooo right man. 💯