Download Subtitles for Socialists vs Capitalists | Middle Ground

So, you want a 91% slavery people now? >> No, no, no, no, no, no, no. That's not the prop though, unfortunately. >> But I'm giving an example. Thank you, Sebastian. >> I don't think that's a valid question. That's not what we're talking about. >> It's exactly what we're talking about. >> No, it's not. >> Maybe you're misunderstanding my point then. I'm making the argument that capitalism is the most perfect system we have out of any other market. >> This is not No one should be a billionaire in a moral society. Can they agree a step forward? >> Okay. >> I just personally believe that no one makes a billion dollars from their own work. You have to make a billion dollars through exploitation. It's a loaded word for a lot of people. I personally believe that's just the siphoning of the value someone creates through their labor to a single or uh small group of uh individual capitalists ultimately. >> Yeah. So I support because I agree with what you're saying but also I think society's morals are a little mixed up right now. So that's one. But then for two, um I do think there are some billionaires doing great things like I think of like Melinda French Gates, Mackenzie Scott off the top of my head and they are like trying to distribute their wealth to help other people. I think the issue I have with billionaire or some people that are soon to be trillionaire status is that they were ever able to achieve that while there are people that are like living on the street and don't have access to healthcare and all these things. And those are where my morals is is making sure everyone has their basic needs met. A big thing for me is that no matter the incentives, no matter what is done in terms of a free market society, you're never going to get every single billionaire to agree to give up large vast amounts of their wealth to help the rest of the world. >> Can the disagree a step forward? >> My opinion on billionaires, I don't care that they're billionaires. For me, as a person that's coming from immigrant family, I see them as motivation. My parents did the best they can. I want to do better. I don't care for corporations in general. I'm a populist. I care more about the people. The people also benefit from these billionaires because billionaires create jobs. As net worth rises, in some cases, the salary of the people rise as well. >> I mean, if Elon Musk, you you implicitly mentioned Elon Musk as perhaps the world's first trillionaire. If he does become the world's first trillionaire, it's not because he stole it. because thousands of shareholders all mutually agreed and voted that should the company reach nine times its current valuation, he would be awarded stock options. Forget about Elon Musk benefits, the shareholder benefit benefits. Environmentalists like myself who try to only buy electric vehicles, we will be able to benefit because the cost of a Tesla will go down. So, it really depends on your definition of morality. But honestly, as a someone who believes in Judeo-Christian values and believes in the Hebrew Bible, I can't think of anything more immoral than to take someone else's money for the sake of well, everyone deserves. It's true. Everyone should be able to have a decent wage and have a home and have a living wage. But you don't solve that by taking other people's money. And if you want to play this game of billionaires, well, what about millionaires? And just like the LER curve suggests, if you are going to take away people's wealth after they reach a certain number, then I can guarantee you our economy will stop being as productive as it currently is. >> Yeah, I was going to say I think it's an extremist view when people start talking about taking away people's wealth. I mean, I think that's like the buzzwords that scares people when people are saying simply they want people's basic needs met. Obviously, given where society is, we can't take away Elon Musk's like 400 billion plus dollars. But I'm just saying my point of view, my moral compass is everyone's basic needs met. And then when I see certain billionaires, not just him, several of them that could be doing more and choosing not to, I think that's just a reflection of their moral compass. >> I'm not the kind of person to say we shouldn't have billionaires. I think there's the extremity view that like, yeah, like we should just get rid of everybody's assets and that's not the case. Like you should be able to own your phone or a teddy bear or something like that. I think but to say that Elon Musk got his wealth from free markets, I think is a little bit disingenuous. We have to acknowledge the fact that there is rent seeking by corporations just as much as the state. And so to say that it's a free market and that's the reason why he did so great. There's so many other things that go into whether he did great, how great he did, and I think we do have to kind of take those things. >> What I had wanted to say cuz I resonate with what you're saying a lot. I think you'd have to be a monster not to want everyone to have their basic needs met. So the issue then becomes how we get there. So when we say both of us say we want everyone's basic means net I would ask you well how is that going to be done if it's not taking from other people and that's the sticking point the fact is before government started really interfering in medicine I remember when I bought my own health plan when I was a teenager I know that probably seems like you know the Flintstones right now but I was able to to buy that on my own and now you go through the marketplace and it's just insane. I don't see how anyone affords that. And that's from government trying to help. >> What do you suppose Elon, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg should do with their money? If you were to be able to run their money and run how wealth distributes, how would you tax them and how would we be affected the middle in the lower class? >> Uh, yeah, I would cap it at 900 million is the amount you can make and I would distribute the rest, you know, to make sure everybody got their needs met. So yes, I guess to answer your question, if we're talking about today's society where we're at with all the billionaires, that's what I would do. >> I would bring us back to 1950s tax rates in the United States. 91% tax rates on the highest tax margin. Now, let's talk about what let's explain what that means. >> So you want a 91% slavery people. >> No, no, no, no, no, no, no. I don't know about that terminology. Hold on. Hold on. >> And of course, it's not. And I'm not trying to be really not. We're talking about a tax on people that are making more than $10 million per year on every dollar above $10 million. Let's say that up to that point. Does anybody really need to live for on more than $10 million? >> My place to decide that. >> It should be everybody's place. >> It's not my place to decide what I don't care what you Listen, you could go out and blow all your money on a stepper and I don't care. Listen, we live in a world where the private corporations have been given so much that has been taken from all of us. I I actually have to disagree with something you said earlier that we are much better off now than we were in like the 1950s. Racial bias and everything notwithstanding, people had more housing. People had more access. >> A tenth of the size. >> Well, sure, >> people now own two cars, but there was the GI Bill. There was uh processes for people to get loans and housing ownership. >> Are you saying people can't get loans today? >> Yes. >> Really? >> They can't get housing loans. >> Well, if you don't have the capital to put up money, sure loan. Most of us can't. >> If a bank knows you don't have the capital to pay back a loan, sure they won't give it to you. But the idea disenfranchised from getting a loan because of a capitalist. >> The idea that it's not that it's easier now to get a a loan for a house than it would have been in the 1950s is absolutely ridiculous. It's safer to get a loan. Now the issue the issue Yeah. >> What does that mean? It's safer. >> Okay. Okay. Let's look at what happened from 2000 to 2007. We all know what happened in 2008, right? >> Uhhuh. >> Okay. That was all because of risky lending practices that were all occurring that decade in the decade leading up to it which led to the big pop. Right now it's >> by privately owned >> by