Destiny Reacts to Vaush & Econoboi Debate
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 січ 2022
- Subscribe & like for daily Destiny clips
---------------------------------------------------
This channel is a fan-made channel and not affiliated with Destiny
#Destiny #Vaush - Ігри
I hope you all enjoyed!
Love hearing your talks, i feel like your unnatural calmness is both your biggest asset and what allows opposition to sneak away without getting blown out by your massive big brain takes. Love from Ireland
Love your content! Keep impaling my brain with your hot steamy econ takes
Of course I enjoyed it. Your content is great :D
@DalibanHQ Highlights should either pin this comment, or simply include a link to your channel next time. I suppose they should with Vaush too, but Vaush is already nearly as big as Destiny, and much bigger than this channel.
You’re too nice bro
You guys notice that Econoboi directly answers almost every question he's asked? And it seems like he's never searching for an answer, he's just educated on the issue. Even if it's a shitty question he often steelman's the argument then gives a counter. Like fucking bravo dude, such a breath of fresh air.
😊😊😊
I'm a small businessman. I have a restaurant which is more casual and made for the common people. I don't have huge profit margins and long hours. Most business people who work aren't like the super rich business owners who are allowed to not work and delegate everything to a ceo. Most business owners have to work their asses off to be able to run a successful business. I work from 8 am to 6pm. Everyday. No breaks. No holidays. The only times I don't go to work is because of cyclones, covid lockdowns, I'm too sick to work or at the end of the year where we get a 2 week layoff after Christmas. I have 4 employees that all work minimum wage jobs and I pay them more than double the minimum wage because they have been working for me for almost a decade now. It took me over 30 years of working to finally have a successful business, every other try had me wanting to kill myself, I was at a point where the business made enough money to keep afloat but I wouldn't have anything. The one i have right now is my second business and its wayy more expensive than the first. For restaurant business owners. Try to find the cheapest way to startup if you don't want the failure to ruin your life. All my previous business attempts were super cheap but I was also a minimum wage worker. I would try to save money for 3 to 4 years to try something and it would just fail. Business is extremely hard but anybody can do it. It just takes luck and commitment.
I desperately need someone to force Vaush to actually sit down and explain exactly how his ideal system of co-ops would work. Questions like:
1. How will coops get the capital that they need to get started? Will their workers have to bring their own, will there be non-controlling shares, will there be a government bank, will it be entirely funded by (privately held) debt?
2. How will they be managed? Do workers vote to select their managers?
3. If it's funded by non-controlling shares or debt, how do I as the investor make sure that the workers don't vote to pay themselves all my money in wages and leave me with nothing?
4. If workers have to buy in, how do you protect people from the added risk of having their job and savings all tied up in the same place?
5. How do people save up for retirement if they can't invest in businesses?
6. Will you be banning all privately owned & operated firms?
7. Will it be legal to work as a contractor, doing services for co-ops in exchange for a pre-agreed compensation?
etc.
It's hard for Destiny/Econoboi to argue against his coop worldview when it's not very clear precisely what he's actually proposing.
Short answer: he doesn’t know. If he understood the economics better he wouldn’t be advocating for this. Coops are great for small businesses, especially of dedicated artisans, but as a National policy it’d be an absolute disaster.
Tbh. He doesn't know and he is completely fine with being dishonest as long as it pushes people towards his goal of....... whatever the heck he thinks he's fighting for and he's flat out admitted that
Vaush couldn't tell you even if he wanted, he also doesn't care as it's one more example of him advocating for systems which he actually wouldn't want to live under himself.
You'd never find armchair revolutionists like him working in a factory coop and if he was to own one you can bet your ass he wouldn't allow workers to just vote him out after he spent years to build it from scratch.
I have never listened to his worker co-op videos super intensely because the topic doesn't interest me that much but I'm pretty sure he has answered a few of those questions.
And, like, seriously, I am willing to be extremely socialistic in this regard. I think that there should be a UBI and forced savings, that there should be an account that every single person has which can only be invested in business. If you qualify for your own business, you can invest in your own business, or you can invest in a shared workplace, or just stocks in general, and there is a limited percentage that you can shave off of these savings and into consumption in any given year, such that every single person is caused to share in a common risk of capital investment in the economy. This is basically about as close to individualized socialism as you can possibly get, and it is basically just a very expansive form of social democracy.
And it can work in really the same liquid democratic way it does now: you either personally vote on shit, or you assign votes to a proxy that best represents your interests. Like, even beyond that, I genuinely think that we should have a liquid democracy running the government. Representatives would simply be the default proxies, but you could assign votes to other proxies to vote down or vote up particular legislation based on pet issues. Like, say, abortion: if anything having to do with abortion comes up, a lobbying proxy holder can activate their control for that issue and vote for or against an abortion bill.
This is to say: the only thing that really matters in idealism is how creative you can be with existent mechanisms or novel mechanisms that you can come up with and explain. Vaush seems to be so ignorant of any sort of mechanism of finance or institutional legislation that he literally lacks most of the language even needed to describe any possibility. You can think that my ideas are radical and dangerous or unworkable or radical and a godsend, but you can do so based on how you analyze the actual mechanisms at play, you aren't analyzing empty rhetoric and filling in the gaps with actual plans all by yourself: you are analyzing an actual plan.
Imagine having to spend money to buy into a job. Hyper capitalism.
Don’t worry Vaush has it all figured out. No need to worry about all that.
What could be more democratic than lowering the barrier of entry to choose whichever employer in whatever profession you could imagine
India will be there soon
Literally purchasing million dollar passes to small secret 'inner circles' of the hyper wealthy. True commie paradise.
Destiny's description of what leftist think a business owner is cracked me up and is spot on. They think political cartoons of oil barons is the real image of a small town restaurant owner.
