As a right leaning person I agree with almost everything he says. Living in SoCal for the past few years one thing that has always troubled me is that the homeless are considered one monolithic group, as the government usually does---a one-size-fits all solution. Yet, the homeless are of different kinds--addicted; mental illness; mental illness and addicted; "free loaders" who just like the lifestyle (a small group); unemployed; poor; underemployed; high cost of housing, etc. Unless it's broken down to it's component parts the solution will be less effective and much more costly, IMHO.
Michael's conversation with Rogan on JRE blew my mind. I had never heard his arguments before. I was really wrong about all sorts of things. It's refreshing when more data points and arguments are added to the conversation.
Does this cover the same points as JRE? Is there enough unique material to justify the time investment in both? Very often when an author does long form interviews during a book tour, the whole thing is functionally scripted. a (somewhat) scholarly lecture repackaged into a more easily consumable format. Of course, the lectures - often part of the same media blitz - are functionally a summary of the book repackaged into a more exclusive format. (And then there is the cliffnotes or the teacher’s study guide, which is the book repackaged into something functional).
As a left leaning person, this is one of the most useful things I’ve ever watched, honestly this guy should be in charge of fixing homelessness in the US, no one has been able to explain to problem/ solutions as Succinctly as him
Seattle is another city suffering from failed policies around homelessness. Our beautiful parks are filled with tents and crime. Our downtown which used to have a rich cultural arts scene is now a no-go zone for most people. How do we turn this around?! Such a great conversation. Thanks.
I would cite a study for you but I have none off the top of my head. Historically however social welfare programs help lift the impoverished and fair business laws (anti-monopoly) help the middleclass grow and thrive. Over the past 40 years, everytime conservatives are elected, they gut these programs. Thats because it is not profitable for corporations. How would Purdue Pharma make a profit if there were addiction clinics all over the country? They would not make a profit... hence why the programs get gutted. Thats called ANTI-PROGRESSIVE policy.
I love this podcast Bc if you read through the comments you’ll find: “as a left leaning person, I agree with almost everything” AND “as a right leaning person, I agree with almost everything”. So important for us to realize we are actually all very similar and the fight is between us and the ultra wealthy and the media establishment
Ok I might be jumping the gun here but I'm 40 minutes in and haven't heard him mention drug courts. That is what got me to get my life together . I think it needed to be closer to 5 years over the 2.5 years I spent in the program. I also believe we need to have alternatives to na aa . That program never worked for me and a lot of others . Community organizing and engaging with my local community is what kept me clean when still struggling.
I was hanging out last night with a new friend who is a mental counselor for homeless children discussing how his job should not even be a thing that exists
@@WinstonSmithGPT There was actually an interesting study which found that many voters are native. Besides, didn't blame or talk about Republicans. I know NIMBY Democrats are the source of the problem. I would wish for a republican to come to the cities to remove zoning
@@deaddynamite8568 exactly. NIMBY Democrats are responsible for the housing crisis in California, not progressives. I live in a California suburb and I see the same moderate Democrats getting elected and pushing regulation to dissuade anyone who isn't wealthy from living there or visiting.
I think the issue here is another failed social engineering experiment. Anyone with common sense would know that enabling drug abuse and mental illness would lead to more of a problem. The issue is (I have a bachelor's in Psychology) people have to *WANT* to change in order to change. Intervention doesn't work.. I've known a lot of addicts and recovering addicts from hard drugs (mostly meth) and all of them will tell you that intervention doesn't work. You can't teach them, guilt them or force them into changing. Rehab only ever works when a person chooses to go there. Amy Winehouse's Rehab and her tragic suicide is an example. We absolutely need a seperate complex then a prison for these people because the program should be different then someone with functional mental faculties who kill someone but Rehab against their will won't work.
This is my favorite podcast by the both of you so far. 12:20 in and it seems Michael is hitting all the right points. I strongly agree his view points have a lot of common sense when it comes to enabling those who are unable to help themselves. If no one holds themselves accountable who will if not the law or the local community? I would love to hear more about topics that deal with Big City Policies with homeless and poverty.
Really excellent topic, illuminating two very important issues driving homelessness and inequality-- our methods and our over-zealous liberalism, our lack of practicality and morality. Really good job, everyone, bringing this to the fore. It's perhaps our largest and longest unresolved issue at the heart of much of our moral poverty.
I live in the Mission District in SF and I have no idea how anyone can claim this city has ever been run by progressives. Developers and the FIRE sector run this city, but I am very glad to hear this conversation. I have been unhoused, it is a nightmare.
It's nice to finally see someone associated with the left acknowledge what a disaster our cities are when it comes to the toleration of garbage, addiction and crime. It's disgusting and the toleration of it is not 'progressive' at all - it is co-dependent, self-congratulatory and really reduces the incentive of law abiding people to believe in civic responsibility anymore. In time, I think this chaos will bring on vigilantism (particularly like in my city of Portland, where progressives also defunded police, defend camping on streets/in parks and rationalize all the petty crime these mentally ill and drug addicts do).
I once interviewed someone who overdosed 3 times…she said if it wasn’t for jail + recovery program she was sentenced to, she probably would have ended up dead. These sorts of deals came after a Trumpy Sheriff partnered with a more center left District Attorney…it’s interesting to see how smaller cities/districts can go against these issues versus bigger ones, I.e. San Francisco
Anyone that thinks we should just "give" homeless drug addicts homes had never been or associated with homeless drug addicts. Source: was a heroin addict, now 8 years clean. A house would have just been a nice place to die.
My sister was arrested once for heroin possession, her mom knew the sheriff and got her sent to rehab instead of jail. While in rehab my sister used her tampon money to somehow get more heroin, they threw her out. I asked her about it and I will never forget the look on her face. She looked so serene and yet so sad as she told me "I know I know. I'm just not ready to stop yet." She died of an OD about a year later. Looking back, I remember her expression that day and realize she had already accepted that she would eventually die for the heroin. And I will never forgive my complicity in letting her slip towards hell. At the time I thought my stepmom had done the right thing sending her to rehab. Now.... I wonder if jail might have saved her, enabled her daughters to have a mother. I'll never know. But I cannot believe we as a society keep trying the same shit that seems proven to be ineffective af
As someone who has kept a corporate job while being in treatment. All the treatment center work on a 9 to 5 schedule and penalize you for working and having a job.
As a person coming from the right, i appreciate Michael’s addressing this issue. I am certainly guilty of jumping to conclusions about SF’s homeless problem. His articulation of the realities is informative.
Good comment, I also am on the right and appreciate this discussion. The deaths from overdoses have to have some blame put on China and the border as well. Good stuff tho.
Really Appreciate the education from Michael's book. I would like to say that there were several negative comments about Conservatives. I am Conservative and share Michael's values for the Homeless and Nuclear Energy. Therefore, maybe there should be some shared discussions with Conservatives and not so many Generalizations.
A bit off topic, as usual, Americans look at Europe and only take what they see, what shows up to the surface, i.e. legalize drugs instead of legalizing drugs with strong laws to make sure there are consequences etc. America has been doing the same with trying to increase cycling, they looked at Amsterdam the same way they looked at it about drugs and they only saw the results, thought that it was about adding bike infrastructure when in reality it's about strong traffic laws that bring consequences to make it work (even still they have plenty of cycling casualties): Cyclists have priority over motorists AND pedestrians, for one, but more important perhaps is the fact that the Dutch have an education and training program in schools that teaches kids to bike, theory and practice with "traffic gardens". At age 12 they have to pass a test on surface streets to allow them to then bike on their own, this program started in the 70s, since then, all the kids that grew up and are now also driving were educated and trained as cyclists first before becoming motorists, while in the US we tell people to hop on a bike, on some narrow, in the gutter or questionable bike infra, with both cyclists and motorists not able to assess each other's speed etc, this bring mayhem at intersections (even driveways, parking lot exists or else), as cyclists think they can ride fast and keep going and motorists think they can go faster to turn right into their path, and you have a tragedy. Please do as Michael Shellenberger did, if you see something interesting, study it, do not take it to face value. There is always more than the tip of the iceberg... Great interview you guys!!!
The problem with wanting universal psychiatric care is that psychiatry is a horror show, and the real solutions to trauma are far more labour-intensive. Would these people be better off on a ward somewhere, zombified by a cocktail of psych meds? Shelter & addiction treatment sounds a lot better…
This is a bit off-topic but remember when Eric Weinstein kept saying that Saagar and Marshall should wear suits and ties so that they can be taken seriously? I commented at the time that that is not necessarily so and that what one might gain on the one hand one is likely to lose on the other; it is hard to really know in which direction that ball would bounce. People don't consume media the way they did 50 years ago. There are those who might say to themselves, "Oh, these guys are wearing suits and ties. This reminds me of corporate media. I'd better take these guys seriously." And there are those who might say, "Oh, these guys are wearing suits and ties. This reminds me of the phoniness and affectations of corporate media. These guys are merely playing a role and imitating the meme we have for "serious" journalism. I can't relate to that. Let me go somewhere else to find interesting conversation." Well, I don't claim to know which of the two responses is more likely or more prevalent but have you taken a gander at the attire the guys on "The Lost Debate" are wearing. Apparently somebody somewhere (even in corporate media itself) believes that being "relatable" does not damage one's credibility and maybe even enhances it. Just wanted to make that point, but I enjoy the show and I always get a lot out of it whether you guys (Saagar and Marshall) wear suits and ties or not.
