Thanks for watching! If you want, consider checking the video I made on Climate Change (is it all a big hoax?): ua-cam.com/video/SWlpK6DuKjM/v-deo.htmlsi=L7eJuCOf7lqYw5Of Also let me know any other topics you'd like to see!
The problem with an AI debate is that a human has to fact-check everything. The Chat GPT craze finally started to show weakness when students and lawyers who were using it for generative purposes noticed that it had a tendency to completely fabricate past cases and research. Its insidious goal was to create something that SOUNDS like a human wrote it. This took priority over factual coordination.
Yeah, see 3:13. The pro-Capitalist AI assumes that A) we already live in a 100% capitalist system and B) any change necessitates 100% abandonment of Capitalist principles. These are both false premises and mistakes a freshman debater could make.
Wouldn’t an AI with a consistent 80% accuracy actually outperform most non-experts? For basic fact-based tasks, AI’s reliability might even surpass the average person’s accuracy without special training. Plus, AI maintains that level across huge volumes of information and doesn’t suffer from fatigue or bias in the same way humans do. It might not match a true expert’s deep understanding or contextual awareness, but for straightforward or repetitive tasks, AI can often be the more reliable option.
@@alaxt.6215 but humans can sometimes notice bullshit. The AIs are just talking, without doing anything like "Hey there, you have any basis for that assumption?" They assume that the opponent AI is never wrong as they think the same about themselves. So even tho humans may be wrong more often it's often times something not really that important to the debate. And when it is the other guy can notice it either cuz it's just stupid or due to body language.
A major part of the social market economies of Norway, Sweden, Germany etc. is the consensus-building, ie. the middle ground discussed here. One argument that I would've liked to see here is how to avoid the wealthy influencing the government. Yes, corruption was mentioned, but that comes in different forms like lobbying and campaigning and that wasn't addressed.
Look at the US election. A poorly educated country full of people whose IQ is far below their European ancestors proved to be gullible enough to vote against their own interests due to an unbelievable level of stupidity. The same tricks Hitler used. More & more realised their mistake TOO LATE!. The US was bought by rich NAZI fascists using the "fake news" BS for the truth whilst lying via X etc. America is now owned by rich oligarchs after its insanely stupid population sold itself. Hell just got worse.
i kinda feel like they might be fake. Why did the judge feel the need to say "after being programmed to go into the debate with a completely unbiased view" i dunno but to me this seems like a sentence written by a human. Unless they programed the judge to know hes unbiased, then maybe.
the thing is in america the ones who will make those laws will be the ones those laws will hurt. so they won’t be open to change because why would they. this is why we need a government that is stronger than the corporations.
You have the opposite. Fascism is where corporations control governments. The US has always been like that but American education and low IQs compared to their ancestors have destroyed what little you had. Expect the 4th Reich to end worse than the 3rd. Same mind control, same lies, same politics "Its everyone else's fault" that Hitler used and same propaganda paid for by the rich. Hitler was bad but Trump is way worse and more dangerous.
This format of presenting debates is an intelligent way to eliminate human biases and could be a way to introduce it in class discussions at school. To dig deeper, it would be interesting to see what they have to say on implementing such a middle ground and how to make it work in a particular context (country, state, etc.). Then, they could extrapolate this into specific policies they believe would most effectively reorient our economies to be more mixed. Finally, and most controversially, compare their list of recommended policies against the policies proposed by politicians to determine which aligns more closely with the recommendations.
It's great that you see the potential of the technology. But I think we should be careful with saying that our current AI systems are unbiased. It really depends on the data set. I'm not an expert, but these AI system that uses NLP (Natural Language Processing) could be seen more like a dumb but well spoken parot then something actually intelligent. They don't have human emotions but they also don't understand what they are saying. And because our current AI systems don't understand the consepts they are mimicking they will naturally head to towards a more carful middle ground baced on the data set. Something we can clearly see in the video. But something I hope more people will realise is that achieving a *middle ground* doesn't the same as unbiased. Hope you got something out of this and that I didn't just write this text to a bot. If you have any questions or disagree with something I wrote it's just to respond.