“A little less wealthy than Elon Musk” lmaoo
Non-Equity Co-ops absolutely exist Destiny. There are non-equity co-operatives where members don't purchase shares, but rather have a membership that grants them access to the co-op's services or benefits. Examples of non-equity co-ops include agricultural co-operatives, consumer co-operatives (like grocery co-ops), and worker co-operatives.
8:17 Vowsh doesn't really care how civilization is organized. He just wants to be able to charge his phone, eat hot chip and not actually exert himself.
and lie
I call him "vache" (VAHsh). It's the French word for "cow".
The way Vaush's chat talks about companies and business is like a UA-cam viewer talking about channels IMO. They have no concept of what a business is, the risk, effort and labor required and only take inspiration from the MOST VISABLE entities.
For example, i know people who watch UA-cam would say stuff like Pewdiepie is a big youtuber, and i'd ask what a small youtuber is, and they would say like "idk maybe like 100k-200k" when in reality, 100k - 200k subs is quite big, especially for people in the industry starting out. If you try to make a channel and start to try to expand and grow, you know 100k is big and similarly with businesses, employing 50 people is a large operation.
They have no concept of the scale because they have zero experience and only look at it optically from an outside, zero accountability standpoint. And it's frustrating because they speak with such overflowing authority when they are hopelessly misinformed and inexperienced.
Edit: the way vaush distinctly separates the "business owner" and "the worker" makes me feel like he doesn't think a business owner works.
Most business owners don’t work, they just throw their money at managers, Yugoslavia kicked out all the non working business owners from 1955-1991
@@lessimcdowell9897 sigh, this is exactly the problem i was referencing in my op. building a business from the ground up to the point where you would hire a manager is not common. Most small business owners are both managers, financial accountants, marketing and a front line worker, until their operation expands beyond maybe the 4 in-house staff and single location.
you have no principal understanding how business owners scale an operation and deal with the growing pains, let alone the unique issues defined by whatever industry their business is in. there might be SOME niche sectors where you can just invest a lot of capital and higher a managing service to take the brunt of the work for a commercial fee, like apartment owning, but those industries are fewer than the home grown businesses.
@@xDDufiosy I owned a business for almost a year, it’s really hard and they fail all the time, in Yugoslav Socialism: Theory And Practice by Harold Lydall there were actually really lazy work coops they talked about, they voted no on ambitious production schedules and many of the efficient workers would leave, logic tells you these people wouldn’t have a job very long but they actually thrived in Yugoslavia, depending on the industry and market demand of your products / services these coops lasted as long as the people that worked there, it’s really unfair actually, capitalism requires a business owners blood and tears and all their investment money but socialism can just slog on forever on fumes because every worker is invested in business
@@lessimcdowell9897 sorry i must have misunderstood your initial comment, are you refering to workers with business stakes creating an environment for themselves such that they no longer have to efficiently produce? I do believe capital economy, like you said, incentivizes away from this behavior.
@@xDDufiosy oh and also, I can’t speak for every coop but in Yugoslavia, the low skilled workers would vote for production related things mostly and if something came up in a meeting they would cast a vote for major issues, but they never like… managed the business, the managers did that and they got paid more for it, if the managers were doing a bad job there could end up being a referendum on whether they keep their position or not, the majority always ruled
I think Vaush believes that joining a co-op means you get a "dividend voucher" for free, collect a share of the profits for as long as you work there, and then you simply give it up when you get a new job.
Of course, people who are very skilled and in short supply would probably require a larger share since co-ops need to attract talent somehow.
Normal people call this a "paycheck".
The voucher also somehow gives you voting power for business decisions? So every worker gets voting shares that they probably can't sell, and external investors could effectively only buy non-voting shares. What could possibly go wrong?
That the massive issue with co-ops and communist type structures where people are given equal outcomes instead of opportunities, it means there's little incentive to grow as a person. Why would I spend years of my life sweating in college to get a degree to get a job that pays just as well as some moron sweeping the floors at the same building? I'll just sweep the floors and get 3 years wage that would have been spent in college, thanks. Since we have to share it all equally. Same for something like being a farmer. That's huge hours hard work in a somewhat risky occupation. With a massive cost upfront too. Why should the guy who set that up be paid as much as a farmhand who stacks hay all day?
But if that happens you flash forward 40 years and suddenly there's a huge shortage in skilled labor, and not enough unskilled labor to go around. Because people haven't been seeking education for better work since the work is equalized.
@@Winasaurus Just to steelman the problems with coops, pay structures are different within the companies depending on your position and there is significant evidence that self management results in a higher level of worker happiness than a traditional firm. Nobody really has a problem with coops existing within a capitalist economy, I think employee buyout laws are really good, the problem is that on a macroeconomic scale there would be a massive problem with generating startup capital, unemployment and the economy as a whole generating enough tax revenue to sustain government infrastructure and social programs.
There are problems with coops, but there's no empirical data to backup really anything you said
@@samuelx5466 No offense, but worker happiness doesn't mean anything for how good it is. Slamming heroine all day makes someone really really really happy but I don't think we're going to argue that we should encourage it as a hobby. Worker happiness is good, obviously, but if you have happy workers who aren't productive you're going to fail, and the guy who has unhappy productive ones won't.
@@Winasaurus The problem is that all the empirical data we have says that worker cooperatives aren't any more or less productive than traditional firms. There is no problem with worker cooperatives on the scale of individual firms, it's only when the market is dominated by cooperatives that macroeconomic problems begin to arise
This is wholly consistent with Marxist ideology, remember they think value comes from the labor itself. Therefore a worker does "own" the profit simply by virtue of having worked.
Vaush got his cheeks ameliorated in this debate
Vaush is Brian griffin in the flesh
Econoboi is so good faith and educated. Makes us libs look good.