Never heard of those guys. Near as I can tell, they're just another video podcast about current events. Unless the hosts had main/side gigs in corp media that I'm not aware of, I'm not really sure they're existence proves anything.
The suits and ties look great, guys. Thanks for the podcast, and I hope that looking sharp and professional can help you guys reach more establishment type listeners who care about this sort of credential signalling.
Such an excellent point about jail. Jail can be correctional in the case of drug addicts. That’s why they call them correctional facilities. It shouldn’t go on your job application or background check. That’s all.
Such an interesting character. Loved his book Apocolypse Never, last year, so will definately get this one. One of the important, genuine thinkers on the US landscape IMHO.
Here's a test-question for all those who claim they have left progressivism: 1. What is free speech? If you answered, "I support free speech but not "hate speech" ------then you're still progressive.
TECH pushed out the people who lived there. I grew up in Cupertino went to Homestead HS, with Steve Jobs. Use to run to school through apricot orchards. Tech Created more jobs than real-estate for housing. Zoning? Perfectly planed to keep low income OUT. Large lot sizes, no studio apartments, nice friendly things like that. Class is the issue.
About the tech $ and still having these problems, so we tend to blame them... I have to wonder if back in the day GM/Ford etc, similar companies in their time of similar size used to hire a TON of workers from a variety of skill sets and provided them with reasonable livings. Today these companies worth even more $ need only a fraction of the workers, so the $ does not get spread around like it once did.
As for the Vietnam point: they weren't surrounded by heroin.... or snapping bullets, anti-personell mines, artillery & mortars, dead children and other burned alive dismembered and otherwise blown apart, leaking humans. There's a lot that contributed to that story...
I was, initially, very put off by the title, because it Did sound like culture-war BS... but by the end, I was really agreeing that a form of cheap, high density, stable, quality shelter should be the first step, with a way to graduate into more private accommodations. Like nearly everything with modern US policy, it suffers from the issue of sound bites being valued over outcomes...
Cal Psych sounds essentially like what we did 50+ years ago, which was institutionalize people who couldn't take care of themselves and didn't have anybody willing to do it for them. I'm not saying that's good or bad.
Interesting conversation but I wish he covered more about his work on climate and how policies on homelessness could work in tandem with energy policy or didn't bring it up since I feel like he conflated the messaging a bit. But overall, great interview!
Michael, I think you are the actually the new conservative. You would be more effective dispensing with the label 'liberal' . Just say that was part of your past life.
This man is clearly not a liberal or left leaning in any meaningful way. I’m pretty sure he is well aware of it too. The persona is a marketing gimmick. A common one at that. He is leveraging the credibility of his youthful resume in an effort to try and sell fairly conservative ideas to people who would never want to hear them. Simultaneously, he can use his previous liberal bonafides as a way to stand out from the crowd of conservative commentators and gain better market penetration on that side. This thing is often a grift, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt and conclude that he’s acting in good faith and simply presents himself like this in an effort to try and win hearts and minds on both sides of the aisle. That said, it is telling that he has nothing positive to say about anyone left of center - even when discussing the recent past with the explicit caveat that it should not be considered a reflection on current matters. Meanwhile, he went out of his way to praise and promote a variety of specific Right Wingers as well as to excuse the behaviors of various large corporate interests and the social culture of the ultra-rich, in general. Like, Nancy Reagan and “Just Say No” wEre laughed at by my friends and peers_ is the most harsh critic he has to offer for the whole of the right wing. Meanwhile, he makes apologia for things like crack 20x sentencing vs cocaine, thinks Right Wing Nationalism is potentially very exciting and positive for America’s future, and is very happy to defend Tech Company-induced hyper-gentrification and to white knight for the feelings of Tech workers who are accused of not wanting to be forced to look at poor people. Actually… I’ve talked myself out of my previous stance. This guy is 100% a bad faith actor, leveraging values he no longer holds to curry favor with Ultra-Conservative power brokers. I shoulda known it going in, too… I mean, what are the odds that you would organically and sincerely write not one but two “Big Idea” books that loudly “challenge the liberal orthodoxy” …in 2 consecutive years.
Cal Psych sounds like a good idea, as long as we have a system set up where the Carers, Psych Doctors, Psych Nurses are monitored. Have a Quality Monitoring Program that is embedded in it, like the military health system does, where providers are reviewed on a random/ continuous basis, otherwise we end up with a system that eventually perpetuates the abuse that was happening before that was part of the reason Reagan closed the facilities back in the 80's. We need to be able to treat all people with dignity incarcerated and in mental health facilities. From watching the Hulu show Dopesick, reading the book same name, and books like Dreamland, some of the smaller towns in the Midwest created diversion programs/ drug courts, etc. These people need purpose, and structure and as said in this video, some of the people he interviewed even said they needed the break jail/ prison gave them to get themselves sober. Just like we say for children, It takes a village, so goes for our whole community. We are all connected.
I'm glad that when he pointed to Amsterdam he gestured to the fact that the Netherlands is around 30% public housing and that there was a large squatter movement that requisitioned thousands of units of housing (some eventually legalised)
I could write a book... In the current environment all doomed to failure. Rehabilitation is so expensive and the addicts use the system. Shelter the same thing .. clean , private, functional for people who sneer at public good..... All the infighting of 'interested ' parties... Etc..
@@tawdryhepburn4686 I thought so too! But it's really not. Admittedly the gov is kinda authoritarian about rezoning for affordable dense residential and a world class subway system. American NIMBYs would sue like crazy if it were tried here.
@@tawdryhepburn4686 You can live in a 10' x 10' "closet" w/ shared bathroom on the outskirts of town for 200/ month. ua-cam.com/video/ooh1aoEJKZc/v-deo.html
This is a poinent conversation of a complex social problem, that being said it is a bandage to a cutting problem. Jumping over the cutting problem. It comes back to fixing economic problems and lack of accountability that produces the mental frailty.
As a Californian living near SF, I can attest that Shellenberger is dead-on with his analysis and his proposed solutions would be a dramatic improvement. However, I don't accept his tepid rejection of the idea that he is giving very strong ammunition to bad actors on the right (who generally don't have strong arguments). The signature discourse from corporate-owned right (and left) is often one of kooky lies and exaggerations and conspiracies, because the people that spin those arguments are fundamentally disconnected from the experiences of "regular" people. It makes them easy to see, to be honest. Arm them with Shellenberger's positions, and they suddenly have some truly persuasive arguments that could help them make things worse. Not that I would want to censor his fine research, but rather, I would want to see a more defined not-right rhetorical position.
Overall this is a great interview, but I do wish he covered more about his work on climate, specifically how policies on homelessness could work in tandem with energy policy. By discussing it the way he did, it felt like he conflated the messaging a bit.
Drug addiction is a monster which has no easy solutions, no cheap solutions, no quick solutions... to simply say "universal psychiatry" or "increased shelters" and "firm caseworkers" is basic at best. Hyper-simplified solutions to very complex problems are best left to fools. Imprison addicts in facilities designed for addicts... and treat them there. Rhode Island is a great example.
Edgefield building outside Portland OR was used during the depression for poor people who could have a room there, work in the surrounding fields to grow food for the community, earning $1 a day they could use to rent a room/home when they were ready.
I disagree on the point where he says that we shouldn’t build shelters on high value real estate. Adding shelters in rich neighborhoods tames the cost of the real estate by keeping it from continuing to go up. Overpriced real estate and rents hurts not only the homeless but society at large. Turning 6 figure income into barely surviving is precisely why you need homeless shelters taming the real estate costs.
The whole USA health, social, political, and economic system has failed, Cali is just the cherry on top. I say get out into the streets, strikes and rallies and close you military bases, get out of other peoples countries and spend your sédense budget on helping your own people!
Income inequality is not as important as wealth inequality and like the condition of the cities, wealth inequality has been exasperated by progressive policies.
Healthcare in general should be universal. You wont get people to go along with universal mental care without universal healthcare. People will posture and pretend to care but they don’t. Mental issues are directly related to health.
Gurl! San Francisco was so beautiful but black people weren’t even allowed to live, even today is an issue. 😂🤣😂🤣 Liberals and their MAGA left! I really can’t #imdone
Why buy one? There are 6 empty homes for every one homeless person. The infrastructure already exists. Eminent Domain has been the law of the land for generations. The current system requires hundreds of thousands to suffer without cause or pathway to stability in order to protect and raise hypothetical future profits, primarily for the rent-seeking class.
Has anyone read the book? Does Schellenberger crunch any of the numbers involved in providing universal psychiatry? To a layman that sounds like a very ambitious goal.
One of the many critiques of his books. A smattering of facts and logic, mixed in with huge gaps that make ridiculous assumptions not based in reality. Are all his ideas bad? No. Does he play last and loose with the facts? Yes. Can you trust his overall conclusion? Probably not.
@@jamesrh9193 In that case, is he pandering to the skeptics in his audience or is he making a good faith argument and is simply, at times, out of his depth?