privately owned banks allowed by the government. >> Government owns banks to be better. >> Okay. Well, I didn't say that. >> Here's the thing though. Here's the thing. The issue isn't that you can't qualify for the loan. The issue is that the properties are too high and expensive. So that the amount is just too outside of your reach to qualify for only them to lower because we can't build enough houses. >> No, I just haven't seen evidence that it's government that is performing a stoppage on housing wholesale. Just on a like practical level, if there's an empty home sitting, to me that's a crime. I think that if you are letting a home sit for 10 years, you know, maybe it's time for someone to come in and say, "Hey, you know, this house, if we don't want the price to go down, maybe we should, you know, give it to somebody else." >> Forcefully take it from somebody. >> Yeah. I actually Yeah. >> Okay. So, you advocate for us. I'm glad we got to that. Okay. >> Well, here's one thing. Socialists don't want to take your freaking toothbrush. I'm just I just want >> They'll take my home. I'd rather you take my toothbrush than my home. That whole have a property thing. Listen, you could have my toothbrush. You can't have my house. I'm sorry. >> You're not a property owner that we're talking about. I It's not what I'm saying. Vast majority of housing is not owned by individual people. It's owned and maintained by corporations. >> I have the stats on that and it's not true. So about 72% of housing is owned by single family owners. So owner occupied. About the remaining 20ish% is owned by investors. Now, when we say investors, we mean people that own two 29ine houses. This could be your grandma that owns her house and her brother's house. That is the remaining 20%. The last like two-ish percent that is like big black rock investors. So, the majority of houses are owned by people living in them or by mom and pop. >> How many homes are we talking about is what I'm saying. >> I'm talking I'm telling you the percentages, >> but the percentage >> of all the houses. >> There needs to be a number there though. So, >> economic inequality is the root of most social problems. If you agree with the prom step forward, >> I guess I can go. I think if you look at all the problems that cause social harm in society, you can regress like crime, you can regress domestic violence, you can regress pretty much any issue on inequality. And I think that there's a pretty clear link that that's the problem in and of itself. And we try to compensate for that many ways through distribution. But I think it'd be hard to make a case that something else is worse than economic inequality. Yeah. >> Yeah. I agree. It's a knock-on effect. You know, you have economic inequality. It leads to um people being unstable in uh them being able to feed and house themselves, you know, being able to support their families, being able to survive. We live in a society that requires you to have a certain amount of money to survive in a livable way. So of course the inequality in economic stability is going to be a central cause of societal ills. >> Yeah. And I think too with like uh the different intersections like black and brown communities, queer communities, disabled, like you mentioned, domestic violence, we already have a society set up a certain way and being such like a capitalist society that when all these other intersections come into play, it like we've said causes more, you know, inequality within it. >> Yeah. And if you look at the vast majority of crime or any other social ill like monetary factors are what drive a lot of it. Even if you look at stuff like domestic violence, you could even break that down and say, "Hey, look, because we're having financial problems in our marriage or whatever the case may be, that can cause the issues." And so it's if you have everything like better distributed, then I think that you would solve a lot of not all crime, but the vast majority of it for sure. And I'm a like a survivor of domestic violence. So I can definitely attest to like the financial abuse aspect of why some people can stay longer than like we'd want to is because we can't get out from under like where are we going to go like to the street you know it's a worse situation or scenario than the one we know unfortunately. So yeah definitely. >> Yeah. I think one thing I can think of is housing insecurity. a major issue in my view of uh why there's such a problem with housing and with not just homelessness but people having inadequate housing is accumulation of capital ownership of real property you know so I I feel like that inherent uh in inequal structure ends up having people you know not be able to afford housing it brings the prices up and they stay up no matter the circumstances. Uh and that endless growth, endless growth doesn't allow for people who are already in a difficult situation to um find available housing. And you know, we have millions and millions of uh empty homes and millions more people homeless. And I personally believe we could house every single person if we literally just give people housing. >> Yeah, I agree. And then also too, even with uh there's like the stereotype uh cuz I've also experienced homelessness myself, like lived on Skid Row, the whole nine. So, um I was still working like two jobs and we were not making livable wages. Minimum wage is different than like a livable wage. That's different than like a reasonable wage depending on the industry you're in. Um I do a lot of freelance, so sometimes it can get murky. Um, so I believe to your point what you were saying like people are doing everything they can and we keep like raising things up but not raising up like how people are able to afford living then that's how we have like the homeless or unhoused epidemics that we're dealing with right now and everything else. >> Can the disagree step forward? >> I would like to start because there was something personal that was said. So, I grew up in a very domestically violent family. I mean, as a child, I actually was constantly anticipating having to attack my father to save my mother. It was not based upon economic inequality. So, I think to reduce domestic violence down to that, it is simply not fair. There are inequalities that cause issues, but there's no way to get around that. So you're going to have inequalities even if everyone was monetarily equal. But of course I would say where's that money going to come from? It's just going to make everyone equally miserable. And if that's the the equality we're looking for, fine. But once you get past that, if everyone still had the same money, there's such a thing as pretty privilege. There's going to be someone who gets advantages because they're prettier or there's going to be someone that gets advantages because they're smarter. So, I agree that there are issues with economic equality. I think you would have to be kind of dafted not to think that. But I don't think the solution to it is to take from other people to give to other people because then you're just going to start to create other problems. I think the problem is that we have within society a very small amount of sociopaths and we make them our politicians that run our lives. I think that is more the bigger problem because I know capitalists have the reputation of not caring about people. That's not me. And if we started to create a culture of wanting to care about people, I think that would start to solve a lot of the problems. But the thing is we've farmed out caring. And the fact is when government becomes the father, we go, we're not going to help that person because the government program's going to help them. And there's something enobling about giving charity, but also about taking charity because you could be the recipient tomorrow. And that's the way like fraternal aid societies used to work in the early days of this country. So I think pinning everything just on the boogeyman of economic equality is not the answer particularly with domestic violence. >> If I can complement that as well. None of us I assume are millionaires or billionaires. So we are in fact living examples of income inequality. Yet most of us don't commit crimes. In fact the overwhelming majority of Americans are not millionaires or billionaires. Yet the overwhelming majority of Americans do not commit crime. So to me the root cause of so many of our societal problems is the revocation of human agency whereby we are all responsible for our individual choices. And I think the greatest proof of this is probably Venezuela. Venezuela is a socialist country. 