As an actual member of the working class, I cannot fucking stand people like Vaush and Hasan claiming to speak on behalf of the working class.
Oh because of the hypocrisy argument? Get tf outta here
@@XQzmeeMusic no because they are all smug as fuck about it and use it to leverage moral support without actually doing anything to benefit the movement, what have either of them actually done beyond raising awareness?
As a person with brown eyes, I cannot fucking stand when people with blue eyes claim to speak on my behalf.
What do you have against shareholders actually working for a living?
@@Gametastica They’ve made themselves filthy rich virtue signalling, that’s about it.
I own a business and I do pretty well, but I literally work 7 days a week. I actually look forward to Sunday just because it’s my only time to get ahead and catch up on work. It really does consume your life, but I find it rewarding.
Vaush brain need an update. He's spouting random words and concepts without knowing what they mean.
Why does Vaush think that ownership of business excludes liability?
Because he's not very informed yet confident in everything he says.
the online leftist definition of business owner is the CEO of a corporation who is going to fly out with a golden parachute as soon as their business goes under
a regular guy in his cornershop is not exactly as easy to antagonize, thats why its not included in the definition
It doesn’t. In fact wouldn’t the facilitation of more people owning the business as part worker owners innately increase individual liability? They all now own the company technically in this format so if the product or service fails they all take a bite out of the ass correct?
I think the idea that I can't get "just a job" without having liability in the company to be pretty cringe. I LIKE being able to just do some bullshit for money.
It's because Vaush knows fuck all about how businesses work. Traditional or Co-op, top down he has no clue.
it seems to me that Vaush is basing his idea of workers co-op solely based on existing businesses that are already established. If he went one step further in terms of "how does a biz get created in the first place" and "what happens when people who werent their day 1 join the co-op" his entire vision absolutely falls apart.
That, and the fact that he says his "Goal is to end the concept of a separate financial class, I want everyone to make their money the same way." Even within his Co-op Structure that is 100% impossible.
Say Amazon was a Co-op, Everyone involved in Amazon would be multi millionaires instead of just Bezos being a Trillionare. That's great. But some of these Millionaires would then start investing in foreign companies that are not required to be Co-ops and are publicly traded. You would still have a "ruling class" of ultra filthy rich because they just happened to be in a co-op that made a lot more money than another co-op, which afforded them the financial means to invest in foreign companies and become filthy fucking rich.
For Vaush's theory literally every single company in the entire world would have to be a Co-op that cannot be publicly traded, or bought into unless you are part of the company. Which is just an atrociously bad idea for a billion reasons.
@@richardommundsen2417 I could be wrong but it sounds like an oligopoly
Lol Yugoslavia did great with only local work cooperative economies until they started letting outside investors in
@@lessimcdowell9897 When did that outside money come into the co-ops? My guess is well after they were started. That is one of my points above. It wouldnt matter where the money came from, once you grow, how you bring on those new people and stay a co-op, issues are going to arise.
@@rhegafd the money comes from the value surplus of a market, whether that market is capitalist or socialist doesn’t matter
For those interested, a business has 2 types of debt: credit and equity. Credit is debt owed to disinterested parties, while equity is residual debt - meaning it is paid after all of the creditors. Shareholders hold equity in a company, meaning they lend money to the business in hopes of seeing a return on that investment (and they don't always see that return). A creditor (or, say, an employee) is someone who lends to the corporation (either materials, capital, or even labor) and expects to see that investment returned, plus interest.
Creditors ALWAYS get paid before shareholders. As an employee, if you put in your labor, you are entitled by law and equity to receive payment for that labor.
As a shareholder, you are not entitled to a return on your investment.
inb4: "wait, who...?"
WHO ASKED??
I also think this is a great example of Vaush loving the smell of his own farts so much that he doesnt get challenged or challenge his own ideas. He just stops at "Im brilliant"
Wait, you telling me Vaush is condescending and smug *for no reason?*
Well he is
outpaced intellectually pepelaugh
@@MichaelMusson-en7be except making large amounts of money? ...
Vaush isn't appreciating the value of diversification of risk.
i think its weird that vaush even attempts to talk to people when his entire world view starts with an unmovable end goal, which leads to him rationalizing or making bad concessions the entire way to that goal because shifting his vision is not an option
he has to be aware how anyone with knowledge in these fields is going to pick it apart and make his ideology look like shit, right? at that point, only the people who are already ideologically bought in are going to keep agreeing
Only psychopaths liked Vaush from the beginning. He outed himself as a piece of shit in the original Rittenhouse debate.
Every system has its faults. What the fuck are you even saying
@@RejectDontEdit im saying that he cant even sufficiently explain how it works or how its going to improve anyones life, only that his system alligns with his ideology
@@the_inquisitive_inquisitor outed himself long before that but i appreciate the sentiment
@@thelevelbeyondhuman That first Rittenhouse debate was the first time I had ever heard of Vaush so that's my frame of reference.
My question for coops
1) why would an average worker want to be in hours of meetings?
2) what slops someone from basically buying votes or creating factionalism
1) Meeting can be done through video calls or emails and most people don't work the full 8 hours of their shift anyway. You are also likely to get paid for these meeting. 2) Most of your co-worker will be in a similar financial bracket as you. Buying votes or creating factionalism is possible but even if that does happen he still better than one or a small group people making all the decision that effect you including closing down a factory or shipping your job overseas.
The thing a lot of people are missing with these common ‘co-op’ models is that the voting shares are not equal between everyone.
Say a co-op grocery store has 50k shares; Capital investors, founders, etc. may have thousands of votes a piece and then the person bagging groceries gets 1.
i wish destiny would debate socialists again. u can tell its a lot of pent up frustration hed still like to get out
As someone who grew up in Eastern Europe I have no idea why someone would mind the Government owning all the shit. That seems like a perfectly reasonably thing to want. I would feel so safe.
it works for small nations that are accustomed to it but when it happens to big ones in a short amount of time it turns into police state pretty quickly. the more people there are the harder it is to control everything, and the more force is needed to exercise that power.