Bro If you think addiction is the root of our homelessness problem then you already failed. Poverty is the cause and the hollowing out of our communities cause depression leading to addiction & many people end up homeless clean, still are working & many of those people fall victim to addiction. It's a huge factor with what your dealing w. Also if your building single person units for 1/2 mil a unit your getting robbed. Inflation has affected building materials but someone is making way more money than they deserve to. And why not make the homeless build there own homes to get clean. Obviously not in charge but involved. I got ideas guys hit me up if you need a real problem solver
Theres two independent problems: addicts (small number but very visible and high damage) and unaffordability (larger problem). Both need to be dealt with, and actually are not the same issue.
@@Sovereignindividual21 yeah my reply was from the hip. I was reply from work when I dont have time to make a more thoughtful reflection. More reactionary which I guess is the intent of the product lol. Great reply tho =)
Climate Change is real, but instead of UN sustainable development policies we should just make our own policies to change the culture in regards to fighting pollution and invasive species while at the same time protecting our rights. That's where the real fight is.
[16:26] what a crazy statement. You say conservatives are not interested in those issues and then throw out "income inequality" as your reference. Conservatives (in general) don't think climate change is not a big issue, homelessness in the cities is cause by progressive policies and income inequality is basically a non issue (how does what someone else own effect me).
I'm in disagreement with Michael, but I think this was a great show and a great insight onto how some people view and frame progressives. Marshall was right about the whole labeling thing. Whenever you apply a sweeping ideology to an entire category of people, you'll always be wrong on something; people are more nuanced than that. Saying progressives are to blame for failing cities is wrong, saying people who enable victimhood are to blame for failing cities might be more accurate.
40:05 - _”only 4% are in jail for non-violent drug offenses.”_ - this is based on a massively naive/generous assumption that Police accurately describe the offense committed AND that Prosecutors act in good faith when presenting charges. Clearly, this is not how our system works. Not even close. Setting aside the issue of Police behavior for a moment because it has more variables and unknowns, even the most basic analysis of SOP for Prosecutors totally refuses this claim. Functionally, the DA’s office operates under the premise of avoiding a jury trial by any means. And the favored method is - of course - wildly overstating the crime and thereby coercing confessions. Almost by definition, the thing you are charged with is exponentially more severe. There is no chance the guest is unaware of this. That he just shrugs it off kinda makes me question if he’s acting in good faith, overall.
If this guy is well meaning or not all republicans like Crenshaw are going to do is throw them in prison. Somehow the money for everything else will never materialize.
His definition of progressives is nonsense. People that give needles to drug users, is such a simplistic way to define of a belief system that tries to center the needs of human beings at the core of how we make societal decisions over the way we do now by focusing on the interest of corporations and the obsession with profits. The general point being we focus on the use of drugs when in reality the use of drugs is largely the consequence of poverty-stricken people struggling to soothe their precarity with self-medicated means. We let people fall through the cracks because it is necessary for a capitalist market to entice pepper to work for pennies.
These two are the brave conservative voices of breaking points. Spend first few minutes apologizing for this episode then admitting push back stops them from covering a subject....great
Why does the author believe it’s ok to foist these mentally ill and drug addicts on to the rural population? These problems were created in cities, why is it the responsibility of fixing these people placed upon those that didn’t create this problem in the first place?
San Francisco has not embraced economic progressivism, so you have people living as permanent economic percariates. A progressive vision would be permanent housing for all, it would be a UBI which is enough to cover basic expenses, along with free Healthcare and education for all which help addess the real reason why people use drugs. I dont think any city is close to be progressive. I reject his entire premise as what you see is a result of progressivism, it is a result of lingering class stratification. also Housing is a human right, it has to come first then add on wrap around services.
What seems to have happened in California is that upper classes embraced those parts of progressivism that allowed them to flaunt their virtuous compassion while doing nothing, and quietly shelved the parts that might well help, but would be costly for them. Woke neoliberalism in particularly pristine form, I think.
Nah ... this guy has no solutions. He’s not offering anything new. He describes a problem with no answers and little ‘give a shit’other than, ‘we don’t want this in our city’. Well, move, then!! - Because “ the city” is the only place the ‘sickos’ can survive. Unless & until some heavy resources are assigned to serious long-term solutions, this is just how it is. He fails to ask and answer ‘why are there so many cases of mental illness (including addiction, a mental disease). There are people, professionals, who understand the insidious nature of these difficult illnesses but , we’ve never had such high case numbers (??) that need serious help, whilst at the same time, been a SOCIETY IN CRISIS & A SYSTEM IN TRANSITION! We are ‘missing the big picture’!! - Our entire system is collapsing and the NEW technocracy IS at the center of the turmoil. There has never been so much ‘concentrated wealth’ in this ‘new emerging realm’. And, at the other end, the average person either can NOT or ‘can barely’ afford a decent life. There’s a ‘Realm’ that is EMERGING as what will ultimately be a NEW SYSTEM - People need to OPEN THEIR EYES AND REALIZE what’s happening! Capitalism as we once knew it, is being supplanted. This will be a MAJOR PARADIGM SHIFT! - One not experienced since capitalism replaced ‘feudalism’. I’ve been aware for some time that we’ve begun to live in an alternate ‘Dimension” - There is still the physical realm, but on top of that (and inter-connected/inter-twined) is the ‘Digital realm’, made up of Networks & Platforms that are POSITIONED TO DOMINATE. - This is what’s emerging as a ‘New System’. And, some ppl know, but most still are NOT SEEING IT, YET!! “Open YOUR EYES”! And so, the ‘mentally ill and the suffering addict’ are just one of the more obvious parts of a ‘FAILING SOCIETY’. We’ve always known that the ‘marginalized’ will suffer most as the country and it’s cities FAIL. In the turmoil of major ‘transition’, the weak always appear ‘out of place and lost and sinking, first! And, this shift will continue to creep up on us until it’s a ‘done deal’ - whatever ‘THAT’ will look like; OR, perhaps it will be ‘resisted’ by enough power that there will be overt and ‘hot’ civil unrest and punishing conditions that leave it’s mark of ‘destruction’ via socio-economic casualties throughout a large portion of the population in various degrees, depending on each individuals preparedness - mainly their resources to make the inevitable transition. Either way, if we truly wanted to ‘improve’ care and conditions for people with mental illness, we’d be doing it! Anyone who pretends that this is NOT what’s happening, is either lying, ignorant - so insulated that they’re oblivious; or, are ppl that just don’t care about anything other themselves; or, they are probably also struggling! Things are likely to get worse before they get better. (Depending on ones concept of what ‘better’ is.) But first, we all need to be ‘honest’ about what’s going on!! And, we need to decide: How are we going to move forward? Do we even have a choice?! Where is the POWER? the Leadership? and, the Conscience of America? Btw, his ‘Amsterdam - lite’ suggestion, is not going to work, and - the last thing these suffering ppl need is to be put into our ‘shit show’ of ‘justice system’. BOTH, are terrifying and foreshadow a future where only people of means will ‘inherit’ a dignified life with access to anything money can buy; whilst, anyone who ‘stumbles’ or is ‘marginalized’ are stored in human silos, ‘’out of sight, out of mind’’ and, ‘treated’ by the authorities to be! He’s just out here selling a book on UA-cam. And, it is OUT OF CONTEXT AND OUT OF TOUCH”! (His books sales certainly are not to create a ‘solution’.) He’s grifting.
Dude is talking out of his ass on a few things. One i focused most on was handing out drug paraphernalia. He's talking about giving out free clean needles to addict's so they don't contract and spread disease. Makes me question everything else he says.
Thanks, you saved me from wasting time on this one. So many I respected five years ago are turning right (but with a smart twist) and I don't have the time to reposition them on some eight dimensional spectrum of political leanings (not including Trumptards who are not even part of our species).
I like you both, and as an actual communist I have no real dog in the progressive v. liberal fight because they're both tools of the bourgeoisie. But I am getting really, really tired of you inviting on yet another centrist ghoul and acting like they have something meaningful to contribute to the discourse. Especially those episodes when it's just Marshall here, there's no populist input whatsoever. "Gee guest, you think Reagan did nothing wrong? I thought Reagan did nothing wrong too! Now tell me about your important work for the Clinton Foundation." This guy literally worked for George Soros, someone who wrecked the British economy on purpose to get rich, and I'm supposed to believe that the flunky of a guy who created hundreds of homeless people to make some cheddar has an honest critique about homeless people? Arm the homeless and let's see what happens to the philanthropy class. It's clear as daylight that Marshall wants to turn every episode of The Realignment into a sponsored article on Politico, but needs the populist audience Saagar brings in order to stay relevant. I don't think I'm asking for much here; I know my communist ideals aren't where America's at yet, and I don't expect to see them here. But I've been watching this show and Breaking Points because I'm interested in populist viewpoints, because that IS where America's at. Maybe you should cover those viewpoints from the perspective that they're right, interview people who believe in those viewpoints, and stop trying to convince your audience that we were wrong about Wall Street and Dubya and hating Facebook. Or we'll just find a better podcast.