90% of all Venezuelans have the same socioeconomic status i.e. they are all poor. So you would think well because they all have the same socioeconomic status and inequality is actually not an issue. Yet nevertheless Venezuela is one of the most crimeridden countries on the entire planet. So to me it is true that income inequality can be a problem but at the end of the day even though we are not millionaires and billionaires our quality of life compared to the 1950s to 1960s is so much greater. I mean yes it is true the wealthier have never been this wealthy but it's also true that the middle class has never been this wealthy either. So so long as all of our wages are not stagnant but are actually increasing then I actually don't see why that's a problem. I wanted to speak on the domestic violence one because I was just addressing an example within it because there's a lot that goes on in that. So, I'm sorry that you experienced that, but I think financial abuse is a very big reason why some people do stay longer than they should because they don't have a way to leave. Like, you have to go, you have to get your own place, you have to figure out jobs and all that. And depending on your situation, your abuser might have used financial abuse against you. And then I wanted to go to you because aren't we talking about in the US? So why are we comparing like a socialist society to a capitalist society in that example? And then wouldn't you agree that it would be a better if we all made livable wages where we're at so that people could actually like live not having to be check to check because we're making livable wages. So I just wanted to know why you went to Venezuela. >> Sure. The reason I mentioned Venezuela is because the debate is socialism as a political philosophy or as an economic concept. And there's no greater damning indictment on socialism being applied on a society than Venezuela. But we could talk about the United States as well. So I agree we should all have living wages, which is why the job I had two years ago is no longer the job I have because it wasn't paying me enough and now I'm getting double as much. And that is because we live in a free market economy where I can choose where I want to work. And I think you're actually probably the best example of it. You said yourself that you were homeless, you were on Skid Row, yet now you are not. And that's a direct result of your skilled capital, your skilled labor, your talents, and your ability to not be subjugated to a system whereby all prices are guaranteed, all income levels are guaranteed. You made something of yourself. So, if anything, I know you're on this side of the aisle, but really, you're you're living proof that capitalism actually really works. No, I worked like five jobs to get off of Skid Row and I was there for years and I should have never had to be there, but given my situation in domestic violence, like I got to a point where I was either going to die in my situation or make the choice to leave and be on the street. So, no, I don't think that I'm an example in that way of successful capitalism because there should be government resources to help survivors in general, like be able to do that. And that goes back to the fact that we have a lot of people at the top that have this privilege due to the capitalist society of like continuing to like accumulate money and it's not being I don't want to say filtered but given to people who are working um who do live in the US and who do deserve to be able to get out of situations or if even if you're disabled like you need like some help you know for the time being because you need that um disability insurance or something like that like you should be able to have access to those things. It >> correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you're suggesting that those with an immense accumulation of wealth, the Elon Musks, the Bill Aman's, there are they are maybe not direct, but perhaps indirect result of you living in poverty or being impoverished. But I would actually argue, take New York City for example, the top 1% of earners pay 48% of all the taxes. 48% of all of New York City's revenue come from just 1% of all the earners, whereby the bottom 50% pay only 5% of the taxes. So I guess I'm sort of unclear as to how those at the top of the socioeconomic status are somehow responsible for our lack of being in that top socioeconomic status. And if anything there is nothing in a capitalist system both legally, both on a policy perspective that would actually prevent any of us from achieving that wealth alone. Now I'm not saying it's simply just skill. Certainly billionaires will be the first to admit a lot of it is luck. A lot of it is grit. A lot of it is being in the right place at the right time. But one of the reasons I'm a capitalist and not a socialist even though I I once was a socialist is whereas socialism puts artificial restrictions and limitations on your ability to succeed financially, capitalism there literally are no restrictions. So while it is true you worked five jobs, there are lots of jobs out there that will only be enough for you will only be enough to having one job. I'm proof of that. I would say most of us in this room, most of us in this country are proof of that by the fact that most Americans only have one job and most Americans are not living in poverty. I I would completely disagree with what you're saying that there are no restrictions in capitalism. I would question that deeply because the reality is the private sector has a vast control and I mean the people at the top in the private sector have a vast control on what jobs exist and are available. Mergers, for example, are supposedly a uh opportunity for businesses to grow and become bigger. You would think that that would result in a greater increase of jobs. And yet with every single corporate merger that's gone on, they cut 50% of the workforce. Vast corporations when they combine, when they cannibalize each other, rather than creating more jobs, they eliminate a vast number of jobs and create unemployed people. Right now, I'm a teacher and I teach at a public school and I'm unionized. And this is the first time in my life really and I've been a teacher for many years. I've also been for long periods undermployed, making below the poverty line. And because I'm in a a job that has a union, in part because I'm in a job that is governmentmandated, government created, I'm actually able to survive. But I'm lucky and I'm one of the few who have that opportunity and are able to get that in part because I had to get certified in these things. And that's another economic barrier for a lot of people. I had to pay money to do that, you know. So, there are numerous barriers to every single person succeeding. I think the idea that that there are no restrictions is facious. >> So, then let me rephrase. When I say there is no restriction, what I mean is you cannot identify a single policy or law on the books right now that would prevent you right now from starting your own company, from starting your own business, from taking a different job. You're only limited by yourself. You're only limited by your personal financial constraints. And and that's true of any society. That's true of being a human being. We are only limited by our own skill and imagination. But there is nothing within a capitalist framework that will say because you are a teacher or because you are white or because you are XYZ, therefore we are not allowing you to do this thing. It's difficult for sure. Again, we are not millionaires and billionaires in this room. But in theory, there's nothing in this system that will prevent us from doing that thing. >> I mean, the the main thing is okay, what causes the most social harm? What's the biggest problem for society? And if you look at the facts, like we would agree that low-income communities have more crime than higher inome communities. And then if you look at the motivations for why people commit crime, why bad things happen, economic inequality is a part of it. You just said that your own personal financial constraints can preclude you from certain activities. And that's economic inequality. I think if if you look at starting a business, the biggest