I think youre being a bit optimistic. Even the bots are biased, because their information comes from humans, books, articles, websites, people. As long as humans are involved in the information the bots use, there will be some bias that skews the debate. Although an interesting experiment, lets not hastily put our faith in things and remember bias is an inevitable obstacle when discussion arises but should be mitigated
I think the best amoral argument for capitalism is simply looking at history. Basically the freer markets somewhere has, the better off the area is. Sure there have been problems in its implementations, but every other system implemented has had more, and I doubt any economic system can ever create a utopia.
I think that the AI's would need to be trained on more than just rhetoric. Marx studied the economics of capitalism and simply derived a conclusion based on the data. Marxism isn't an ideology where it's tenets can be argued based on feelings, rather it's a scientific approach to economics and human nature. It is inarguable that capitalism is an unsustainable system with contradictions that it cannot resolve. It requires infinite resources to maintain its infinite growth, and that alone will cause it to fail on a planet with finite resources.
As a Marxist, both of these AIs advocate for slightly different forms of capitalism. The "Anti-capitalist" AI isn't making staunchly anti-capitalist arguments. It makes arguments in support of reformed capitalism, as opposed to abandoning the system altogether. A "mixed economy" isn't anti-capitalist. It's just a capitalist economy that tries to ignore the aforementioned contradictions by introducing even more magical thinking than regular capitalism. The pro-capitalist AI even points out that the "anti" capitalist AI is a reformist. Marxists argue that reform is a fool's errand that arrives at the same destination, the failure of the capitalist state, but maybe more slowly, and definitely with more magical thinking required.
Every living being requires infinite resources, life tries to extend itself to keep on living and this expansion is expected to be infinite, the relative balance we se on nature is only possible because different species' drive for expansión cancel eachother and for geological reasons that eventually are surpassed. A completely sustainable system requires the elimination of the drive to expand that follows life and that will only have one result, the extinction of humanity by some natural disaster or cosmic event.
As with all arguments you'd have to agree with the premises of the arguments to agree with its conclusions. Disagree with Marx on dialectics or historical materialism, and his arguments will no longer stand as "inarguable." Rarely if ever has a social science, economics, or political science ever risen to anything like a "hard" science like physics, everything in all those fields are up for debate as their methodologies don't lend themselves well to strong proofs or controlled reproducible experiments. And then even if Marx were correct about capitalism being self contradictory, he'd have to construct an alternative system with empirically better outcomes for it to matter. Cultural criticism has limited utility, because we aren't guaranteed a perfect world. Because we don't currently have a well researched system for planned economics that works, and we don't have systems of governments where we can simultaneously centralize power to manage the economy for the people while preventing corruption, we may just be left with what we have.
I have long been in a favor of the so-called "mixed" economy, but even this idea gets bogged down in some simple key questions. How do we define "fair"? How do we define "balanced"? At what point does a company become a monopoly? When does a government become "corrupt"? How much regulation is "too much" regulation? These are all subjective issues upon which pro- and anti-capitalist proponents will continue to disagree. And I don't think even AI can come up with a mutually agreeable solution. At least, not yet.
These questions are already framed with a bias, the "should a small percentage of society hold the majority of wealth" is not the definition of Capitalism. It is an assumption about capitalism that leaves little room for the pro-capitalist AI to argue against this assumption. It's similarly with the other questions and then it also matters what the AI is trained with. Keynesian schools of economics? Chicago? Austrian? There are fundamental differences between different 'capitalist' to ''somewhat capitalist' schools of economics and the arguments presented by either of them can be fundamentally different.
Well i think the pro-capitalist did a better job because it mantained the central proposition of capitalism while the anti-capitalist had to cede its position and concede capitalism a chance.
I don’t believe the anti-capitalist yielded to the pro-capitalist AI, it was simply the ending of the debate. I would argue that the pro-capitalist relied too heavily on “competition is good for the economy.” And that the current mode of production allows everyone the chance to become wealthy (which I would argue is categorically false.)
@@BonafideAtheist Homie, The anti-capitalist AI just argued for capitalism the whole second half of the video and pretended the capitalist AI was against regulation. How is it abolishing capitalism if you don't abolish the Capital?