And I get your point re: Politico and the mainstream. But trust me, if I were obsessed with getting populist clicks and audience, this would be a *much* different show. It doesn't take a particularly close listen to tell that The Realignment takes a different editorial perspective and has a different ethos than Breaking Points. Plus, I get where you're coming from re: Wall Street, the Iraq War, and Facebook, but frankly, there's a huge set of other podcasts that'll deliver exactly what you want to hear on those topics.
Seriously though, thanks for the feedback. If it's not obvious, I'm procrastinating writing our newsletter, and replying to myself on UA-cam feels much more compelling : ) Also, I'd really, really, really contest your point that America's in the middle of a populist moment. Yes, there's deep dissatisfaction with the status-quo and the entire mainstream establishment in every category (higher ed, media, politics, etc...) but I strongly doubt that means people are going to be down for basically any policy proposal that self-identifying populists put forward.
@@marshallkosloff8019 I wasn't expecting an actual response, but if I have your attention... I don't have an issue with the topics per se, but the perspective. I don't mind dunking on progressives when it's warranted; they really did let San Francisco go down the drain, it's because of their woke attitude, and I appreciate a light being shined on it. I just don't think that the liberals get to shine that light. California is a blue state, the Dems could house the homeless there tomorrow if they really wanted to. But they take money from property developers who want to keep the city unaffordable to keep the money flowing in, throwing plenty of workers on the street where they often have little joy in life but drugs. And sure, there's a personal responsibility component there, but there's also a personal responsibility component for people like Schellenberger too and that goes unmentioned. The entire problem is put on the people who have the least power to change the situation, and you don't push back on that. But that's the whole problem in the first place for most people, meaning this conversation didn't really address much. My frustration is also that I DON'T want an echo chamber, I like having my views challenged, but I don't feel challenged by obvious bourgeois propaganda. You and Saagar are very clearly intelligent people with something to say, I just wish you would ask questions of relevance to the working class instead of questions that amplify the already prolific views of the rich. If I want to know what they think, I can just read Politico. The best episodes of the Realignment are when you do that, when you cover the topics you do but you do it from a more populist perspective. I know you don't necessarily agree with populist perspectives, but you often play devil's advocate for the audience and provide a "woke" viewpoint or a Trumpy viewpoint in your questioning that you don't agree with but know part of the audience is thinking. Maybe just do that more often? And the sorts of guests you're most liable to have on, maybe ask how they contributed to the problems they discuss if they're inclined to play the moralism card on others. I was probably a bit too harsh in the first post, but it's a gripe I've had for a while. Overall this is my favorite in-depth podcast when it lives up to its potential, and I hope it does that more. Only other thing I have to say while I'm bending your ear is that Frank DiStefano was an excellent guest and I hope you have him back on again soon. He's an example of an establishmentarian with something to say, a guy I ostensibly disagree with but whose views I find fascinating. I don't mind heterodoxy, I just want more sympathy for the workers and the powerless as we explore heterodoxy, or at least a conscious attempt to represent their views. When I say "populism," I literally just mean "what the bulk of people think," not necessarily the term as defined by political science. You don't have to agree with it, but if you aren't speaking to the majority of Americans, you're basically making yourself as relevant as Terry McAuliffe.
@9λ @9λ Good question, and I appreciate your curiosity. I started out diametrically opposed to where I'm at now: raised as a military brat during the last days of the Cold War, I was initially a libertarian. Moving out on my own after college, I came to understand just how utopian the capitalist economics I had believed in actually were, so I joined the Democrats and considered myself a liberal during the Obama years. But I saw things getting worse, nobody jailed for the crash of '08, and in general I came to realize that the liberals didn't care about actually doing good, just about looking good. So when Bernie ran the first time, I was enthusiastic about him and called myself a democratic socialist. I also went to grad school around this time, to study history. Of course, Bernie lost, and the Democratic Party and the papers lied about him every step of the way, and brazenly too, the way I'd only seen Republicans lie up to that point. The Washington Post running dozens of anti-Bernie articles in 24 hours and all of that. I was familiar with the Overton window, and figured at first that the way to get President Bernie Sanders was to make him look reasonable by comparison, so that's when I first began calling myself a communist and encouraging others to do so, not because I actually believed any of it yet, but because if enough of us started scaring the rich, maybe we could move the Overton window and get free healthcare, or at least get less actual Nazis crawling into the mainstream, as was happening immediately after Trump's election. In grad school, I was a good student. I was paying my way by being a graduate assistant for the history department, oftentimes subbing undergrad courses when the professors were busy. (I mention this only to say that I'm not some random brainwashed idiot, which is often the stereotype for American communists.) I was doing my thesis on the Mongol khanates, a thesis I would never end up finishing because I still had to work full time, and it started dawning on me that that was on purpose. Only people with free time can ever finish a thesis, because it's not meant to be a gauge of academic brilliance, but a gauge of class. Bourgeois students have no problem getting goofy theses about "feminist quantum physics" written and approved (look it up, I wish I was joking), but you try writing a thesis while commuting three hours a day to teach elementary students, and you can't. This is why the media uses education as a proxy for class, because that's what it's there for. It used to be that the hoi polloi couldn't even get a bachelor's degree, but the Cold War forced America's rich to admit more workers to the middle class to keep them loyal, a phenomenon I was learning that my new comrades had a name for: the labor aristocracy. What that meant was that the new class barrier was graduate degrees, and I could already tell that my leftist politics was burning bridges with my liberal professors. Liberal professors just think conservatives are a bunch of dumb rubes, but they're threatened by actual communists because we expose their fake radicalism for what it is. I wasn't going to be allowed to get my master's, so I stopped trying. I eventually published my thesis research in a form the average worker could access: a UA-cam video. (Type "History of the Mongol Khanates" into the search bar if you want to see years of research combined with a six-year-old's video-making abilities, lol.) That research pushed me towards unironic communism, and also towards the particular form of communism I embrace today. People who aren't communists don't realize that communism isn't a monolith, but has as many squabbling tendencies as any other ideology. To better understand the Mongols, I studied the societies that came before them, and came after them. This included the communist bloc nations; in fact every single nation ruled by Genghis Khan's grandkids except Iran was in that bloc, and even Iran has a planned economy, they just don't call it socialist. The Mongols' political ideology doesn't really exist in modern America. Initially I termed it as a "redistributionist barracks state" in my thesis, but a modern day political party in Russia has a snappier epithet: National Bolshevism, abbreviated to "nazbol" or "nazbollery." Nazbollery is basically a cradle-to-grave welfare state for the master race/faith/ethnicity, which is expected to serve in the military in return; and this is paid for by merciless capitalist exploitation of the untermenschen.
This guy is a really slick talker but he drops the mask when he cites Libertarian Dan Crenshaw who is vehemently anti Social Safety net. He essentially advocating a back door way to criminalize homelessness. Housing most certainly should be a right as well.
As an old person that lived in San Francisco when I was young. It was so, so, beautiful.
As a right leaning person I agree with almost everything he says. Living in SoCal for the past few years one thing that has always troubled me is that the homeless are considered one monolithic group, as the government usually does---a one-size-fits all solution. Yet, the homeless are of different kinds--addicted; mental illness; mental illness and addicted; "free loaders" who just like the lifestyle (a small group); unemployed; poor; underemployed; high cost of housing, etc. Unless it's broken down to it's component parts the solution will be less effective and much more costly, IMHO.
Michael's conversation with Rogan on JRE blew my mind. I had never heard his arguments before. I was really wrong about all sorts of things. It's refreshing when more data points and arguments are added to the conversation.
Does this cover the same points as JRE? Is there enough unique material to justify the time investment in both?
Very often when an author does long form interviews during a book tour, the whole thing is functionally scripted. a (somewhat) scholarly lecture repackaged into a more easily consumable format. Of course, the lectures - often part of the same media blitz - are functionally a summary of the book repackaged into a more exclusive format. (And then there is the cliffnotes or the teacher’s study guide, which is the book repackaged into something functional).
As a left leaning person, this is one of the most useful things I’ve ever watched, honestly this guy should be in charge of fixing homelessness in the US, no one has been able to explain to problem/ solutions as Succinctly as him
He is probably a leftist and most leaders in US cities are labeled as progressives but globally are not leftists at all but neoliberals
Seattle is another city suffering from failed policies around homelessness. Our beautiful parks are filled with tents and crime. Our downtown which used to have a rich cultural arts scene is now a no-go zone for most people. How do we turn this around?! Such a great conversation. Thanks.
I would cite a study for you but I have none off the top of my head. Historically however social welfare programs help lift the impoverished and fair business laws (anti-monopoly) help the middleclass grow and thrive. Over the past 40 years, everytime conservatives are elected, they gut these programs. Thats because it is not profitable for corporations. How would Purdue Pharma make a profit if there were addiction clinics all over the country? They would not make a profit... hence why the programs get gutted. Thats called ANTI-PROGRESSIVE policy.
ua-cam.com/video/bpAi70WWBlw/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/WijoL3Hy_Bw/v-deo.html
Marshall with his puppy is the most wholesome thing I've seen all week ❤
I love this podcast Bc if you read through the comments you’ll find: “as a left leaning person, I agree with almost everything” AND “as a right leaning person, I agree with almost everything”. So important for us to realize we are actually all very similar and the fight is between us and the ultra wealthy and the media establishment
This comment should have way more upvotes
@@KawaiiKasai agreed
Ok I might be jumping the gun here but I'm 40 minutes in and haven't heard him mention drug courts. That is what got me to get my life together .