barriers that people complain is overregulation. And overregulation increases transaction costs. It increases friction. And those things are economic inequality. And so I think if we break down what's actually causing most of the problems in society, I think it's hard to make a case that economic inequality is not so. >> You're a capitalist. Congratulations. No more regulation. >> Here's the here's the um I think the prompt is actually pretty fairly simple, which leaves us with not too much wiggle room to discuss, which is why I think we're getting pretty broad off the topic. So all we really have to as the negation that disagreeers is prove that there's a root cause or any sort of cause that can come right before economic inequality based off the prompt >> that can supersede >> that can supersede it in any case just in any instance. Would that be fair? >> Would you agree to that? I >> mean based off the prompt. Sure. >> Yeah. Based off the prompt. >> Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system. Can the agree a step forward? Okay. >> If we're going to be honest, I think it's pretty clear capitalism is the best system we've ever seen. I think even today if you're poor, >> we won. >> Or no, no, no, no, no, no, no. I think it's the best system we've seen so far. And if you look today, I mean, you're better off being poor today than even the queen of England was 150 years ago. But I think the problem with capitalism is that it takes a lot. Capitalism and financialization come at the same time. And so with financialization, you turn everything into an asset. Things like housing go from being a social right to an asset. And so you reach a certain point. I mean, theoretically, if we believe in infinite economic growth, we're going to eventually get to a point where everybody has as much money as they need for everything and everybody can enjoy the luxuries. And so therefore, you should switch to a system where everybody collectively owns things together and it will be more ideal. And I think if you look democratically, a lot of the institutions that people support the most are socialists. Like if you think about like a police station or fire department, stuff like healthcare, those are all like socialistoriented goods. And those are the kind of things that we want to eventually get to. The whole point is that you go through a transition in society and capitalism eventually develops into socialism. So >> I'll make an example. My my mother comes from Soviet Ukraine. Okay? So she tells me stories that my grandma, she's from Turk Manistan. like mom's from Ukraine. They all lived basically in the same house, a government uh given housing, right? And she kind of talked about the horrors of kind of having this distribution of wealth, all these kind of things. But eventually when the Soviet Union fell, right, she came to America. She seek a better life. At that point in time, she was getting about an average like yearly stipen of 400 ruples, which is around back then was like $200, $300. So she came here with nothing. She spoke no English, no money, and she came with a disabled grandma. So she had to figure things out on her own, right? And the only reason why she was able to is because now that she has no restrictions, she has no shackles. She was able to grow, you know, she went from being a non-English-speaking Ukrainian, then became worked for the USPS, then she got into nursing school, then became a dental assistant, and now she does that to this day. >> Wow. >> And simply coming out of a society that kind of has a roof over her head where she couldn't grow. She was stuck in one point. She supports my family, me, my dad, but also at the same time supports my grandma who thank God is still with us. And it's only due to capitalism because she was able to grow beyond what she was able to before. Basically, >> everyone comes down to principles, but I would unequivocally say that nothing that requires the labor of another person is a right. Not to diminish what happened earlier in this country because I know these words can be trigger words and I get it. But it's a form of slavery. When you are required to use your body and your labor to provide something for somebody else, you no longer own yourself. And for me, that that's a non-negotiable. There is no idealistic society where my effort can be forcefully taken from me against my will to provide for someone else. Now, I'm a very generous person. I don't mind giving to other people. But you try to take it from me and all of a sudden it's like no ma'am not today Satan. No. So I think there is that fundamental disconnect there. So you talked about a right to housing. Your right is to pursue housing. I can't stop you and another willing participant from arranging for housing, but I don't have to give you one and I don't have to do a thing to get you one. Now if I know you and I like you, I'll want to help you out. I was going to say I think analytically if we look at what socialism really is it's really just a collective ownership of all goods and I think so if we look at housing right the biggest issues that we have with housing is that certain types of housing is allowed not there's regulation not and I think the way that we fix those is we have to have the state the state has to exist the state has to moderate things and ideally you want everybody to work together and to vote and to be on the same page >> voting is 50 people telling the other 49 what to do >> yeah Okay, let's go back to the housing thing. Your concept of the state needing to grow infinitely to maintain. Sure, you can possibly assume that. But let's look at the issue of housing where this is tantamount the exact opposite case. Uh as the state has grown, as we have grown more and more regulations, we have stunted our ability to build. So let's look at California. I love the state. It's my home state. Love it to the ground. But we have kneecapped our ability to grow. Let's look at that train we built. uh because of our size of our state and because of the amount of regulations we put in place, environmental, all good and well, but when you overdo it, which we have, we make it so that we have a sliver mile of a high-speed rail in the middle of a Merced going to nowhere, which no, none of us really want that. We all want a highspeed rail. That'd be super cool. But because of our heavy regulation, we just kind of slapped a portion of it down there uncompleted. This also falls down to our housing. Because of how much regulation we have, there's so much red tape to get anything built. We don't get anything built. So, we don't have sufficient housing. >> I mean, kind of to piggy back off what he's saying, it's artificial scarcity. In essence, it's the government who's imposing these problems. You know, we see zoning as a problem. They don't allow us to make duplexes in certain areas, and it costs tens of thousands of dollars just to create um a house. And I think with that, if the government is creating this artificial scarcity to even develop new housing or make it a more affordable, aka build more and supply more, >> why would a bigger government do better if the small governments were doing worse? >> How did we get into what is ancap? >> Uh, and our capitalist. >> Oh. >> Uh, yeah. I only disagreed because Okay, so you're lifted up out of the system, right? But can it be maintained like your now new living environment or situation or are you one check away from going back to where you were which is how I feel we are today. So like I'm still check to check today. Like if something happens I could easily end up back though unfortunately. >> But I'm giving an example thank you Sebastian of why I disagreed and that was where I was going to leave it at so I don't get too far off topic. But I guess the response to that would be what specific alternative would alleviate those concerns except for capitalism, >> right? And that's the thing. I'm an abolitionist, so I think all we need to burn all that down. So I don't have the solution, but I just know that I disagreed with that for the reason I stated. >> I actually want to point to a couple things I do agree with. I agree that there's artificial scarcity, but it ain't the government that's causing artificial scarcity. It is hoarding. It is ownership by a few. That is to me tyranny. You you talk about tyranny in libertarian and and anarch capitalist circles. Tyranny to me is that which is imposed