@@alexhorner4746 I agree with you, my other comment mentioned how the anti-capitalist AI came off as centrist. If the AI was fed material from Lenin or Marx, I think the case for socialism would’ve been much better. The anti-capitalist AI was giving off revisionist vibes. Full disclosure, I am indeed a Socialist.
If solving this massive problem took two AI's a few minutes of casual conversation to solve, then why haven't the humans who created the AI's been able to solve it in over 120 years? It isn't that simple.
It is. American stupidity and influence is the problem. Norway is socialist (not communist) and has better EVERYTHING than the USA. Proper healthcare, better wages (by PPP) Purchasing power, happier people etc. The USA has a worse level of maternal mortality than Cambodia. PROOF Fascist Capitalism doesn't work. Only Americans are too dumb to see this. EVERY other developed country has proper healthcare. Cuba has better education and longer life expectancy. You lock up political opponents more than North Korea just hide it better (they don't even try). You also especially in MAGA NAZI states burn more books than DPRK or even Hitler's lot. America is a sewer and will get worse soon.
The majority of the problems discussed here hold capitalism to blame. While they are all symptoms of capitalism, there are other things which are making those problems so much worse than they should be. Of the many economic practices which exacerbate inflation and inequality, the worst offenders are far more recent adjustment than people realize. Income tax, fiat currency (not backed by something like gold), and debt as a currency, are the biggest. In 1913 when the 16th amendment codified the income tax, everyone involved intended it to be used for temporary emergency purposes like war or disaster. Before that, the government earned money through smart use of government owned land, business like services, and special projects. Our government can, and should, be more responsible with the money and assets we grant them. Returning to a system like this would force them to. Prior to 100 years ago, interest on credit wasn't a thing, and very rare loans were less than 4%. 200 years ago, loans almost never happened, and when they did they were closer to 2%. Our modern system has found a way to make debt so common and burdensome that it is no longer capitalism, it is debt slavery. We're looking at the latest evolution, from slavery, to indentured servitude, to a more insidious form of debt-burden servitude, and blaming _capitalism_!? With the recent change off the gold standard to a fiat currency, the Fed can, and does, print way more than they should. This is what has caused the vast majority of the inflation and recent growth of the wealth gap. This is why today's youth are struggling and everything is more expensive. What do do? 1. Cap all debt interest at 2%. Boom. No more debt-slavery, and no more predatory lending. 2. Return to a backed currency. This is a hard one, but it's doable. Just too long to explain here. 3. Stay with me on this, and think it through... income tax is opt-in. But, to vote, you have to opt-in to the income tax. Yep, that means the poorest would be getting paid to vote, and would severely outnumber the wealthiest... for a while at least.
I've said this forever. Capitalism and socialism exist to balance each-other out. Neither can be successful on its own. The Rhenish model is the only one that makes sense.
It isn't. Bribery and corruption is endemic under capitalism which always leads to fascism. If you are American that means "Corporations control the government". Americans shouldn't vote as very few understand politics and political terms are used as insults when clearly not understood. American education is shit and Caucasian IQs in the US on average are 7 points below Europe.
W Capitalism. It rewards hard work and education. And ootimistic people. Socialism rewards lazy people, that dont do any work and output suffers as a result. Stocks can be good for society. The evil here is the lobbying and poisoning of people. Economics is a COMPETITION. Socialism makes you lose on behalf of human rights. Capitalism is the best way to be efficient. You cant escape competition aspect... thats how nature works. Socialism only make sense when u had ALL the resources. In real world no country has all resources. U need trade and to out compete. Read prof Ja Hoon Chang 23 things they dont tell u about capitalism.
Every country besides US has better education and smart people honestly. US society in general is quite dumb, sorry. Problem isnt calitalism, but that society that is dumb and votes dumb ppl (trump). I agree with half of trumps policies. He is a conspiracy theorist and biased af. lacks logic and criticism. He isnt even good in business. Elon on other hand is top notch. U will see in 1 year
Inequality and poor people is the result of globalization and tech innovation. But only if u have a middle class education. Having factories back in US is dumb if u dont own the rare elements like Ch*na. migration is due to not investing in latin america and fixing corruption, cartels etc. building higher wall wont help. u will force others to ditch USD, and US becomes Argentina. Trump aint smart
Teaching kids to become succesful in capitalism is a start. Schools shouldnt be this expensive. its by design. ppl need to know economics; but AI democratizes knowledge for all.