I think it needed to be closer to 5 years over the 2.5 years I spent in the program.
I also believe we need to have alternatives to na aa . That program never worked for me and a lot of others . Community organizing and engaging with my local community is what kept me clean when still struggling.
I was hanging out last night with a new friend who is a mental counselor for homeless children discussing how his job should not even be a thing that exists
He just brushes off the housing crisis. Come on, man. Zoning. Zoning. Zoning. That's the big problem.
@@WinstonSmithGPT If you don't build housing, you can't alleviate those who fall into poverty and therefore become addicts.
@@WinstonSmithGPT There was actually an interesting study which found that many voters are native. Besides, didn't blame or talk about Republicans. I know NIMBY Democrats are the source of the problem. I would wish for a republican to come to the cities to remove zoning
@@deaddynamite8568 exactly. NIMBY Democrats are responsible for the housing crisis in California, not progressives. I live in a California suburb and I see the same moderate Democrats getting elected and pushing regulation to dissuade anyone who isn't wealthy from living there or visiting.
Thats an issue too, but addicts are a small subset and sort of a separate problem from general unaffordability
I think the issue here is another failed social engineering experiment. Anyone with common sense would know that enabling drug abuse and mental illness would lead to more of a problem. The issue is (I have a bachelor's in Psychology) people have to *WANT* to change in order to change. Intervention doesn't work.. I've known a lot of addicts and recovering addicts from hard drugs (mostly meth) and all of them will tell you that intervention doesn't work. You can't teach them, guilt them or force them into changing. Rehab only ever works when a person chooses to go there. Amy Winehouse's Rehab and her tragic suicide is an example. We absolutely need a seperate complex then a prison for these people because the program should be different then someone with functional mental faculties who kill someone but Rehab against their will won't work.
People need real opportunity to flourish then they would have something worth changing for. Lifestyle not pretty when your desperate.
This is my favorite podcast by the both of you so far. 12:20 in and it seems Michael is hitting all the right points. I strongly agree his view points have a lot of common sense when it comes to enabling those who are unable to help themselves. If no one holds themselves accountable who will if not the law or the local community? I would love to hear more about topics that deal with Big City Policies with homeless and poverty.
I lived in San Francisco for years and worked in tech for years. Everything he said about SF and tech is true, I can't disagree with any of it.
Some left wing people will also say it. They don’t want to hear fair criticism.
Those are not true leftists but neoliberal center right lunatics
@@qjtvaddict That goes across the board but most certainly online progressives far left also don't like fair criticism
Really excellent topic, illuminating two very important issues driving homelessness and inequality-- our methods and our over-zealous liberalism, our lack of practicality and morality.
Really good job, everyone, bringing this to the fore. It's perhaps our largest and longest unresolved issue at the heart of much of our moral poverty.
You’re talking a lot of crap and saying nothing.
I live in the Mission District in SF and I have no idea how anyone can claim this city has ever been run by progressives. Developers and the FIRE sector run this city, but I am very glad to hear this conversation. I have been unhoused, it is a nightmare.
It's nice to finally see someone associated with the left acknowledge what a disaster our cities are when it comes to the toleration of garbage, addiction and crime. It's disgusting and the toleration of it is not 'progressive' at all - it is co-dependent, self-congratulatory and really reduces the incentive of law abiding people to believe in civic responsibility anymore. In time, I think this chaos will bring on vigilantism (particularly like in my city of Portland, where progressives also defunded police, defend camping on streets/in parks and rationalize all the petty crime these mentally ill and drug addicts do).
I once interviewed someone who overdosed 3 times…she said if it wasn’t for jail + recovery program she was sentenced to, she probably would have ended up dead. These sorts of deals came after a Trumpy Sheriff partnered with a more center left District Attorney…it’s interesting to see how smaller cities/districts can go against these issues versus bigger ones, I.e. San Francisco
Anyone that thinks we should just "give" homeless drug addicts homes had never been or associated with homeless drug addicts.
Source: was a heroin addict, now 8 years clean. A house would have just been a nice place to die.
My sister was arrested once for heroin possession, her mom knew the sheriff and got her sent to rehab instead of jail.
While in rehab my sister used her tampon money to somehow get more heroin, they threw her out. I asked her about it and I will never forget the look on her face. She looked so serene and yet so sad as she told me "I know I know. I'm just not ready to stop yet."
She died of an OD about a year later.
Looking back, I remember her expression that day and realize she had already accepted that she would eventually die for the heroin.
And I will never forgive my complicity in letting her slip towards hell.
At the time I thought my stepmom had done the right thing sending her to rehab. Now.... I wonder if jail might have saved her, enabled her daughters to have a mother.
I'll never know.
But I cannot believe we as a society keep trying the same shit that seems proven to be ineffective af
As someone who has kept a corporate job while being in treatment. All the treatment center work on a 9 to 5 schedule and penalize you for working and having a job.
As a person coming from the right, i appreciate Michael’s addressing this issue. I am certainly guilty of jumping to conclusions about SF’s homeless problem. His articulation of the realities is informative.
Good comment, I also am on the right and appreciate this discussion. The deaths from overdoses have to have some blame put on China and the border as well. Good stuff tho.
Because he caused them!
Really Appreciate the education from Michael's book. I would like to say that there were several negative comments about Conservatives. I am Conservative and share Michael's values for the Homeless and Nuclear Energy. Therefore, maybe there should be some shared discussions with Conservatives and not so many Generalizations.
A bit off topic, as usual, Americans look at Europe and only take what they see, what shows up to the surface, i.e. legalize drugs instead of legalizing drugs with strong laws to make sure there are consequences etc. America has been doing the same with trying to increase cycling, they looked at Amsterdam the same way they looked at it about drugs and they only saw the results, thought that it was about adding bike infrastructure when in reality it's about strong traffic laws that bring consequences to make it work (even still they have plenty of cycling casualties): Cyclists have priority over motorists AND pedestrians, for one, but more important perhaps is the fact that the Dutch have an education and training program in schools that teaches kids to bike, theory and practice with "traffic gardens". At age 12 they have to pass a test on surface streets to allow them to then bike on their own, this program started in the 70s, since then, all the kids that grew up and are now also driving were educated and trained as cyclists first before becoming motorists, while in the US we tell people to hop on a bike, on some narrow, in the gutter or questionable bike infra, with both cyclists and motorists not able to assess each other's speed etc, this bring mayhem at intersections (even driveways, parking lot exists or else), as cyclists think they can ride fast and keep going and motorists think they can go faster to turn right into their path, and you have a tragedy.
Please do as Michael Shellenberger did, if you see something interesting, study it, do not take it to face value. There is always more than the tip of the iceberg...
Great interview you guys!!!
Very interesting.
The problem with wanting universal psychiatric care is that psychiatry is a horror show, and the real solutions to trauma are far more labour-intensive. Would these people be better off on a ward somewhere, zombified by a cocktail of psych meds?
Shelter & addiction treatment sounds a lot better…
Yeah… I had the same thought. Universal _access_ is very different from state mandated adherence.
What percentage of the mentally ill and the addicted do you think I actually want you to intervene in their lifestyle.
This is a bit off-topic but remember when Eric Weinstein kept saying that Saagar and Marshall should wear suits and ties so that they can be taken seriously? I commented at the time that that is not necessarily so and that what one might gain on the one hand one is likely to lose on the other; it is hard to really know in which direction that ball would bounce. People don't consume media the way they did 50 years ago. There are those who might say to themselves, "Oh, these guys are wearing suits and ties. This reminds me of corporate media. I'd better take these guys seriously." And there are those who might say, "Oh, these guys are wearing suits and ties. This reminds me of the phoniness and affectations of corporate media. These guys are merely playing a role and imitating the meme we have for "serious" journalism. I can't relate to that. Let me go somewhere else to find interesting conversation." Well, I don't claim to know which of the two responses is more likely or more prevalent but have you taken a gander at the attire the guys on "The Lost Debate" are wearing. Apparently somebody somewhere (even in corporate media itself) believes that being "relatable" does not damage one's credibility and maybe even enhances it. Just wanted to make that point, but I enjoy the show and I always get a lot out of it whether you guys (Saagar and Marshall) wear suits and ties or not.
Never heard of those guys. Near as I can tell, they're just another video podcast about current events. Unless the hosts had main/side gigs in corp media that I'm not aware of, I'm not really sure they're existence proves anything.
The suits and ties look great, guys. Thanks for the podcast, and I hope that looking sharp and professional can help you guys reach more establishment type listeners who care about this sort of credential signalling.
Such an excellent point about jail. Jail can be correctional in the case of drug addicts. That’s why they call them correctional facilities. It shouldn’t go on your job application or background check. That’s all.
Such an interesting character. Loved his book Apocolypse Never, last year, so will definately get this one. One of the important, genuine thinkers on the US landscape IMHO.
Awesome conversation
Views went up due to the dog.
Here's a test-question for all those who claim they have left progressivism:
1. What is free speech?
If you answered, "I support free speech but not "hate speech" ------then you're still progressive.