by those who have the resources to impose it. And to me, the people who have the resources to impose that kind of authority are the Elon Musks, the Jeff Bezos's, the billionaires who happen to now be also in the government creating a lack of distinction between private capital and the state. >> I agree. >> So that in that we can agree there's middle ground there, right? >> Yes. I think there's a lot of middle ground actually. >> And true, but it's the causes. It's the causes that we're talking about and I agree with what you were saying. So I I disagree on the principle that capitalism has brought people out of poverty more than ever. Socialism is an outgrowth from capitalism. Capitalism inherently breeds socialism. So for me it's like we have to embrace it and understand how it will work because it's an inevitability. >> Where where I would push back is when you say that capitalism is a fruition of feudalism. Capitalism is a fruition of human existence and of human nature whereby we have incentives to do things. You had an incentive to come on the show whether it was because you wanted to express your ideas, you wanted to be on TV, you had a reason for coming here otherwise you wouldn't have come here. No one forced you to do it. So to capitalism while it is true capitalism as a theory, as an economic principle is 400 years old, capitalism as an innate human response to life has been around essentially since we've been able to trade and better our own existence. If we did not live in a capitalist system whereby we were incentivized to do things, then we would be decentivized and the problems that you are alluding to which I agree with. There is income inequality. Yes, there is to a degree a scarcity. We might disagree on the causes, but we certainly don't disagree that it exists. My response would be we actually need more capitalism as an antidote to these problems that you are alleviating. When I start a business, for example, truly the only way my business will ever succeed is if it provides a service to you, if you benefit from it. Because if you don't benefit from it or if no one benefits from it, then guess what? My business will cease to exist. So capitalism can actually alleviate a lot of the concerns that you are addressing, especially when it comes to housing. I'm a New Yorker. We just elected an actual socialist Sora Mandani. If we truly want to build more housing, something like a rent freeze would kill any incentive, this profit motive that land developers, property owners have to develop property and build land and housing. I feel that you're equating commerce with capitalism and though they're not synonymous. Commerce occurs under socialist not just governments but the whole system. I think we're equating the idea of people you know you mentioned incentives. Incentives can and do still occur under socialist systems. And to me, the idea that that can only occur in a lazy fair free market sort of situation, which again, markets also do exist in socialism. Trade and innovation, these are not things that are necessary only to capitalism. >> If you're cool with lazy fair economics and you're cool with free markets and you're cool with the invisible hand, call yourself a socialist, call yourself a communist, a capitalist. I don't care. But that's great. You know, but by that definition, by that definition, every single Republican is a socialist because they would all agree with those things. >> A market does not necessarily mean a free market. It's about what that market is. >> Nobody's calling for the abolition of markets. It really has to do with how the markets are. >> Sure. They do. That's literally socialism. >> No, no, it's not. >> It has to do with the collective ownership of the markets. And I think we equate like >> that's not a free market though. When you call a market, >> it's definitionally correct. We don't have lives wise is not great. nitionally some of us not not you but me and not anyone else here the word free goes with market it's it's it's like saying well I've got kosher bacon no bacon by its definition is not kosher and markets by their definition are free it's not markets otherwise it's manipulation >> but we can't have free markets and I think one of the most convincing things to me in sociology is like the idea of what we call the varieties of capitalism and Holland Saskus like outlined there's different manifestations of capitalism and ideally Y you can't have a completely free market because you have to have regulation. >> Can I just quickly add and because I really want to understand the position here when you talk about these voluntary cooperatives perhaps inadvertently you are literally describing the composition of an LLC. I mean you can say that socialist I think that's a weak argument but ultimately that is a fruition of free markets of people coming together to make voluntary agreements. What I'm struggling with with your side is even with your diagnosis of the problems of capitalism what specific alternative are you looking for? And then can you name two countries currently that socialism is in fact working? >> China. China's one. >> Do you think China is not gonna go down? >> What is the fastest growing economy in the world? China per cap. It's not China at all. In fact, China is stagnating. The reason why they have a large economy is because they have a billion and a half people. >> Why is their economy growing? >> You got to ask why their economy is growing. It's because they're opening themselves up to the free market. >> First off, all production is basically there. Like virtually all production. Trump wanted to do production here and was not successful in part because of capital forces has somewhat of a monopoly on production. Whether that's good or not is a is another question. But I think the idea that we shouldn't question it because it's working for some of the people now is a concession that society can't get better. It's saying Fukuyama was right. History's over. This is people can easier understand the end of the world, the post-apocalypse than they can post capitalism. And that's because there's not that understanding or forward thinking in my view. And at least looking at China, you can see, sure, I'm not saying that it's a perfect country. I'm not saying that there's not problems with the system itself, but it is a force that I would say is uh pushing forward at least some form of socialism. >> Corporate monopolies prove that free markets rarely stay free. Kindre a step forward. >> We'll talk about middle ground. Yeah. So we all agree that uh that within capitalism at least currently we need government, right? >> No. Well, no. >> Well, that exists and that it's for me its main feature is to dissuade a monopolization of corporations and maintain our free market so that we can continue having >> governments entrench monopolization by corporations. >> They do. But is there any other mechanism of which we can get rid of monopolies from forming naturally other than using an outside government party? If you're talking about corporations are a creature of the state, without the state, there wouldn't be corporations. They they're they say they're people. They're not people. They have a limited liability. If you made these corporations liable for what they're doing, you wouldn't have half of the evil. Corporations, they say money in the Bible is the root of all evil. No, corporations are the root of all evil. Well, I would argue then that that would require a law that limits the size of corporations. That limits that ability. >> Oh, I would say the existence, not the size. I think corporations by their nature. >> You think the ability for corporations to be formed? >> Yes. >> Is the is the >> It gives them legal liability. Like >> like people they do LLC so that when they do something crappy and they like poison the well, instead the company gets fined, not the guy that poisoned the well. If you or I went to poison a well, the cops are knocking on our doors because we poisoned a well. But if Exon Mobile goes and poisons the atmosphere with CO2, >> I wonder how that's an example. Nothing happens. >> I think we can all agree on this one thing. >> Yeah, >> big pharma is one of them. There is basically no free market in the healthcare industry. They're all made up by monopolies. Insurance companies work together very close with hospitals and there's no free market to really expand on, you