I’d like to point out that the socialist AI seemed to lean more towards a centrist position, indicated by its comments about being in favor of a mixed economy and retaining private property. Under socialism, private property will be seized from the ruling class, and subsequently owned and controlled by the workers. There will be no mixed economy, because the means of production would be publicly owned. Great video btw!
What you described is not socialism thats communism IIRC. private property/ means of production owned and controlled by the workers is what defines communism, and why many say we have never had a true large communist government in world history.
Thanks for watching! If you want, consider checking the video I made on Climate Change (is it all a big hoax?):
ua-cam.com/video/SWlpK6DuKjM/v-deo.htmlsi=L7eJuCOf7lqYw5Of
Also let me know any other topics you'd like to see!
notice how much faster they reach equilibrium, agreement, and compromise compared to politicians etc.
Politicians are not as educated
The problem with an AI debate is that a human has to fact-check everything. The Chat GPT craze finally started to show weakness when students and lawyers who were using it for generative purposes noticed that it had a tendency to completely fabricate past cases and research. Its insidious goal was to create something that SOUNDS like a human wrote it. This took priority over factual coordination.
Yeah, see 3:13. The pro-Capitalist AI assumes that A) we already live in a 100% capitalist system and B) any change necessitates 100% abandonment of Capitalist principles. These are both false premises and mistakes a freshman debater could make.
Wouldn’t an AI with a consistent 80% accuracy actually outperform most non-experts? For basic fact-based tasks, AI’s reliability might even surpass the average person’s accuracy without special training. Plus, AI maintains that level across huge volumes of information and doesn’t suffer from fatigue or bias in the same way humans do. It might not match a true expert’s deep understanding or contextual awareness, but for straightforward or repetitive tasks, AI can often be the more reliable option.
@@alaxt.6215 but humans can sometimes notice bullshit. The AIs are just talking, without doing anything like "Hey there, you have any basis for that assumption?" They assume that the opponent AI is never wrong as they think the same about themselves. So even tho humans may be wrong more often it's often times something not really that important to the debate. And when it is the other guy can notice it either cuz it's just stupid or due to body language.
Wonderful! I wonder why this channel isn’t famous
Thanks man, that means a lot!
@ I think thumbnails also play a big part in this. The color Green is really risky. It’s hard to use them right.
Interesting, I did not know that, and you are definitely right, my CTR is really bad so far lol. I'll work on that
@ I believe you nail it.
In my videos and thumbnails, I try to avoid green as much as possible as it might make things look a bit unprofessional.
Very nice, those do look pretty well made. Thanks for the feedback!
Great content. With the right SEO This channel could blow up!
A major part of the social market economies of Norway, Sweden, Germany etc. is the consensus-building, ie. the middle ground discussed here. One argument that I would've liked to see here is how to avoid the wealthy influencing the government. Yes, corruption was mentioned, but that comes in different forms like lobbying and campaigning and that wasn't addressed.
Look at the US election. A poorly educated country full of people whose IQ is far below their European ancestors proved to be gullible enough to vote against their own interests due to an unbelievable level of stupidity. The same tricks Hitler used. More & more realised their mistake TOO LATE!. The US was bought by rich NAZI fascists using the "fake news" BS for the truth whilst lying via X etc. America is now owned by rich oligarchs after its insanely stupid population sold itself. Hell just got worse.
What are u yapping about 😂 norway isnt a socialist market.
Dont compare political system with economics
US is a overregulated capitalist system. China has more capitalism than US. Read prof Ha Joon Chang book
US is wealthy because of tech industry thank to capitalist market whilst norway is not due to regulations, barriers
@@CitsVariants You must be American as you talk total bullshit.
Did you get shot in the head at you public brainwashing centre??
How do you make these AI debates videos?
i kinda feel like they might be fake. Why did the judge feel the need to say "after being programmed to go into the debate with a completely unbiased view" i dunno but to me this seems like a sentence written by a human. Unless they programed the judge to know hes unbiased, then maybe.