TECH pushed out the people who lived there. I grew up in Cupertino went to Homestead HS, with Steve Jobs. Use to run to school through apricot orchards. Tech Created more jobs than real-estate for housing. Zoning? Perfectly planed to keep low income OUT. Large lot sizes, no studio apartments, nice friendly things like that. Class is the issue.
One of the issues
About the tech $ and still having these problems, so we tend to blame them... I have to wonder if back in the day GM/Ford etc, similar companies in their time of similar size used to hire a TON of workers from a variety of skill sets and provided them with reasonable livings. Today these companies worth even more $ need only a fraction of the workers, so the $ does not get spread around like it once did.
We also don't have unions like we once did
As for the Vietnam point: they weren't surrounded by heroin.... or snapping bullets, anti-personell mines, artillery & mortars, dead children and other burned alive dismembered and otherwise blown apart, leaking humans. There's a lot that contributed to that story...
His book title is absolute boomer conservative cringe, but his content is brilliant.
I'm what you would call an old conservative, and I agree completely with this conversation, Thanks
As a Bay Area local, I say he is right. SF and Oakland are dying cities.
I was, initially, very put off by the title, because it Did sound like culture-war BS... but by the end, I was really agreeing that a form of cheap, high density, stable, quality shelter should be the first step, with a way to graduate into more private accommodations.
Like nearly everything with modern US policy, it suffers from the issue of sound bites being valued over outcomes...
Cal Psych sounds essentially like what we did 50+ years ago, which was institutionalize people who couldn't take care of themselves and didn't have anybody willing to do it for them. I'm not saying that's good or bad.
Interesting conversation but I wish he covered more about his
work on climate and how policies on homelessness could work in tandem
with energy policy or didn't bring it up since I feel like he
conflated the messaging a bit. But overall, great interview!
Maybe you better phone a friend on the climate thing. You seem clueless
Michael, I think you are the actually the new conservative. You would be more effective dispensing with the label 'liberal' . Just say that was part of your past life.
This man is clearly not a liberal or left leaning in any meaningful way. I’m pretty sure he is well aware of it too. The persona is a marketing gimmick. A common one at that. He is leveraging the credibility of his youthful resume in an effort to try and sell fairly conservative ideas to people who would never want to hear them. Simultaneously, he can use his previous liberal bonafides as a way to stand out from the crowd of conservative commentators and gain better market penetration on that side. This thing is often a grift, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt and conclude that he’s acting in good faith and simply presents himself like this in an effort to try and win hearts and minds on both sides of the aisle.
That said, it is telling that he has nothing positive to say about anyone left of center - even when discussing the recent past with the explicit caveat that it should not be considered a reflection on current matters. Meanwhile, he went out of his way to praise and promote a variety of specific Right Wingers as well as to excuse the behaviors of various large corporate interests and the social culture of the ultra-rich, in general. Like, Nancy Reagan and “Just Say No” wEre laughed at by my friends and peers_ is the most harsh critic he has to offer for the whole of the right wing. Meanwhile, he makes apologia for things like crack 20x sentencing vs cocaine, thinks Right Wing Nationalism is potentially very exciting and positive for America’s future, and is very happy to defend Tech Company-induced hyper-gentrification and to white knight for the feelings of Tech workers who are accused of not wanting to be forced to look at poor people.
Actually… I’ve talked myself out of my previous stance. This guy is 100% a bad faith actor, leveraging values he no longer holds to curry favor with Ultra-Conservative power brokers. I shoulda known it going in, too… I mean, what are the odds that you would organically and sincerely write not one but two “Big Idea” books that loudly “challenge the liberal orthodoxy” …in 2 consecutive years.
So socialists are conservative now?
Cal Psych sounds like a good idea, as long as we have a system set up where the Carers, Psych Doctors, Psych Nurses are monitored. Have a Quality Monitoring Program that is embedded in it, like the military health system does, where providers are reviewed on a random/ continuous basis, otherwise we end up with a system that eventually perpetuates the abuse that was happening before that was part of the reason Reagan closed the facilities back in the 80's. We need to be able to treat all people with dignity incarcerated and in mental health facilities. From watching the Hulu show Dopesick, reading the book same name, and books like Dreamland, some of the smaller towns in the Midwest created diversion programs/ drug courts, etc. These people need purpose, and structure and as said in this video, some of the people he interviewed even said they needed the break jail/ prison gave them to get themselves sober. Just like we say for children, It takes a village, so goes for our whole community. We are all connected.
I'm glad that when he pointed to Amsterdam he gestured to the fact that the Netherlands is around 30% public housing and that there was a large squatter movement that requisitioned thousands of units of housing (some eventually legalised)
I could write a book... In the current environment all doomed to failure. Rehabilitation is so expensive and the addicts use the system. Shelter the same thing .. clean , private, functional for people who sneer at public good..... All the infighting of 'interested ' parties... Etc..
Why is Tokyo affordable but not San Francisco? (Hint, it's not the earthquakes)
…I’m pretty sure Tokyo is like, literally the most expensive city in the world.
@@tawdryhepburn4686 I thought so too! But it's really not. Admittedly the gov is kinda authoritarian about rezoning for affordable dense residential and a world class subway system. American NIMBYs would sue like crazy if it were tried here.
@@tawdryhepburn4686 You can live in a 10' x 10' "closet" w/ shared bathroom on the outskirts of town for 200/ month. ua-cam.com/video/ooh1aoEJKZc/v-deo.html
@@Jack_Parsons-666 200 US?
@@Jack_Parsons-666 well we can pass laws to ban NIMBY lawsuits like exempt housing and transit from NEPA period
Great dog!
This is a poinent conversation of a complex social problem, that being said it is a bandage to a cutting problem. Jumping over the cutting problem. It comes back to fixing economic problems and lack of accountability that produces the mental frailty.
You won me over at the first second of this vodcast by having a cute dog. That's cheating sir!
What a great interview
Cali will always have a Homeless problem, with great weather comes great responsibility.
Maybe they need to be deleted
As a Californian living near SF, I can attest that Shellenberger is dead-on with his analysis and his proposed solutions would be a dramatic improvement. However, I don't accept his tepid rejection of the idea that he is giving very strong ammunition to bad actors on the right (who generally don't have strong arguments). The signature discourse from corporate-owned right (and left) is often one of kooky lies and exaggerations and conspiracies, because the people that spin those arguments are fundamentally disconnected from the experiences of "regular" people. It makes them easy to see, to be honest. Arm them with Shellenberger's positions, and they suddenly have some truly persuasive arguments that could help them make things worse. Not that I would want to censor his fine research, but rather, I would want to see a more defined not-right rhetorical position.
Overall this is a great interview, but I do wish he covered more about his work on climate, specifically how policies on homelessness could work in tandem with energy policy. By discussing it the way he did, it felt like he conflated the messaging a bit.
Drug addiction is a monster which has no easy solutions, no cheap solutions, no quick solutions... to simply say "universal psychiatry" or "increased shelters" and "firm caseworkers" is basic at best. Hyper-simplified solutions to very complex problems are best left to fools. Imprison addicts in facilities designed for addicts... and treat them there. Rhode Island is a great example.
Edgefield building outside Portland OR was used during the depression for poor people who could have a room there, work in the surrounding fields to grow food for the community, earning $1 a day they could use to rent a room/home when they were ready.
"We don't want to put our fellow citizens in ankle bracelets but it's a helluva lot better than dying."
🙌 Amen 🙌
I disagree on the point where he says that we shouldn’t build shelters on high value real estate. Adding shelters in rich neighborhoods tames the cost of the real estate by keeping it from continuing to go up. Overpriced real estate and rents hurts not only the homeless but society at large. Turning 6 figure income into barely surviving is precisely why you need homeless shelters taming the real estate costs.
This guy is dead on the very topic in the conversation. 👏
did saagar record the intro on a potata? XD. Great episode.
Being progressive is broad definition, how can you extrapolate all of San Francisco’s issues and say it is due to being progressive?
It's clickbait.
Cuz SF is the extremist version of progressivism
You must be a progressive
The whole USA health, social, political, and economic system has failed, Cali is just the cherry on top.
I say get out into the streets, strikes and rallies and close you military bases, get out of other peoples countries and spend your sédense budget on helping your own people!
For anything to work, it must be LOCAL! Orange County is doing a great job.
Income inequality is not as important as wealth inequality and like the condition of the cities, wealth inequality has been exasperated by progressive policies.
Healthcare in general should be universal. You wont get people to go along with universal mental care without universal healthcare. People will posture and pretend to care but they don’t. Mental issues are directly related to health.
How old is Marshal? He looks like a 10 yr old in his fathers suit.
Gurl! San Francisco was so beautiful but black people weren’t even allowed to live, even today is an issue. 😂🤣😂🤣 Liberals and their MAGA left! I really can’t #imdone
Homeless is a business today. Could buy them a condo from the grift of the charities alone.
Why buy one? There are 6 empty homes for every one homeless person. The infrastructure already exists. Eminent Domain has been the law of the land for generations. The current system requires hundreds of thousands to suffer without cause or pathway to stability in order to protect and raise hypothetical future profits, primarily for the rent-seeking class.