know, cheaper medicines or alternative ways to buy medicine, right? We think it's Singapore for example, they have a more of a free market on medicine. It's a universal free market where they can go and buy medicine at a reasonable price. Here we don't have that because corporations work very closely with hospitals which isn't capitalism, it's corporationism. They don't work in a free market. >> Singapore also has a pretty repressive government if I'm not mistaken. >> Well, it's democratically elected. But >> yeah. >> Yeah. Like Russia was democratically elected. I want a better example maybe like 1950s America for medicine. >> Sure. >> Then later on it sure >> I guess I'm I'm talking more modernly because that's the one that's one that pops into my head. They have an actual free marketed uh healthcare system with medicine. We don't >> personally I would argue that with pharmaceuticals we do technically have a free market you could call it. What we don't have in place is a proper universal system of health care. And in part, I think that's because of corporate collusion. >> There's more. It's it's not even corporations. It's intellectual property. So these people get to patent these and then they just change it a tiny bit and then they get another multi-deade patent. So I think intellectual property is an entirely different thing. But you combine intellectual property with corporations and you have a level of Dante's Inferno. Don't get me wrong, like I'm not an apologist for pharmaceutical companies by any means, but I do think there should be a mechanism somewhat to pro protect intellectual property. I think it's easy to say, you know, in other countries like pharmaceuticals can be cheaper. Yes, but the majority of that research and development is done here in the states and it does cost a lot of money. I do think there could be mechanisms to kind of control the price of drugs or limit like the amount of profit they're able to make. >> But I don't think we need it. Say for example Coca-Cola with their um recipe, uh they don't have a patent on it anymore because if they put a patent on it, it would have expired. So they didn't put one on it. They just use as a trade secret. So they just kind of don't tell people what they do. But if someone else were to copy it and make a similar recipe like like a Pepsi or an RC cola, they can do that. >> I mean, they get cheaper things. >> But if you drugs have like a chemical formula, and it does take a lot to make them. I mean, relatively >> it takes universityled and government-f funded research in order for those drugs to be developed. And I mean, you're you're actually kind of stealth arguing for singlepayer in a lot of ways. I mean, you're arguing for if if we want to come back to at home production and everything, we need people to be educated. We need people to be properly fed, housed, have uh healthcare. And these are all things that >> that assumes I would want in-house production. I'm okay with being globalist and we take benefit from other countries and they benefit from us. If they can make the iPhone better than we can and we can make software better than they can, cool, we're all benefiting. >> But then why not bring that benefit home? >> If we can because they're just doing it better. Every It's kind of how each person has like their own thing they're good at. Countries on their own also kind of develop skills. Our skills have been services. >> Well, we've been the manufacturing uh center for uh in the past. So, and I think it's possible Is that is that actually true though? I think there's this reputation that we were some manufacturing powerhouse and was it really that we were inherently good at manufacturing? Is it was it because of the World War II economy that temporarily >> we were good at manufacturing created by the New Deal >> but then also because we were the only country that didn't have all our facilities bombed because nobody touched our soils. Everyone else though devastated every after World War II. >> No, no, I'm not saying that they weren't devastated. I'm just saying that's not the only reason. So that gave us the head start that gave us the >> I mean ideally if you look at it you would want your economy to be based on services like if you look at the development of how countries do end up becoming more economically developed than others like your service industry booms and manufacturing jobs on average pay less. Like if you're manufacturing here it costs more money to pay someone. The cost of goods would go up and it would negate the benefits that I think we would get from it. I'm not I'm not convinced that manufacturing here in the States is actually better. Being economically independent on other countries relatively makes the world more peaceful and stable. I think so. I don't necessarily see a problem with manufacturing outside the states. >> He's like, yes, >> I would say that crony capitalism, crony corporatism is not a hallmark of free markets. And that's why actually I think within a free market system, the fact that we have organizations like the SEC, the FTC, the DOJ, the Department of Labor, the Department of Commerce are actually ensuring that free markets remain free. So I would disagree on the prompt only in the sense of I don't think that the crony aspects of capitalism are actually a hallmark of capitalism or a byproduct of free markets. I think they occur in any society and it's actually capitalism that does its best more than any other system to rid itself of those things. I think people assume that capitalism happens in the absence of institutions or things like that in government like you have to protect private property rights for example to have capitalism. If your entire motive is to profit logically as you make more money and profit you are going to spend money on things like lobbying or whatever to manipulate the rules in your favor. And so I personally like >> cronyism or oligarchism or monopolism is a natural byproduct of the way that capitalism works. I think it'd be hard to make a case that's not true. >> Well, would you not concede though that we have in the United States very aggressive anti- monopoly laws? >> But what does it have to do with like corporate monopolies stemming from the way that capitalism operates? >> Because there are laws against corporate monopolies and therefore you don't see it in much as of a capitalist society as you do in let's say the Chinese Communist Party societ. >> Reagan policies though are a big reason why we don't really have great monopoly enforcement. Robert Bour, >> you're essentially saying that because we had policies in the 80s that were detriment to the formation of monopolies. Therefore, today we have monopolies in our system. And I'm making the argument that we really don't. >> But they're a natural byproduct of capitalist markets. >> And I'm making the argument that it isn't. I think it's a natural product of other things, mostly like human nature because yes, we do want to incentivize the profit motive, which is where I'm willing to concede that we should have not a big government or a small government. we should have an efficient government that ensures that we're all playing by the same rules and we can maximize and capitalize those free market systems. I just disagree on the way that the prompt was stated. >> You're still operating from the notion that capitalism is driven by individuals buying products and the reality. No, that's not. If we look at what Milton Friedman talked about, the goal of the corporation is to maximize shareholder value at any cost. And that means no matter what the product is, no matter what comes out of it, it's why in these mergers you have these mass layoffs of uh people and cancellation of movies and media. Like uh I always I come back to uh film and the the games industry that was a major hit. >> I'll say two things. Number one, I find it interesting that you start your answer by talking about individuals and saying that the individual is not animated by profit motive, but then you end your example by talking about corporations. You started off talking about individuals and then you ended by talking about corporations are really only interested in shareholder value. The average American is in fact motivated by profit. Otherwise, they would not engage in the commerce that they currently are. Again, I stated earlier that when I start a business, I I have to provide a service of