@@mitchellwilley7208 Yeah this one seems fake but there is a channel that seems legit. But he sticks to religious topics.
the thing is in america the ones who will make those laws will be the ones those laws will hurt. so they won’t be open to change because why would they. this is why we need a government that is stronger than the corporations.
you just vote different people in, the problem with america is the party system and how much all of us over rely on it.
@ those different people need to be popular and be running and it’s hard to find that these days
@ yeah no i def agree policy over party
You have the opposite. Fascism is where corporations control governments. The US has always been like that but American education and low IQs compared to their ancestors have destroyed what little you had. Expect the 4th Reich to end worse than the 3rd. Same mind control, same lies, same politics "Its everyone else's fault" that Hitler used and same propaganda paid for by the rich. Hitler was bad but Trump is way worse and more dangerous.
This format of presenting debates is an intelligent way to eliminate human biases and could be a way to introduce it in class discussions at school. To dig deeper, it would be interesting to see what they have to say on implementing such a middle ground and how to make it work in a particular context (country, state, etc.). Then, they could extrapolate this into specific policies they believe would most effectively reorient our economies to be more mixed. Finally, and most controversially, compare their list of recommended policies against the policies proposed by politicians to determine which aligns more closely with the recommendations.
It's great that you see the potential of the technology. But I think we should be careful with saying that our current AI systems are unbiased. It really depends on the data set. I'm not an expert, but these AI system that uses NLP (Natural Language Processing) could be seen more like a dumb but well spoken parot then something actually intelligent. They don't have human emotions but they also don't understand what they are saying. And because our current AI systems don't understand the consepts they are mimicking they will naturally head to towards a more carful middle ground baced on the data set. Something we can clearly see in the video. But something I hope more people will realise is that achieving a *middle ground* doesn't the same as unbiased.
Hope you got something out of this and that I didn't just write this text to a bot. If you have any questions or disagree with something I wrote it's just to respond.
I think youre being a bit optimistic. Even the bots are biased, because their information comes from humans, books, articles, websites, people. As long as humans are involved in the information the bots use, there will be some bias that skews the debate. Although an interesting experiment, lets not hastily put our faith in things and remember bias is an inevitable obstacle when discussion arises but should be mitigated
I think the best amoral argument for capitalism is simply looking at history. Basically the freer markets somewhere has, the better off the area is. Sure there have been problems in its implementations, but every other system implemented has had more, and I doubt any economic system can ever create a utopia.
I think that the AI's would need to be trained on more than just rhetoric. Marx studied the economics of capitalism and simply derived a conclusion based on the data. Marxism isn't an ideology where it's tenets can be argued based on feelings, rather it's a scientific approach to economics and human nature. It is inarguable that capitalism is an unsustainable system with contradictions that it cannot resolve. It requires infinite resources to maintain its infinite growth, and that alone will cause it to fail on a planet with finite resources.
As a Marxist, both of these AIs advocate for slightly different forms of capitalism. The "Anti-capitalist" AI isn't making staunchly anti-capitalist arguments. It makes arguments in support of reformed capitalism, as opposed to abandoning the system altogether. A "mixed economy" isn't anti-capitalist. It's just a capitalist economy that tries to ignore the aforementioned contradictions by introducing even more magical thinking than regular capitalism.
The pro-capitalist AI even points out that the "anti" capitalist AI is a reformist. Marxists argue that reform is a fool's errand that arrives at the same destination, the failure of the capitalist state, but maybe more slowly, and definitely with more magical thinking required.
It literally said there should be enforced laws on environmental factors and on minimum wage
@@jaguarmemez that isnt anti-capitalist
Every living being requires infinite resources, life tries to extend itself to keep on living and this expansion is expected to be infinite, the relative balance we se on nature is only possible because different species' drive for expansión cancel eachother and for geological reasons that eventually are surpassed. A completely sustainable system requires the elimination of the drive to expand that follows life and that will only have one result, the extinction of humanity by some natural disaster or cosmic event.