PORTLAND, OREGON!!!
Has anyone read the book? Does Schellenberger crunch any of the numbers involved in providing universal psychiatry? To a layman that sounds like a very ambitious goal.
One of the many critiques of his books. A smattering of facts and logic, mixed in with huge gaps that make ridiculous assumptions not based in reality.
Are all his ideas bad? No.
Does he play last and loose with the facts? Yes.
Can you trust his overall conclusion? Probably not.
@@jamesrh9193 In that case, is he pandering to the skeptics in his audience or is he making a good faith argument and is simply, at times, out of his depth?
@@segasys1339 a mixture of both.
Don't forget to share the blame with NIMBY's.
Bro If you think addiction is the root of our homelessness problem then you already failed. Poverty is the cause and the hollowing out of our communities cause depression leading to addiction & many people end up homeless clean, still are working & many of those people fall victim to addiction. It's a huge factor with what your dealing w. Also if your building single person units for 1/2 mil a unit your getting robbed. Inflation has affected building materials but someone is making way more money than they deserve to. And why not make the homeless build there own homes to get clean. Obviously not in charge but involved. I got ideas guys hit me up if you need a real problem solver
Theres two independent problems: addicts (small number but very visible and high damage) and unaffordability (larger problem). Both need to be dealt with, and actually are not the same issue.
@@Sovereignindividual21 yeah my reply was from the hip. I was reply from work when I dont have time to make a more thoughtful reflection. More reactionary which I guess is the intent of the product lol. Great reply tho =)
I didn't realize it was a new video at first because it had the same title lol.
Can you put the puppy down for your interview bro
You should get Max Kaiser on
Woah Dan Crenshaw moving the party away from climate denial caught me by surprise.
Climate Change is real, but instead of UN sustainable development policies we should just make our own policies to change the culture in regards to fighting pollution and invasive species while at the same time protecting our rights. That's where the real fight is.
[16:26] what a crazy statement. You say conservatives are not interested in those issues and then throw out "income inequality" as your reference. Conservatives (in general) don't think climate change is not a big issue, homelessness in the cities is cause by progressive policies and income inequality is basically a non issue (how does what someone else own effect me).
Zoning. Talk about it...
Think the pup really wanted to get down
I'm in disagreement with Michael, but I think this was a great show and a great insight onto how some people view and frame progressives. Marshall was right about the whole labeling thing. Whenever you apply a sweeping ideology to an entire category of people, you'll always be wrong on something; people are more nuanced than that. Saying progressives are to blame for failing cities is wrong, saying people who enable victimhood are to blame for failing cities might be more accurate.
Who cares. As a former lib and progressive and former native SF resident, they are PROGRESSIVES and their policies are failures.
Also... Marshall while complaining about labeling.... he labeled the right at about 16 minutes into it. lol
I don't think I'm going to like this interview considering this is a guy who believes capitalism is going to solve climate change
Short answer: they're too dumb to reevaluate based on reality
Non profits skimming tax grants
40:05 - _”only 4% are in jail for non-violent drug offenses.”_ - this is based on a massively naive/generous assumption that Police accurately describe the offense committed AND that Prosecutors act in good faith when presenting charges.
Clearly, this is not how our system works. Not even close.
Setting aside the issue of Police behavior for a moment because it has more variables and unknowns, even the most basic analysis of SOP for Prosecutors totally refuses this claim.
Functionally, the DA’s office operates under the premise of avoiding a jury trial by any means. And the favored method is - of course - wildly overstating the crime and thereby coercing confessions. Almost by definition, the thing you are charged with is exponentially more severe.
There is no chance the guest is unaware of this. That he just shrugs it off kinda makes me question if he’s acting in good faith, overall.
Damn bro, get some better internet
If this guy is well meaning or not all republicans like Crenshaw are going to do is throw them in prison. Somehow the money for everything else will never materialize.
Stop bashing boomers. There are millions of us off all political stripes.
Veterans day...👍🇺🇸
His definition of progressives is nonsense. People that give needles to drug users, is such a simplistic way to define of a belief system that tries to center the needs of human beings at the core of how we make societal decisions over the way we do now by focusing on the interest of corporations and the obsession with profits. The general point being we focus on the use of drugs when in reality the use of drugs is largely the consequence of poverty-stricken people struggling to soothe their precarity with self-medicated means. We let people fall through the cracks because it is necessary for a capitalist market to entice pepper to work for pennies.
The terrible Re twins--Rehab and Relapse.
LOL
Vermont is the cleanest place in the USA this guy is a Republican boy
I had no idea Vermont is a city.
Let my confirmation bias set in!
These two are the brave conservative voices of breaking points. Spend first few minutes apologizing for this episode then admitting push back stops them from covering a subject....great
Great observation!
They are not conservative tho they are leftists . Most American leaders are neoliberals
Why does the author believe it’s ok to foist these mentally ill and drug addicts on to the rural population? These problems were created in cities, why is it the responsibility of fixing these people placed upon those that didn’t create this problem in the first place?
@@WinstonSmithGPT I couldn’t agree more!
That’s what the asylums are for
Define Progressive
San Francisco has not embraced economic progressivism, so you have people living as permanent economic percariates. A progressive vision would be permanent housing for all, it would be a UBI which is enough to cover basic expenses, along with free Healthcare and education for all which help addess the real reason why people use drugs. I dont think any city is close to be progressive. I reject his entire premise as what you see is a result of progressivism, it is a result of lingering class stratification. also Housing is a human right, it has to come first then add on wrap around services.
What seems to have happened in California is that upper classes embraced those parts of progressivism that allowed them to flaunt their virtuous compassion while doing nothing, and quietly shelved the parts that might well help, but would be costly for them. Woke neoliberalism in particularly pristine form, I think.
Communist utopia cannot be had on earth
Too many annecdotes and 'stats' that are attributed to people without names for me to follow along with a lot of his points.
Nah ... this guy has no solutions. He’s not offering anything new. He describes a problem with no answers and little ‘give a shit’other than, ‘we don’t want this in our city’. Well, move, then!! - Because “ the city” is the only place the ‘sickos’ can survive. Unless & until some heavy resources are assigned to serious long-term solutions, this is just how it is.
He fails to ask and answer ‘why are there so many cases of mental illness (including addiction, a mental disease).
There are people, professionals, who understand the insidious nature of these difficult illnesses but , we’ve never had such high case numbers (??) that need serious help, whilst at the same time, been a SOCIETY IN CRISIS & A SYSTEM IN TRANSITION!
We are ‘missing the big picture’!! - Our entire system is collapsing and the NEW technocracy IS at the center of the turmoil.
There has never been so much ‘concentrated wealth’ in this ‘new emerging realm’. And, at the other end, the average person either can NOT or ‘can barely’ afford a decent life.
There’s a ‘Realm’ that is EMERGING as what will ultimately be a NEW SYSTEM - People need to OPEN THEIR EYES AND REALIZE what’s happening!
Capitalism as we once knew it, is being supplanted. This will be a MAJOR PARADIGM SHIFT! - One not experienced since capitalism replaced ‘feudalism’. I’ve been aware for some time that we’ve begun to live in an alternate ‘Dimension” - There is still the physical realm, but on top of that (and inter-connected/inter-twined) is the ‘Digital realm’, made up of Networks & Platforms that are POSITIONED TO DOMINATE. - This is what’s emerging as a ‘New System’. And, some ppl know, but most still are NOT SEEING IT, YET!! “Open YOUR EYES”!
And so, the ‘mentally ill and the suffering addict’ are just one of the more obvious parts of a ‘FAILING SOCIETY’.
We’ve always known that the ‘marginalized’ will suffer most as the country and it’s cities FAIL.
In the turmoil of major ‘transition’, the weak always appear ‘out of place and lost and sinking, first!
And, this shift will continue to creep up on us until it’s a ‘done deal’ - whatever ‘THAT’ will look like; OR, perhaps it will be ‘resisted’ by enough power that there will be overt and ‘hot’ civil unrest and punishing conditions that leave it’s mark of ‘destruction’ via socio-economic casualties throughout a large portion of the population in various degrees, depending on each individuals preparedness - mainly their resources to make the inevitable transition.
Either way, if we truly wanted to ‘improve’ care and conditions for people with mental illness, we’d be doing it!
Anyone who pretends that this is NOT what’s happening, is either lying, ignorant - so insulated that they’re oblivious; or, are ppl that just don’t care about anything other themselves; or, they are probably also struggling!
Things are likely to get worse before they get better. (Depending on ones concept of what ‘better’ is.) But first, we all need to be ‘honest’ about what’s going on!!
And, we need to decide: How are we going to move forward? Do we even have a choice?!
Where is the POWER? the Leadership? and, the Conscience of America?
Btw, his ‘Amsterdam - lite’ suggestion, is not going to work, and - the last thing these suffering ppl need is to be put into our ‘shit show’ of ‘justice system’. BOTH, are terrifying and foreshadow a future where only people of means will ‘inherit’ a dignified life with access to anything money can buy; whilst, anyone who ‘stumbles’ or is ‘marginalized’ are stored in human silos, ‘’out of sight, out of mind’’ and, ‘treated’ by the authorities to be!