value and of meaning to you. Otherwise, my business would collapse. So if you go on Amazon for example and you see a thousand different socks available, we are all better off as consumers because Amazon is providing a lot of quantity. The quality is a different issue, but a lot of quantity at low prices. And in fact, if we want to make those prices even lower, we would encourage even more competition into that system. Are you familiar with the term creative destruction? >> Yes. >> So creative destruction would be a great example of this. So while it is true we don't have as many uh typewriter lobbyists and we're not using as much whale oil lamp. Nevertheless, our standard of living and the cost of living has gone down dramatically. >> Being the idea that a new product can come and supersede a new >> It is a good I mean AI is a really good example of this. It's a really good thing. If AI can lift more people out of poverty, it would be a really good thing for corporations to adopt AI products. And if AI doesn't do that thing, then you know what corporations aren't going to do? Adopt AI. Well, I want to substantiate something he said earlier. It's literally illegal for corporations to not chase as much profit as possible. I think there was a case like where Ford wanted to pay workers more or give them some kind of ownership or something and the courts literally ruled against it. But the the the whole thing is that the way that capitalism works, the way wealth accumulation works, the way corporations work, it is in their best interest and it's literally legally binding for them to continue to make more money at all cost, including adding things like lobbying or getting corrupt government deals. It's inherently a part of the way they offer >> layoffs. >> There is no perfect economic model. Can the Gree step forward majority of people I would argue once we reached a post scarcity environment, communism would work, but that's not a post scarcity point. We're not there yet. So right now, capitalism would work. As things develop, we would need to change it, which evidently would prove that one polic. >> I would argue that's the primary contradiction of our system is that we are in basically a post scarcity society that's only not post scarcity due to accumulation and control. And it's about ownership. But am I to say that like every single implementation of any economic system is going to be different? They're all going to have flaws. So I could never say that one is uh totally unflawed because the whole point is we implement and then we the the contradictions fall away by a new uh uh iteration of something else. So I just >> yeah as I was reiterating there's no standalone concept that can function properly. I mean look look what happened in USSR. We we they dreamed of a beautiful communist state end up being a totalitarian authoritarian and but didn't actually function as a proper as Marxist like manifesto talks about it didn't come to fruition. >> Yeah. >> Like I would say that pure capitalism I don't think we're living at the in the best time for capitalism. It's not functioning as properly as it was before. I think that's the rise of socialism is because I'm actually going to use a socialist argument and Nordic countries, right? They're capitalists and they're free market in their whole entire like way of doing things, but they're homogeneous. So they're able to have a social net that helps them with health care, with schooling. So they're very homogeneous. Us in America, sadly, we're not really homogeneous culture because for them, like for example, Norwegians, they're predominantly majority Norwegian. You know, I'm not trying to like bring race or ethnicity into it, but in America, we're not very homogeneous in all of our belief systems. There's so many different >> I'm not sure that that follows from, you know, what makes their economic system work, but you know. >> Yeah. I mean, I was just going to say that I hope that someone can innovate something better than even what we're talking about in communism, capitalism, socialism, and it could maybe fill all these gaps that we've like been discussing overall. >> Well, I think if you treat each of the economic systems as an ideal type, I mean, personally, I think that they're all equivalent. I think the problem that you have is the people and human nature. Like, that's the the key issue. And so, you have to create a system that's pragmatic to the way that humans are and what we will be. Do I think we're going to change human nature anytime relatively soon? I doubt it. But >> that's the problem. >> I don't think they're all equal. See, anarchy, before she gets here, anarchy for a second, um, it doesn't exist because it's unstable and immediately falls apart because of human nature. So, it's functionally a non-starter philosophy. >> There are societies that exist that don't have economic systems. I mean, there's the Sentinel tribe. It's an island off the coast of India. >> That doesn't make them anarchist. >> Well, what economic system do they what? Okay. How would how would how would we define barter and trade >> commerce? >> Yeah, they would have basic commerce which isn't exactly when she gets here she's going to tell us >> I wonder what she's going to pick. >> I agree with the prompt that perfection's not on the table. So we're going to accept a few imperfections. So of course I'm going to say anarchco capitalism because so many it allows for everyone to win. I want a system in which everyone wins. If someone wants to form a society where they have collective ownership, well, anarco capitalism would allow that because it's voluntary choices between people. If some people want to have a community where they have a king and they are subordinating themselves because they think this is a good king, that would be allowed. People who are just having freely voluntary interactions amongst themselves, be they market interactions, social interactions, whatever that might be. That is my goal that everyone gets what they want. Anarchy is not chaos. It's no unchosen rulers. It doesn't mean no rules. In fact, we live in anarchy every single day. When we walked in through here, there were no laws saying we couldn't bump into each other. Obviously, if it was assault, there is. But there's plenty of rude just and c things we wouldn't do to each other. You go through a supermarket, there aren't traffic lights keeping you from going from one aisle to the other, but you move aside for other people. Most of our lives are lived in anarchy and I believe people should be able to form voluntary communities based upon their values. Now some of those values will be terrible. There will be people who will be racists and bigots and I think they should be shunned by the rest of society. But I want something where everyone wins and where everyone wins that is just definitionally the best system. >> America is one of the only countries that was founded not by an ethnicity but founded by a group of ideals. And so this community you're talking about currently exists. It's called the United States of America, which is why you have millions of people who are leaving socialist communities, socialist countries right now by boat, by any way they can. They're trying to get out of Cuba and Venezuela. They're trying to get out of what was once the Soviet Union. They're trying to get out of the Chinese system because they actually really enjoy our system here in the United States. And if they didn't, then they would stop coming here. We are all, whether one describes theself as a socialist or a capitalist, we are all products of capitalism on a daily basis. Be it from the clothing you voluntarily decided to purchase and wear, from the phone that's in your pocket, from the car you're driving or not, we are all products of a system that has all benefited us. And I I can't imagine I don't mean you three or you three. I can't imagine why it is that we would say that this is not a perfect system when we are all voluntarily living here. Does that mean hang on let me let me finish the point now. Does that mean there are not faults in our society? Of course there are. I would argue that's not a byproduct of capitalism. I would argue that's a byproduct of other things. Call it human nature. call it greed, whatever you want to call it. And that's why we actually have really good rules and regulations in place. It's not about the size of government, big