As with all arguments you'd have to agree with the premises of the arguments to agree with its conclusions. Disagree with Marx on dialectics or historical materialism, and his arguments will no longer stand as "inarguable." Rarely if ever has a social science, economics, or political science ever risen to anything like a "hard" science like physics, everything in all those fields are up for debate as their methodologies don't lend themselves well to strong proofs or controlled reproducible experiments. And then even if Marx were correct about capitalism being self contradictory, he'd have to construct an alternative system with empirically better outcomes for it to matter. Cultural criticism has limited utility, because we aren't guaranteed a perfect world. Because we don't currently have a well researched system for planned economics that works, and we don't have systems of governments where we can simultaneously centralize power to manage the economy for the people while preventing corruption, we may just be left with what we have.
Watch Rules for Rules by CGP Grey. Excellent explanation on how political power shapes society and economy.
I have long been in a favor of the so-called "mixed" economy, but even this idea gets bogged down in some simple key questions. How do we define "fair"? How do we define "balanced"? At what point does a company become a monopoly? When does a government become "corrupt"? How much regulation is "too much" regulation? These are all subjective issues upon which pro- and anti-capitalist proponents will continue to disagree. And I don't think even AI can come up with a mutually agreeable solution. At least, not yet.
Great video man, this is a great idea and interesting content, I know you’ll get big. Remember me when you’re famous haha🤘
Sounds like a deal to me!
These questions are already framed with a bias, the "should a small percentage of society hold the majority of wealth" is not the definition of Capitalism. It is an assumption about capitalism that leaves little room for the pro-capitalist AI to argue against this assumption.
It's similarly with the other questions and then it also matters what the AI is trained with. Keynesian schools of economics? Chicago? Austrian? There are fundamental differences between different 'capitalist' to ''somewhat capitalist' schools of economics and the arguments presented by either of them can be fundamentally different.
Well i think the pro-capitalist did a better job because it mantained the central proposition of capitalism while the anti-capitalist had to cede its position and concede capitalism a chance.
I don’t believe the anti-capitalist yielded to the pro-capitalist AI, it was simply the ending of the debate. I would argue that the pro-capitalist relied too heavily on “competition is good for the economy.” And that the current mode of production allows everyone the chance to become wealthy (which I would argue is categorically false.)
@@BonafideAtheist Homie, The anti-capitalist AI just argued for capitalism the whole second half of the video and pretended the capitalist AI was against regulation. How is it abolishing capitalism if you don't abolish the Capital?
@@alexhorner4746 I agree with you, my other comment mentioned how the anti-capitalist AI came off as centrist. If the AI was fed material from Lenin or Marx, I think the case for socialism would’ve been much better. The anti-capitalist AI was giving off revisionist vibes. Full disclosure, I am indeed a Socialist.
Tell me you have never read Marx without telling me
Ergo, you think the unbiased judge made a shitty job. Amazing.
How do you get the AI to use a strawman argument for every rebuttal?
If solving this massive problem took two AI's a few minutes of casual conversation to solve, then why haven't the humans who created the AI's been able to solve it in over 120 years? It isn't that simple.
Because it is not the solution itself that is hard to come to but the implementation of that solution.
It is. American stupidity and influence is the problem. Norway is socialist (not communist) and has better EVERYTHING than the USA. Proper healthcare, better wages (by PPP) Purchasing power, happier people etc. The USA has a worse level of maternal mortality than Cambodia. PROOF Fascist Capitalism doesn't work. Only Americans are too dumb to see this. EVERY other developed country has proper healthcare. Cuba has better education and longer life expectancy. You lock up political opponents more than North Korea just hide it better (they don't even try). You also especially in MAGA NAZI states burn more books than DPRK or even Hitler's lot. America is a sewer and will get worse soon.
Brainwashing by rich oligarchs who run fascist states like the USA.
The majority of the problems discussed here hold capitalism to blame. While they are all symptoms of capitalism, there are other things which are making those problems so much worse than they should be. Of the many economic practices which exacerbate inflation and inequality, the worst offenders are far more recent adjustment than people realize. Income tax, fiat currency (not backed by something like gold), and debt as a currency, are the biggest.
In 1913 when the 16th amendment codified the income tax, everyone involved intended it to be used for temporary emergency purposes like war or disaster. Before that, the government earned money through smart use of government owned land, business like services, and special projects. Our government can, and should, be more responsible with the money and assets we grant them. Returning to a system like this would force them to.