@@env0x dude yeah I was joking i grew up in the Balkans, the Communist government took all the shit and killed or jailed anyone who didn’t fit. Every company was public so every decision had to go via the Party which made them corrupt and inefficient and plain humiliating.
We’re still struggling to give back at least parts of the property they straight up stole from wealthy families. The only reason it lasted that long was that Russians supported it and when they had better shit to do, the regime fell. The transition, among some other things, caused a civil war in the nineties when I was a kid
@@env0x communism stops working on the scale of "two communes"
It can work REALLY WELL if you only have about 200 people
@@willburbur3793 I mean I could be wrong but that’s how I understood Co-ops that you don’t pay to join. Nobody pays, the Government or the Banks give you loans and all that.
Market communism doesn’t require the government to own everything. I think a regulated market for luxury goods (non-essentials) would be a good compromise. That would also make the market an actual free market, since you have a realistic option of not participating.
Really looking forward to listening to Vaush talk about something he knows nothing about again.
I love how Destiny turns into every single chatter that he usually bans for saying he should push back more in this debate
When did Destiny ban a chatter for mearly saying that Destiny should push back more in a debate?
REE PUSH BACK
@@larrimus4309 i've heard him complain about the "push back"ers after casual conversations (i.e not debates), it probably had something to do with that
@@larrimus4309 my brother in christ, people have been banned for LULing after he has died in league.
@@rreprah9515 a wise man once said "you never LUL on your main"
I worked at a Co-op, to opt in you needed to either pay alump sum up front, or have them take a % off your paycheque for a set period of time unti the lump sum is payed off... the idea that you can just join and co-own a business without anything upfront investment is just not true lol
Were you in the Healthcare field?
I know so many low skills workers who will turn down any kind of pay increase because they perceive it may lead to even a small amount of responsibility. If you worked a job there are so many people who use up all their sick days and just take 2 hour breaks. So, many people just don't want to care.
The co-op apartments sounds like you just buy your apartment...
That has an HOA lol
75% of apartments in NYC are "co-ops." The apartment owners vote and make decisions pertaining to the whole building. Destiny must of rented his whole life.
“economics itself is idealism” is such a NonCompete brainrot level take
this is a brain-rotting comment
@@wtfimcrying anyone who disagrees with me is terminally braindead and subhuman 🤷♂️
As soneone who grew up in a trailer in the backwoods of Upper Michigan, I hate listening to these socialist types talking about the abolishment of the bourgeoisie. Vaush IS the bourgeoisie. He has done nothing outside of making himself wealthy.
Bourgeoisie are the people that own the means of productions, not just wealthy people. Common misconception
@@WizardofGargalondese means of production is a nebulous terms. Means nothing. I can write books and make movies with a cell phone. I own the means of production
@@crushinnihilism Yes but you are also the sole laborer, so you are a worker who owns the means of production.
@@WizardofGargalondese so I am simultaneously the Laborer and the owner of the means of production? Seems like a worthless distinction now.
@@crushinnihilism Yes. The distinction is definitely not meaningless. Youre just using it in a situation where its meaningless. Yes in things like self-proprietorships and being a youtuber, talking about the means of production is silly. But in massive corporations with thousands of workers the distinction is incredibly useful.
I don’t see why vaush doesn’t think the same issues we run into within have a democratic government system wouldn’t just translate over into a democratically ran working system. Difference of interest, difference of priorities, difference in wanted outcomes, and difference in methods to achieve goals. All these would just work it’s way into a co-op ran workplace and the larger the co-op the more these issues would show. And I’m sure this would lead to very inefficient businesses just as government tends to be very inefficient. And if you have an entire country of inefficient businesses I’m not sure that leads to a very healthy economy.
He doesn't care. He let it slip once that the socialist shit is his "aesthetic"
His point is that he philosophically believes that Democracy is always better even if some effectiveness is theoretically sacrificed
25:07 this isn't nesscicarly true. There was at least one pre French revolutionary paper, I believe it was written by Carnot about how they should reform French society to make a nation that the people would want to fight for in order to have higher morale soldiers. People in the past did things that in our eyes look moral for unrelated reasons
I think coops could operate off of debt financings like a traditional firm without the need for equity to be sold and all their profits going towards debt payments. Also, anyone can buy a corporate bond not just banks so this money wouldn't just go straight to the bank necessarily. Most small companies aren't public and this is how most of them operate, via business loans or company bonds. The idea of not having to pay to have equity in a company is strange, but not that strange, as firms already do this with stock options as noted in the video. I guess I just don't see the problem with privately-held debt and a democratized workplace.
Fucking hell i hate when Vaush does his "I'm barely awake" mumble rap on politics.
Also whenever someone corrects him he CANT HELP HIMSELF chiming in with some low pitch one liner.
Have better arguments instead of this petty behavior.
I hate how Vaush debates when he doesn't have a strong hand at the table, passive aggressiveness with an overuse of sophisticated sounding English words to make his weak explanations sound alright.
Oh my vid thank you. He has this “need I care more” attitude while taking about serious issues. He really gives k that champagne socialist energy.
I know this vid is kinda old but to give a little credit to Destiny's statement about small businesses. I work for a small business after the company took over my contact from a mega corporation, I've met the owner even when not trying to, and he has maybe over 10 employees, half part time and he is running around with 6 vehicles, his newest being a 60-80k tesla. Funny enough he still complains about not having enough money to give us benefits. Must be Republican. lol
1:28:30
The Petite Bourgeoisie was usually used to refer to self-employed business owners who were small scale, hence "petite".