or small. It's about the efficiency of government. >> We're going to become unlikely allies here. But right at the beginning, I had told you I don't consent. I don't think he does. >> So leave. So leave. Why are you leaving? >> Why do I have to leave here when I think that sucks? So why do I have to leave? Why don't you leave? Because I like this system. So I want to stay. That's like saying if you don't like slavery then why don't you just go you northerners we have a right to change things >> they fought a war they said we don't like slavery so much we were going to kill other people to free >> slaves believe and you keep interacting when we're trying to make a point it's not voluntary the whole fact that all of us here have slightly different views and have slightly different preferences show it's not entirely voluntary I'm glad you're thrilled I'm not >> if you're required to work to eat, to sleep somewhere, and to drink water. That's not a free system. That's not free association. Period. If you're required to do something, you don't get to say it's voluntary. >> So, I would say that that is not a consequence of living in a free or unfree environment. That's a consequence of living and being a human being who needs water and food to sustain themselves. And again, if you truly believe that socialism outweighs capitalism, then I'm seriously asking, why not move to Venezuela? >> All right, I need to blow Venezuela. First off, Venezuela has 70% private economic capital. So, it's not really >> what socialist country would you move to right now. >> I don't think that's a valid question. That's not what we're talking about. >> The whole debate is the the premise of socialism over the prompt. The >> prompt, but we're talking about the prompt. There's no perfect economic model. So no matter where you go, I would agree you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. That's a human need. But I would argue in a society where first off, I'm not talking about us. I'm not trying to talk about other countries. I'm not talking about China or anything else. It doesn't matter here. We are the richest country in the world. We have the resources and the money and the ability to clothe, feed, house, and teach and keep healthy every single person in this country. And we choose not to. And that is a choice. I do think that, but I think it's a choice that is a mistake. >> You fall a lot back on the argument of like, okay, the US is the best place in the world. And don't get me wrong, I love the US. I wouldn't live anywhere else. But I think to assume to say that people are coming to the US because they like living here in the system I think is not necessarily true. I think people come to the US because it's the best place to make money. But if you look at the facts like things like citizenship announcements, people leaving the country, people remitting money out, there is a trend of people who are leaving the United States. And if you look at the wealthiest people in society like billionaires or centmillionaires, I mean they relatively operate stateless. like they spend certain times of the year in this country, certain times of the year in this country. And so it's not necessarily that people come to the US inherently because they want to live here, they want the benefits from it. I think that there was a shift in somewhere in the past couple of decades. It'd be hard to analytically define that, but people come here to make money and then once they get their money, they leave. And so it's not necessarily that living here is the best thing that is since sliced bread. I just don't I don't think that's convincing. So, so let me ask then how many people then are escaping the United States to go to China, Cuba, Venezuela or Russia? >> This is not if you >> I would say that's not a fair argument to make because there's multiple factors outside of your preference and economic models that >> and ability to move. >> Yeah. Also, like I don't want to leave my grand country >> like my grandma's here. Be damned if it's socialist. My grandma's here. >> It makes no s. It's just such a ridiculous question. It makes no sense. It's not what we're talking about. It's exactly what we're talking about. Let me explain. Sorry. I'm sorry. I'm going to have to like I really digital nomads. >> We are not talking about that. Let's be real. We are talking about the systems themselves and we're not talking about where we could live, where we should live. I don't know much about China. I'm not going to lie. I'd be interested to live there. That's not the question. We're not asking >> the question. So, let let me explain. Maybe maybe you're misunderstanding my point. Then we are talking about which systems are better than others. I'm making the argument that capitalism is the most perfect system we have out of any other market. And my proof to that among many other things that we've spoken about in this episode is that you have people coming on boats to escape regressive socialist countries. And if you're trying >> people not doing that. >> Okay. Well, I I have a colleague at PragerU named Franklin Kamaro and he literally escaped from Venezuela to come to the United States. >> Your anecdotal evidence is totally sufficient. It's not anecdotal evidence, which is why you have 14, at least 14 to 30 million illegal immigrants who are living in the United States because they're escaping their own lives. And in fact, the argument the left makes as to why we can't bring them back to their countries is because their countries are so dangerous and are so anarchist that we have to keep them in the United States. So if your argument is that either actually no capitalism is not the best system or if the argument is no kind of all systems are kind of random or there's no one better than the other then if that is the case then why don't you see millions of Americans in the same way you see millions of people in this world coming to America leaving America specifically to flee this system and I'm arguing we're actually seeing the opposite. Why? Because this is the most perfect of all available options for a market economy. Again, I feel like this is not really the point of what we're talking about. No, no, no. Let me explain that. We are talking about a comparison between systems and what is the most perfect system. I get what you're saying. I hear what you're saying. I would argue that a lot of people coming into this country are people who have, you know, have some connection to our country, whether it be colonization or, you know, abdication of resources from that nation. Maybe we've started a war there. Why did we have South Vietnamese people coming in after the Vietnam War? Of course, essentially, I think it's unhelpful for us to talk about where we should live in terms of looking at other countries in terms of looking at what their specific systems are because it's not what we can fight for in the United States. It's not what we I don't think it's I don't want to speak for us, but I don't think it's what we're fighting for. We're fighting for a better system here. We're viting for the ability for people to eat and live and work and be healthy and not have to be subject to the profit motive and the capital accumulation that prevents a lot of people from accessing that. And that's the main reason I would say I'm a socialist. >> Most of us can fully agree. There's no such thing as perfectionist in any ideology. There's going to be flaws. There's going to be ups. There's going to be downs. I guess that's one thing that we can agree on. And you know, I came in with, no offense, a little bit of a negative view against socialism because I kind of tie it in Sure. >> with communism and all that, but I've learned that you guys are not much different as what people might accept on like online predominantly cuz this is where the conversation usually starts online. >> I agree. I came in this my first middle ground episode, so that was exciting. But um I always find it interesting to learn where different people come from uh with their opinions and views and just like you were saying like there's no perfect antidote unfortunately to all this. Hopefully we can be innovative enough maybe in our lifetime to figure out one but it was just cool to hear everybody's perspectives and learn more from each other and just hang out. Well done. >> Good talking to you. This was awesome. Great talking to you. I'm a hug.