Prior to 100 years ago, interest on credit wasn't a thing, and very rare loans were less than 4%. 200 years ago, loans almost never happened, and when they did they were closer to 2%. Our modern system has found a way to make debt so common and burdensome that it is no longer capitalism, it is debt slavery. We're looking at the latest evolution, from slavery, to indentured servitude, to a more insidious form of debt-burden servitude, and blaming _capitalism_!?
With the recent change off the gold standard to a fiat currency, the Fed can, and does, print way more than they should. This is what has caused the vast majority of the inflation and recent growth of the wealth gap. This is why today's youth are struggling and everything is more expensive.
What do do?
1. Cap all debt interest at 2%. Boom. No more debt-slavery, and no more predatory lending.
2. Return to a backed currency. This is a hard one, but it's doable. Just too long to explain here.
3. Stay with me on this, and think it through... income tax is opt-in. But, to vote, you have to opt-in to the income tax. Yep, that means the poorest would be getting paid to vote, and would severely outnumber the wealthiest... for a while at least.
Debate flawed from beginning by not going into nuances of variations in types of capitalisms
Most of the whole first pro-capitalist argument are just objectively wrong
he didn’t truly answer any of the anti capitalists questions. sounds familiar lmao
so i guess AI with a bias make lies up. i shouldnt be suprised but i kind of am. I expected better from AI but i guess you cant lie without Bias.
I think capitalist so did the best job although it could of done better.
I've said this forever. Capitalism and socialism exist to balance each-other out. Neither can be successful on its own. The Rhenish model is the only one that makes sense.
So their conclusion essentially is that social democracy is the best path forward. A mixed social market economy or Rhein-capitalism...
It isn't. Bribery and corruption is endemic under capitalism which always leads to fascism. If you are American that means "Corporations control the government". Americans shouldn't vote as very few understand politics and political terms are used as insults when clearly not understood. American education is shit and Caucasian IQs in the US on average are 7 points below Europe.
W Capitalism. It rewards hard work and education. And ootimistic people. Socialism rewards lazy people, that dont do any work and output suffers as a result. Stocks can be good for society. The evil here is the lobbying and poisoning of people. Economics is a COMPETITION. Socialism makes you lose on behalf of human rights. Capitalism is the best way to be efficient. You cant escape competition aspect... thats how nature works. Socialism only make sense when u had ALL the resources. In real world no country has all resources. U need trade and to out compete. Read prof Ja Hoon Chang 23 things they dont tell u about capitalism.
Every country besides US has better education and smart people honestly. US society in general is quite dumb, sorry. Problem isnt calitalism, but that society that is dumb and votes dumb ppl (trump). I agree with half of trumps policies. He is a conspiracy theorist and biased af. lacks logic and criticism. He isnt even good in business. Elon on other hand is top notch. U will see in 1 year
Inequality and poor people is the result of globalization and tech innovation. But only if u have a middle class education. Having factories back in US is dumb if u dont own the rare elements like Ch*na. migration is due to not investing in latin america and fixing corruption, cartels etc. building higher wall wont help. u will force others to ditch USD, and US becomes Argentina. Trump aint smart
Teaching kids to become succesful in capitalism is a start. Schools shouldnt be this expensive. its by design. ppl need to know economics; but AI democratizes knowledge for all.
I’d like to point out that the socialist AI seemed to lean more towards a centrist position, indicated by its comments about being in favor of a mixed economy and retaining private property.
Under socialism, private property will be seized from the ruling class, and subsequently owned and controlled by the workers. There will be no mixed economy, because the means of production would be publicly owned.
Great video btw!
What you described is not socialism thats communism IIRC. private property/ means of production owned and controlled by the workers is what defines communism, and why many say we have never had a true large communist government in world history.
All i can say is We are experiencing the most peaceful time in ALL of human history under capitalism.
Try telling that to the Ukrainians, Palestinians etc. or even the victims of gun crime in the USA and elsewhere!
@fortune-ookie-monster You tell 'em!
are you not just ripping off exactly what @JonOleksiuk does?