But a self-employed business owner like a streamer just have to be working at their business, which would include Elon Musk, so they're not necessarily small scale.
Plenty of co-ops let you buy in with labor, but it’s kind of just another form of salary . Instead of paying more in salary, then spending money on shares a portion of the salary goes to buying in at an advantages price. Similar to how ceos are paid in stock options in an attempt to align interests but with rules about who can buy in and when.
I believe this is essentially what’s commonly referred to as “sweat equity”, correct?
@@zurtleman2000 I’ve only ever heard that applied to homeowners who DiY capital improvements but yea, I would guess it’s the same thing. It’s very similar to stock incentives if you want to get technical, or 401k matching on company stock, but the intention is different and therefore the results. You are very much expected to care and contribute to the success of the business. I used to work with a guy whose wife spent like 40 years at a co-op grocery store, and she retired worth a few million starting as a cashier and only moving to being the register manger. But apparently it wasn’t like most jobs where you go in, do your job and only that, and then leave and be gone. You were expected to pick up trash, contribute ideas, improve the store, pitch in if another branch had sick people, etc etc. It seemed pretty legit, but I don’t see that particular model working for something like AT&T or GE. For bigger firms you could just put upward pressure on wages and have about the same effect.
You can start to get ownership through share allocation. Usually have to work there a year before getting shares.
Regarding business size: internet services kind of fuck up the expectations for amount of workers in relation to profit. Internet services are infinitely scalable for a margin of the cost compared to more traditional industries. So going from a 100k consumer base to a million is a matter of marketing and expanding server capacity; if you want to serve food from 100k people to a million, you need to expand your logistics by ten, hire ten times more people, rent 10 times more venues and set them up, buy ten times more food, etc.
I say this because “my company has 200 employees and generates billions” definitely sounds like a tech company, maybe a finance company. No traditional business gets numbers like that, at all.
Edit: my family happens to own a farm. We do cattle, about 200 or so animals. We manage with 3 to 4 employees depending on season. Can’t speak for profit because A- We operate at net zero to prevent the land from getting too wild and devalue, and B- Third world country, so our earnings might not be representative of a farm in the US. Point being, medium sized farms can be managed with few employees if you have the machinery and good organization.
All you’re doing is decentralizing ownership. That’s it’s. Humans are still gunna human. Also, what Destiny said about the wealthier you are, the less your interests align with the success of a particular market like oil is so spot on.
Lmao the thumbnail
The guy talking about Co-op for schools is taking about a government program that allows you to work in replacement for a class in school or in replacement for paying for a class in school. It has nothing to do with business. My school had a co-op program that allowed students to work for a business ran by the school to pay for class tuition. So you’d work a restaurant on campus and instead of receiving pay you’d just have that pay go towards the cost of your class. Which isn’t the kind of co-op vaush is talking about.
I honestly had no idea destiny was this dumb, hilarious he’s making assumptions that vaush doesn’t know what a worker coop is, destiny thinks if gm was coop the factory workers would be designing engines and the engineers would be screwing in screws
Hands got cold during this debate.
There are co-op apartment buildings in the US as well (or at least in DC).
75% of apartments NYC are co-ops. It's not some leftist Scandinavian or Canadian thing. If you own an apartment, it is either a co-op or a condo.
@@punche5250 Gotcha, figured that was the case, just wasn’t sure. Thanks for confirming 👍🏾
The economy _DOESN’T EXIST?!?_
The actual fuck, Vaush?!?
If you were charitable to Vaush you would recognize that the economy, like money is a social construct. No intrinsic value but if you don't believe in the construction can harm you. The wellbeing of people has intrinsic value because it is arrived to axiomatically. At least for Vaush.
@@XQzmeeMusic its like saying that time doesnt exist. surely, seconds, minutes, hours, days, etc. dont really exist, and are creations of the human mind, but it is a clear measure of something very real.
similarly, the idea of the "economy" is a measure of human activity. there could be two people spreading shit on trees in the jungle and there would be an economy around that.
saying it has no intrinsic value isnt really accurate, especially if the wellbeing if people does have intrinsic value. in order for people to thrive, they must be economically active in some way. this way, a thriving economy (assuming mass exploitation isnt widespread, a monarchy might have had a thriving economy but nobility gobbled the whole thing up) is almost necessarily beneficial if you take the wellbeing of people as having intrinsic value. necessary, but not sufficient.
Holy crap, we got 9 inches of freezing rain/snow/sleet last night, thanks Michigan.
You usually need enough capital to last two year un profitable before turning a profit. That is the average.
Just a note here, there's co-ops that do not have shares.
Where does the equity or ownership come from?
I didn't understand whether the system where only coops are allowed would also mean that all the workers need to be coop owners ( needs to invest money to be actually able to work for it) because that would mean that alongside your student loans, you also need to take out a loan so you can start working.
And for fresh out of uni grads, that might mean taking a loan to work for a shadier business, that might go under because you are not wanted in a more stable successful business.
I suppose they could consider their work to be a buy-in, since technically it provides growth
@@FireGod1101 then you’d have to forgo some salary to buy in. Making it harder for younger people.
@@michaelallen3304 I think the labor buy-in would favor younger people...wealth typically follows age.
@@FireGod1101 Not sure i see your logic here. Money now is better than money later.
@@pellelindtner3488 Sure. But young people can join a co-op without money based on labor whereas that same prowess is not equally distributed amongst the older folks due to what happens to the human body after enough aging (IE: death). It is plausible for a young person for no money to be promised equity based on their promise of providing labor but the older person would necessarily require finances to join because their labor is A) not comparable to that of the young person (all else equal) and B)would not have the advantage of longevity compared to the younger "investor".