He’s just out here selling a book on UA-cam. And, it is OUT OF CONTEXT AND OUT OF TOUCH”!
(His books sales certainly are not to create a ‘solution’.) He’s grifting.
Dude is talking out of his ass on a few things. One i focused most on was handing out drug paraphernalia. He's talking about giving out free clean needles to addict's so they don't contract and spread disease. Makes me question everything else he says.
Thanks, you saved me from wasting time on this one. So many I respected five years ago are turning right (but with a smart twist) and I don't have the time to reposition them on some eight dimensional spectrum of political leanings (not including Trumptards who are not even part of our species).
A lof of their podcasts rely on false premises and bad faith arguments.
I like you both, and as an actual communist I have no real dog in the progressive v. liberal fight because they're both tools of the bourgeoisie.
But I am getting really, really tired of you inviting on yet another centrist ghoul and acting like they have something meaningful to contribute to the discourse. Especially those episodes when it's just Marshall here, there's no populist input whatsoever. "Gee guest, you think Reagan did nothing wrong? I thought Reagan did nothing wrong too! Now tell me about your important work for the Clinton Foundation."
This guy literally worked for George Soros, someone who wrecked the British economy on purpose to get rich, and I'm supposed to believe that the flunky of a guy who created hundreds of homeless people to make some cheddar has an honest critique about homeless people? Arm the homeless and let's see what happens to the philanthropy class.
It's clear as daylight that Marshall wants to turn every episode of The Realignment into a sponsored article on Politico, but needs the populist audience Saagar brings in order to stay relevant. I don't think I'm asking for much here; I know my communist ideals aren't where America's at yet, and I don't expect to see them here. But I've been watching this show and Breaking Points because I'm interested in populist viewpoints, because that IS where America's at. Maybe you should cover those viewpoints from the perspective that they're right, interview people who believe in those viewpoints, and stop trying to convince your audience that we were wrong about Wall Street and Dubya and hating Facebook. Or we'll just find a better podcast.
What specific populist viewpoint should we raise?
And I get your point re: Politico and the mainstream. But trust me, if I were obsessed with getting populist clicks and audience, this would be a *much* different show. It doesn't take a particularly close listen to tell that The Realignment takes a different editorial perspective and has a different ethos than Breaking Points.
Plus, I get where you're coming from re: Wall Street, the Iraq War, and Facebook, but frankly, there's a huge set of other podcasts that'll deliver exactly what you want to hear on those topics.
Seriously though, thanks for the feedback. If it's not obvious, I'm procrastinating writing our newsletter, and replying to myself on UA-cam feels much more compelling : )
Also, I'd really, really, really contest your point that America's in the middle of a populist moment. Yes, there's deep dissatisfaction with the status-quo and the entire mainstream establishment in every category (higher ed, media, politics, etc...) but I strongly doubt that means people are going to be down for basically any policy proposal that self-identifying populists put forward.
@@marshallkosloff8019 I wasn't expecting an actual response, but if I have your attention... I don't have an issue with the topics per se, but the perspective. I don't mind dunking on progressives when it's warranted; they really did let San Francisco go down the drain, it's because of their woke attitude, and I appreciate a light being shined on it. I just don't think that the liberals get to shine that light. California is a blue state, the Dems could house the homeless there tomorrow if they really wanted to. But they take money from property developers who want to keep the city unaffordable to keep the money flowing in, throwing plenty of workers on the street where they often have little joy in life but drugs. And sure, there's a personal responsibility component there, but there's also a personal responsibility component for people like Schellenberger too and that goes unmentioned. The entire problem is put on the people who have the least power to change the situation, and you don't push back on that. But that's the whole problem in the first place for most people, meaning this conversation didn't really address much.
My frustration is also that I DON'T want an echo chamber, I like having my views challenged, but I don't feel challenged by obvious bourgeois propaganda. You and Saagar are very clearly intelligent people with something to say, I just wish you would ask questions of relevance to the working class instead of questions that amplify the already prolific views of the rich. If I want to know what they think, I can just read Politico. The best episodes of the Realignment are when you do that, when you cover the topics you do but you do it from a more populist perspective. I know you don't necessarily agree with populist perspectives, but you often play devil's advocate for the audience and provide a "woke" viewpoint or a Trumpy viewpoint in your questioning that you don't agree with but know part of the audience is thinking. Maybe just do that more often? And the sorts of guests you're most liable to have on, maybe ask how they contributed to the problems they discuss if they're inclined to play the moralism card on others.
I was probably a bit too harsh in the first post, but it's a gripe I've had for a while. Overall this is my favorite in-depth podcast when it lives up to its potential, and I hope it does that more.
Only other thing I have to say while I'm bending your ear is that Frank DiStefano was an excellent guest and I hope you have him back on again soon. He's an example of an establishmentarian with something to say, a guy I ostensibly disagree with but whose views I find fascinating. I don't mind heterodoxy, I just want more sympathy for the workers and the powerless as we explore heterodoxy, or at least a conscious attempt to represent their views. When I say "populism," I literally just mean "what the bulk of people think," not necessarily the term as defined by political science. You don't have to agree with it, but if you aren't speaking to the majority of Americans, you're basically making yourself as relevant as Terry McAuliffe.
@9λ @9λ Good question, and I appreciate your curiosity.
I started out diametrically opposed to where I'm at now: raised as a military brat during the last days of the Cold War, I was initially a libertarian. Moving out on my own after college, I came to understand just how utopian the capitalist economics I had believed in actually were, so I joined the Democrats and considered myself a liberal during the Obama years. But I saw things getting worse, nobody jailed for the crash of '08, and in general I came to realize that the liberals didn't care about actually doing good, just about looking good.
So when Bernie ran the first time, I was enthusiastic about him and called myself a democratic socialist. I also went to grad school around this time, to study history. Of course, Bernie lost, and the Democratic Party and the papers lied about him every step of the way, and brazenly too, the way I'd only seen Republicans lie up to that point. The Washington Post running dozens of anti-Bernie articles in 24 hours and all of that. I was familiar with the Overton window, and figured at first that the way to get President Bernie Sanders was to make him look reasonable by comparison, so that's when I first began calling myself a communist and encouraging others to do so, not because I actually believed any of it yet, but because if enough of us started scaring the rich, maybe we could move the Overton window and get free healthcare, or at least get less actual Nazis crawling into the mainstream, as was happening immediately after Trump's election.
In grad school, I was a good student. I was paying my way by being a graduate assistant for the history department, oftentimes subbing undergrad courses when the professors were busy. (I mention this only to say that I'm not some random brainwashed idiot, which is often the stereotype for American communists.) I was doing my thesis on the Mongol khanates, a thesis I would never end up finishing because I still had to work full time, and it started dawning on me that that was on purpose. Only people with free time can ever finish a thesis, because it's not meant to be a gauge of academic brilliance, but a gauge of class. Bourgeois students have no problem getting goofy theses about "feminist quantum physics" written and approved (look it up, I wish I was joking), but you try writing a thesis while commuting three hours a day to teach elementary students, and you can't. This is why the media uses education as a proxy for class, because that's what it's there for. It used to be that the hoi polloi couldn't even get a bachelor's degree, but the Cold War forced America's rich to admit more workers to the middle class to keep them loyal, a phenomenon I was learning that my new comrades had a name for: the labor aristocracy. What that meant was that the new class barrier was graduate degrees, and I could already tell that my leftist politics was burning bridges with my liberal professors. Liberal professors just think conservatives are a bunch of dumb rubes, but they're threatened by actual communists because we expose their fake radicalism for what it is. I wasn't going to be allowed to get my master's, so I stopped trying. I eventually published my thesis research in a form the average worker could access: a UA-cam video. (Type "History of the Mongol Khanates" into the search bar if you want to see years of research combined with a six-year-old's video-making abilities, lol.)
That research pushed me towards unironic communism, and also towards the particular form of communism I embrace today. People who aren't communists don't realize that communism isn't a monolith, but has as many squabbling tendencies as any other ideology. To better understand the Mongols, I studied the societies that came before them, and came after them. This included the communist bloc nations; in fact every single nation ruled by Genghis Khan's grandkids except Iran was in that bloc, and even Iran has a planned economy, they just don't call it socialist.
The Mongols' political ideology doesn't really exist in modern America. Initially I termed it as a "redistributionist barracks state" in my thesis, but a modern day political party in Russia has a snappier epithet: National Bolshevism, abbreviated to "nazbol" or "nazbollery." Nazbollery is basically a cradle-to-grave welfare state for the master race/faith/ethnicity, which is expected to serve in the military in return; and this is paid for by merciless capitalist exploitation of the untermenschen.
This guy is a really slick talker but he drops the mask when he cites Libertarian Dan Crenshaw who is vehemently anti Social Safety net. He essentially advocating a back door way to criminalize homelessness. Housing most certainly should be a right as well.
Only if they don’t accept treatment if they accept treatment they can avoid jail and criminalization
Right wing nonsense
Michael shellenberger is not on the right...
You just have to be a moderate to know what's wrong with Progressives.
Characterizing common-sense as "right wing" is probably not a great long-term strategy.
Liberalism is a right wing ideology because it's capitalist. Schellenberger is a reactionary.
@@kentchamberlain5720 are u ok ?