32:35 to 35:35 was a great conversation about how an increase in taxes would make business circumvent that tax through investing in their businesses and not count that as profit, as opposed to tax cuts, which businesses would keep the profit and not necessarily increase their supply of goods or services via employment as only an increase in demand would prompt businesses to start doing that.
...his argument is specious. He's correct that higher tax rates coupled together with deductions often compel companies and individuals to make purchases or investments to avoid the taxes, but the incentive to avoid an expense is not the same as an incentive to buy or invest. The motives are different and often for opposite reasons. The deductions themselves promote the use of money that the company or individual might not have otherwise wanted to spend, or compels them to spend their earnings on things that are of low or no priority. The tax/deduction scheme promotes wasteful spending, excessive spending, or investments that are not wanted or not well understood.
Wow. Great interview. I've never heard David articulate his ideas and worldview in an hour long segment like this. The way he challenges even Michele's assumptions about questions she's asking, followed by the detailed explanation of issues ranging from socialism and taxation to healthcare is really incomparable. I feel like we barely scratched the surface with this interview and actually there's so much more to unpack. David is one of the few calm, collected and eloquent gems of the political left in America, and I wish he had more opportunities to explain ideas like this in a similar format. If more people saw how sensible and objective David is sincerely trying to be, far more people would be convinced of the left in general. Would be good to see a self identifying socialist or communist on too!
This is a great channel you deserve many many more subscribers. Your interviewing is superb, you actually listen rather than just impatiently wait for the interviewee to stop talking.
David Pakman is a very dishonest actor, who shadowbans everybody calling out his dishonesty on his channel. Try it, take down his lies, and have a friend check the commentsection. It is gone. You invited a bad faith actor who does not allow discourse.
@Daisy Unchained Yes, I know alot of you leftist false report conservative opinions as hatespeech, racism, etc. But that is not the issue here, I have been in contact and checked my site for strikes, so that is not the issue. And just a headsup for you, if you continue falsereporting people, you get strikes back when people complain and it gets sorted out. There is a new day now, as the algorithmchange has shown, there are congressional hearings. You are no longer protected. False accusations do not fly anymore. You or they must take responsibility for it, and now they have stopped doing it, so it falls on you.
@Daisy Unchained You were the one telling me about your falsereporting. Wanna play the "I said it, but I did not say it" thing? Wanna pretend like you do not stretch racism and hate to delete comments from conservatives? And you even break the TOC in your statement, there is not rule against conspiracytheories, so you flag those without grounds.
@Daisy Unchained Thank you for showing how you get discussions stopped instead of arguing them, people need to see the mindset. Want videos challenging the climatetheology removed. How sick, you are a fascist. And stop using the manufactured word climatedenier, it is sick to hijack the holocaustdenierword like this. And who knows what you mean by alt-right. it is a vague term that you box as many conservatives in to justify your censorship. We need governmental control over this platform now, leftists making up new tedrms, rules, and stretch the rules to insanity, to censor is a crime against humanity and democracy.
I 100% agree with David's view of "I don't care if you hate me or my views, as long as you correctly understand me as you hate me or my views" I have always felt that way in life. I truly don't care what people's opinion of me is, IF they truly understood me. I HATE being misunderstood or misinterpreted, and having people love or hate me for the entirely wrong reasons
Thank you for having David on and actually giving him all the time he needed to speak. I going to have to watch more of you now if your interviews are all like this. :)
David has stumbled upon the problem of our generation; this new schism in politics is so profound that the depopulated wastelands of nuance and neutrality are not interesting to anyone, and business models appealing to both sides fundamentally appeal to no one. Political bias is, therefore, the only economically viable way forward, and this system of 'profit before principles' will only deepen the schism, and perpetuate this era of extreme politics. Another brilliant conversation, thank you.
Love the Healthcare and Free Market discussion during the last 3rd of thee conversation. Can we just stop asking pundits to define words. We have these cool thing called a dictionary, it has definitions in it. Our society would function much better if we knew how to look words up and not just make up what we "feel" words mean: SOCIALISM: www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism SOCIAL DEMOCRACY: www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/social%20democracy Yes, there are differences across different dictionary's are updates have been made. But, the definition of socialism has been the same for a long time.
Well, most of the times during these kinds of interviews, asking about definitions is a great idea to know what the person _really_ means by a certain word or concept, and or if he/she actually knows what he's/she's talking about.
@@DiegoMonroyF Correct. It would be nice if most of the time a dictionary was used. And if a dictionary doesn't provide the definition they want, then reference a peer reviewed article to establish the definition. I'm not even saying that DPs definition was that far off. But this show has far to much integrity to let it slip into the same downward spiral as most media. People are very polarized about Capitalism v Socialism. Correct use of the terms would really help to mitigate that. When I see people arguing the Fire Departments and FEMA are socialism on national news media it makes me wonder if they ever passed ECO101 as an undergrad!
I disagree. I like hearing what their definition is of the words. For your example of socialism, I hear things in the media and out in the world that make me think a lot of people don’t know what the definition is. And if they do, the parts of socialism they want are different. In a few cases, I am not sure what a term means because I have only gotten the definition in how people have used it and have never looked it up. Getting a clear understanding of a term or the person’s use of it is valuable to me. I see this complaint every video I have watched so far and I have only watched a few. I want to make sure that this opinion is not the only one.