Destiny's hate for Vaush does come one to strong. The amount a patience he gives people like Lauren Southern compared to Vaush is huge.
As it should be
He’s had to put up with vaush for much longer lol
Destiny has been raging against Lauren Southern on Twitter recently.
Riiiight. Lauren Southern, Mr. Girl, Tree of Logic.
It’s because he actually knows Vaush. Vaush was an active member of his community for a long time. It’s the difference between the way I engage with a new colleague of mine during a disagreement versus a close friend. I’m much more likely to tell my brother that he’s being a dipshit and doesn’t know what he’s talking about then I am to tell a relative stranger whom I have incentive to be amicable towards. This is just how life and social interactions work, buddy.
I dont know what the deal is with the co-op flats I live next to, but they treat that building like absolute trash.
57:45 - 58:20 what vaush should have said is "if the company quadrupled its value, the employees can just vote to give themselves proportionally higher salaries"
I'm not sure that a higher company valuation necessarily leads to higher payouts to the workers. I might have to think more about it from a marxist perspective, but just because a company's equity has quadrupled in value doesn't necessarily mean that it would have the cash flow to allow for a proportional raise in the payout for the workers/owners.
@@imafr11 ya thats true its not 100% but in likelihood it is or at least would allow you to lend money freely to raise salaries and things of that nature
@@imafr11 also in such a economy as the one described. Company valuations would likely be more closely aligned with actual "cash flow" or "profit".. altho I'm less certain about that part tbf
@@mikegribanov6105 your hitting 9n the issue here. Befor you can evaluate that statement you need to define the valuation.
If you do not know the modus of evaluation then you do not have enough information to make a decision on salary.
Take for example if real property is apart of that evaluation. On one hand you can take the market price of that equipment. On the other you can evaluate the property on perspective value, i.e. potential value. While minute these evaluation methods have radical differences in overall value.
@@chiefgully9353 while you are right that to give a more precise response we would need to know the exact parameters of the system in question. Along with particular industries and types of companies having different contexts in place.
That being said , I do believe that in the MAJORITY of cases the company would either directly raise profits itself OR would be able to borrow or receive money more freely and easily from the bank or government or whatever institution that would be in charge of such things under the proposed system. Which would allow he workers to comfortably raise salary (perhaps not 1:1 with how much the stock rose but still significantly so) and keep other operational costs up etc
34:29 One of the many reasons I don't like the "we'll just use Co-op's" arguments is that Co-Op means a whole bunch of different things depending on where you live. Even in the states there are many places where food co-ops are run by either a local county government or non-profit charity or even just called a Co-op while it's actually just a discount store run by a family.
there's a credit union in my region that calls itself a co-op, and as far as i know the employees just vote on who the main managers are
vaush needs to be humbled in some severe way
He will likely get eaten by his own community at some point. Hardcore ideologues always are.
I’d be interested to know which labour unions Vaush has actually been a member of.
Assets + Liabilities = Stockholders' Equity
We need some accountants to join the convo. A private company still has value even if it's not sold on the public market.
It's Assets = Liabilities + Stockholders' Equity, but yeah lol
Yes, more accountants need to be part of these kinds of conversations. So many people who would presume to reorganize the economy can’t even prepare a balance sheet, let alone properly recognize revenue or value assets. This is the fundament of economic activity, and has been since the 1400’s, there’s no excuse to not know this stuff while pontificating on economic organization.
Hey Girlsname, this is so simple. If I want to join a coop and only have enough for and eighth of a share, I get an eighth of a vote in this super cool democracy.
Laughing at the idea that a 500 employee company is small.
I work with 7 other people in the summers and cover an entire state doing work, these people have no idea what they're talking about
Destiny called me and only me a gigachad
I don't know what the proper definition of a full socialist worker-co-op-based society would be, but I think that imagining it as having a load of co-ops as they are now under a capitalist system probably doesn't really work. It could be that there is something like a central funding committee providing start-up money that has to be paid back in pre-arranged installments from profits. If things fail, they fail and nobody is liable. How you would assess the risk of providing money for a proposed start-up is obviously an issue, with a lack of liability in this simplistic sketch of a possible funding strategy. But the equation of ownership with financial risk and 'equity' in the business is a capitalistic concept that I guess would be phased out in a genuinely socialist set-up. Maybe trying to get there, you'd start with a method of promoting the setting up of co-ops under a more traditional start-up capital and joint-ownership implying equity basis and then attempt to shift things over as people's attitudes towards business began to change. I really don't know. But I don't buy into the idea that real socialism based on Marxist principles could be implemented purely by a co-op system existing inside a modern capitalist financial funding structure. I think it would have to require a more fundamental change in the basics of the financial set-up of society.
Essentially, I feel that a large part of the idea is shifting from people thinking about the ownership of a business and the wealth that flows from the ownership aspect (and the issue of, say, who really owns his business : us, or the capital investors, or the government...). Whether people in general will ever decide to change their outlook on that, I honestly don't know.
He doesn’t know his subject you guys. Also why is he so over-confident
There should be a rule34 of the UA-cam subscribe button.
59:20 he leterily says hes not using the word ownership in the traditionally usage
Leeeeetriley
I don't understand the difference between a European housing co-op and a condo/townhouse/multi-family unit with an HOA.
50 employees world be a big company. That is more than 2 reasonably sized Macdonalds.
They say Vaush is really condescending, which he is, but you can see where he got it from
He may have learned how use it, but that has always been part of his DNA.
Quick ignorant question: Do you need to always buy into a cooperative? What if theres democratic procedures in the company and workers still own the means of production but they don't own a share of the company? Is that stops it from being a coop or are there levels to coops or is just a normal company that claims itself to be a coop but not really cause employees don't have the shares unless they gift them to their employees?
The idea is the company is turned into some imaginary concept where everyone does everything for the betterment of everyone else. Which is not how life works. Technically, no. You don't have to "buy-in" in the traditional sense.
@@FireGod1101 so to my understanding, being part of a coop and working for a coop is 2 different things. Being part of a coop means that you have some ownership and decision making with the company, whereas working for the coop does not have anything to do with the democratic process or salary ot whatever, is essencially the same as a normal employee. Am i wrong in this?
@@luigifgc7485 I suppose you could have different worker tiers, but then it isn't a co-op it's an oligarchy hierarchy. Everyone would have to profit to be a true co-op. Otherwise it's just reinventing a board of directors.
@@FireGod1101 hmmm I ser, but to my understanding, if u wanna be PART of a coop rather than jusk working for it, you have to buy in your share right?
@@luigifgc7485 Not with money. You could leverage your labor. Then reap the benefits monetarily. But this style requires some very strong social coercion to allow for growth of the company rather than people to cash in on their ownership, quarter over quarter. Humans just aren't made for long-term, delayed gratification or empathy at scale.
There is an "r" in bourgeois.
52:40 - 53:15 wouldnt the compensation be that you would work less and produce more? but if you don't need that 6th person in ur company, just dont hire them.
What happens when all the companies in your area have excess labor, where does the 6th guy work?
@@the_inquisitive_inquisitor thats a completely diff question ... I can't speak for Vaush in this one since they didn't talk about this topic. At least from what I heard but presumably there'd be a robust social safety net.
@@the_inquisitive_inquisitor its not like there is evidence that co-ops would lead to higher unemployment. Or at least I didnt hear destiny or econoboi bring that up as a counter point? I'm only commenting on the debate and steelmanning Vaushs position since Destiny wasnt exactly doing that.. Im not necessarily pro or anti co-op
@@mikegribanov6105 in my model the 6th guy opens his own business with hookers and blackjack - then fleeces the other 5 guys for their paychecks.
@@the_inquisitive_inquisitor pimps would def have a problem with profit sharing
Destiny got ameliorated in this debate
It's debates like these, that show how vacuous Vaush's takes are.
lol, what an unflattering caricature of vaush in that thumbnail
Why doesn't he open up his twitch and UA-cam to a co -op with no buy in ? Hey your hired here's half the profit
Has Vaush ever worked a job?
I can't tell if Vaush was joking, but does he seriously believe slavery and an unpaid internship are the same just further apart on the spectrum?
Yes. And they are.
@@squancho1412 are you not allowed to leave an internship?
@@squancho1412 do internships on average threaten the lives of those in them regularly?
Wow, never noticed that vaush was completely democracy-brained... That's the most idiotic ideology possible, more democracy is rarely the solution for any problem. Let alone the problem of "capitalism" not working as "pure theory" would predict(hint hint, if consumers lack useful comparisons they'll just choose the variant they heard of first, making commercials more important to the success of a product/company than economic models could ever adjust to).
what's the game?
he had 2 hours of sleep
This is utterly insane if you having aging workers in this Co-op company are they going to vote on risk or longer hours to make the best product or make a crappy non risk generic product for standard hours. This is like Hallmark vs Alamo Drafthouse so a boring soft Christmas movie vs a Bluray version of Miami Connection. Really I think vaush should just go live in cuba for 1 year as he sounds grossly naive about work
vaush saying he doesn't care if it's less efficient right off the bat reminds me of conservatives saying they don't care if immigration is better for the economy because of the resulting cultural change in their minds
I don’t like vaush but I feel that comparison isn’t very good. The difference is he supposedly doesn’t care to increase the majority of people’s standard of living and even though he is wrong it would accomplish that it is a far cry from not caring because of racism.
@@hrothgr52 but in the minds of racists, the hit to the economy is worth the perceived benefit of no colored people. it's a 1 to 1 comparison. in vaushs mind the benefit to society is worth the hit to the economy if there is indeed a hit
@@andylawlzz I agree they both don’t care about the production of the economy but what they are sacrificing it for are different goals one being much better than the other. Don’t get me wrong he is wrong that sacrificing it would accomplish the goal he thinks but still I think the comparison isn’t that great.
Destiny is correct the vast amount of small capitalist businesses struggle and fail, while the small lazy work coops in Yugoslavia could sometimes last a lifetime depending on the industry and market they’re in, why? There’s more than one person paying the bills and more people that are invested in the business succeeding
Ok, oookkkk..... Now demand to know whoever drew this shit thumbnail and forgot vaush's gloves. Lol
11:23 Hey, an actual instance of Destiny using a straw man!
People don't really even think about business ownership in the first place, and the ones who do get disillusioned quickly. Someone who goes out a lot, meets a bunch of people, or even just gets old enough has probably met restaurant owners or store owners without getting the impression that they were rich. The "mom & pop shop" vocabulary was in the discourse some years ago, and more recently, you've had hustle culture & especially MLMs tearing down the perception that a business owner has a lot of money.
It's at the point where MLMs aren't even as effective as they used to be, partly because the aesthetic of business ownership no longer gives the same impression of being well-off unless you're pretty young & don't know any better (or if you never go outside). Business ownership still does, however, give the impression that you work harder, and that's its own kind of status.
not really a strawman. he isnt refuting any point vaush made lol.
11:20 funnies
What about Yugoslavia?
He thinks a single vote is worth 10k . I’ll give mine up for 5k.
Does Vaush ever bring up case studies on actual, successful worker coops around the world or does he just talk in vague ideologies and buzzwords?
Also, it's pronounced "Boo-RRR-jwa".
Market socialism does not solve class divide, correct, it just gets rid of the lazy people
it obv fits with vaush utility philosphy because he finds more utility in the moral gains of democratic workplaces than he does in the economic gains of a system that lacks them.
I don't think that's how utilitarianism works lol.
That 100% is not how utiliarianism works. Outcomes matter more than intentions. Vaush posits that if his system left everyone demonstrably worse off, then he would still push for his system. That is deontology. He is prescribing a moral rule that supercedes the outcome of that rule. I would like to see a path forward for Market Socialism or something approaching it, but of it doesnt work then it just doesnt work. If every business goes bust and all the workers end up poor, then that is not power to the workers at all. Vaush just described literal despotism, where he will only even consider changing his mind after he has amassed a mountain of impoverished corpses. He's a nutter.
@@angusmarch1066 I'm no expert on philosophy but idc how utilitiriabism or w/e it's called works. First of vaush said - He wouldn't support it if it totally ruined economy etc So clearly his personal philosphy toward this subject is what i described. You said ppl would be "worse off" but that begs the question.
@@mikegribanov6105 the smartest Vaush fan, ladies and gentlemen! Youre the one who brought philosophy into the discussion, and now you don't care about philosophy. Right. And no it doesnt beg the question. If the economy fails and businesses start doing poorly and closing down, then the working class will invariably be the ones to suffer. They will be the ones to get laid off or have to deal with reduced pay. I know its the habit of Vaush fans to mentally redact any incriminating sh*t they hear Vaush say, but we all watched the same video, in which he said that if mandatory co-ops demonstrably didnt work he would still push for them, which flies in the face of his entire worldview. What he said was that in the event of the apocalyptic collapse of American society, he might be open to a few changes. Which presumably means that he is unwilling to tolerate or respond to any resistance from any of the people suffering up until that point.
@@angusmarch1066 I responded to Destiny's claim about Vaushs philosphy. Not formal terminology.
2nd, I'm not a vaush fan. I actually agree more with destiny and esp econboi overall. I just don't blindly agree with every destiny point.
3rd, the whole entire point is that (to restate my original comment) "ppl would be better off with democratic workplaces even if economy suffered to some degree"
You cant say something is better or worse. It depends what better or worse is to each person. In vaushs opinion democracy in the workplace is worth it up to the point of apocalypse. That works within his philosophy. I'm not saying I agree with that. Also I'm pretty sure he doesn't either and the apocalypse thing was a joke/hyperbole to get his point across. But thats because im trying to be good faith and steelman his arguments. Not just destroy strawmen and pat myself on the back
.
What is up with Vaush´s hairline btw
It’s not only the investment. Let’s say you start a coop with ten people total. You’ll be basically be working for free setting things up and doing whatever you do without knowing that the income will ever come. It might never come, and if the business fails not only you’ll lose whatever investment you made (to be fair, you can sell whatever you have left; still a loss), but you also would have worked for free without nothing to show for.
Imagine starting a coop and expecting a living wage from day 1.
Yes "market socialism" is capitalism. Co-ops pose no threat to capitalism. Vowsh is the kind of bourgeois socialist who effectively wants to throw the working class just enough of a bone to temper their revolutionary potential. To secure the continued existence of the bourgeoisie, in other words. 08:35 lol
[34:00] Destiny's ignorance and arrogance is astounding. Nobody owns the coop , the coop is a separate legal entity with no equity. The workers are members of the coop and control it. Capital is provided by debt or preference shares and protected by the terms of the loan or shares.
Also untrue. A co-op has equity and it is shared amongst its workers for as long as it can profit. A co-op could only go into debt in a capitalist framework of debt. Otherwise debt, and it's obligations, could not be what it is.
1:25:49
Vaush: *speaks*
Me: STFU...
[40:00] Destiny demonstrating he doesn't understand the concept of controlling share.
He literally described it as well as can be expected off the top of his head. A controlling share is when that share exists within the majority of the shares which can control certain decisions in the lifespan of the stock. Gtfo.
@@FireGod1101 you have a controlling share if you have the majority of votes, meaning you can control the company. A group of people have the controlling share if they together have the majority of votes, but if you are part of that group doesn't mean that you individually have a controlling share of the company just because the share you have is part of the controlling share. At least that's my understanding, am I wrong?
@@MrNikeNicke If you are adding middlemen (like hedge funds and investor groups) yes you're right. But simplistically a plurality OR majority can be considered a controlling share because the ability to affect change is the same.
@@FireGod1101 while I don't get how a plurality would be as powerful as a majority, my point was that your comment made it sound like you had a controlling share if your share was part of a plurality/majority, which doesn't make sense, all shares are part of the majority, you would need to have the plurality/majority share. This has nothing to do with middlemen. Did I misunderstand your point?
@@MrNikeNicke my point is this. Say your share exists within a hedge fund or investor group. And they control over 50% of that stock. You technically have a "controlling share". Depending on how you define it. That was my point
oh no! 🙈
It’s crazy that Vaush doesn’t seem to do the bare minimum in research on the topics he discusses. Why didn’t he mention Yugoslavia? Why didn’t he go bullet point to bullet point outlining the pros AND CONS of his system. It seems disingenuous when he just makes it seem like some kind of utopian fantasy. If I didn’t realize I was listening to gamers talk about politics i definitely realize it when this guy is talking-Vaush I mean. Dude just relies on his chat for answers…which is insane to me. He could be saying literally anything. Just do a few hours of research Vaush! It’s not that hard! (As his audience screams “but he’s autistic!”
[55:02] a capitalist business only employs staff if they will add more value than they cost plus required profit. Same with coops except profit going to non-worker external capitalist is not needed. Destiny again showing a profound ignorance.
Stop assuming the Co-op is already established. How do they begin?
@@FireGod1101 agreed their avoiding the question of how a co-op functions and starts up. It's not realistic for every business to let people join with their labor or else their profits would just barely brake even or if at all.
@@bonda_racing3579 exactly. Good on you for noticing. Seems most people are really dumb.