Two quick points about taxes that Mr. Pakman treats with superficial arguments. First, taxation is only necessary when the citizens of a country neither understand the nature of nor the purpose for government. In a free market economy every participant must produce something of value and present it in exchange for values produced and offered by other participants. When a trade occurs, both parties gain a value that they didn't have before. It is an exchange of values to mutual benefit, between consenting participants. Government has a singular and vital role in this type of economy: the protection of individual rights, particularly property rights. Taxation as a general means of raising revenue to pay for the institutions needed to serve that role are not only unnecessary, they would require the violation of the very rights the government was created to protect. The alternative to taxation is simple, yet most people reject it specifically because no trustworthy government has ever existed...just like no truly free market economy has ever existed. In the history of mankind there has never existed a government whose nature and role did not necessitate the violation of one or all Human Rights. From this understanding it is no wonder - to me, at least - that people reject voluntary funding methods. The second point is about higher taxes producing the incentive to avoid them, thus spurring economic activity. This is a specious argument and ignores the wasteful consumption and mal-investment this kind of tax policy creates. The incentive to avoid an expense is not the same as the incentive to buy or invest. The motives are different for both and the results are typically polar opposites.
Explain how taxation is only necessary if citizens are ignorant of the parameters of government. That literally doesn’t make any sense. Government needs revenue to function no matter how free market of any economy there is. Great, you explained how capitalism works, doesn’t really support your argument at all. Number one, your claim that the only role of government is to protect individual rights is just wrong. It also is, or should be, to regulate businesses so they don’t exploit workers or make decisions that are detrimental to the environment, to negotiate foreign policy, or to, at least in my view, provide basic fundamental programs such as roads, public schools, social security, etc. Number two, what rights would taxation be violating? Unless it’s in the constitution, or whatever set of rules a particular country abides by, as I understand we’re speaking broadly here, that the government is not allowed to tax anyone, then no rights are being violated. I want to indulge in your logic for a second. So you say that free markets are two parties exchanging goods or services of value in exchange for something else or value. By that same logic, shouldn’t a government be compensated for the rights they are giving you? You can’t expect to be given all these inalienable rights and not give anything in return, correct? If you’re living in a country that is uplifting its citizens, it needs that revenue to enforce the laws that do protect your rights, such as police and the judicial system. Voluntary funding would not work for a couple reasons I can think of. One, there’s no guarantee that people will give sufficient money to the government. Even if there is enough donations in one year, budgetary necessities will vary over time, so there’s no possible way the government would be able to make ends meet with voluntary funding alone. The second reason is that if voluntary funding somehow becomes incentivized, which it really couldn’t be in a total free market, that would be asking for government corruption. It would be mostly the upper class donating, meaning the government would then be in the pockets of wealthy elites, which would in turn create an oligarchy. Which btw, we arguably already have in the US.
Lastly, your point about higher tax incentives is entirely speculative. If there is incentive to avoid higher taxes, a business is not going to simply spend all its money to avoid paying taxes, that’s preposterous. If there are products a business can invest in, then they will most likely do that either way, the tax rates just gives a business extra incentive to do so. If they don’t require investments than they’ll just pay the higher tax rate and it’s not the end of the world. I think any sensible business owner would understand that, and I don’t think any data actually supports any of your claims.
he should learn some economics .... needs are infinite ... resources are scarce, Says law .. u have to produce first... and so on ... truly economically illiterate
@Reflex yes they are ... everybody likes to have a house by the beach.. most ppl will go to the doctor for smaller and smaller things if its free .. f.e. i want to ask million questions a good doctor ...how many ppl can have lamborgini.. why not two ...why not jay leno collections ..what about an apartment in any city i go.. doctors dont grow on a tree ..there is limited amount of them... thats why surgery or adv treatment are expensive.. everybody need something but there are limited ppl that can provide it
@Reflex u may not need a doctor but may be a better car.. new house.. somebody have to build it first ... doctors have to study years first.. can not have unlimited doctors .. but the need is bigger ..thats partially why its expensive
“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.” ― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty It's not about pretending to believe something that you don't, it's about giving real platform to the best proponents of the opposing views that you can find. Real informed neutrality is hard to come by, but opposing biases are abundant (and unfortunately necessary). The biggest offender takes the form of the pundit - or even worse: the educator, who erects a straw man of the opposition and then proceeds to refute it before the audience. The performer (perhaps unwittingly) spreads disinformation and plants deeply rooted prejudice and biases against those who hold the opposing position, as the audience is left to believe that their opponents must be ignorant, stupid, or evil. Probably a combination of all three!
I believe that may be the way the camera is angled playing tricks on your eyes. The chairs look perfectly identical to me. Also I believe David Pakman isn't particularly tall.
JOSEPH STALIN - The Social-Democratic View of the National Question - 1904 (aged 26) "Social democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism.... These organisations ( ie Fascism and social democracy ) are not antipodes, they are twins"
Get Alex Epstein to debate a panel of scientists instead if you're really interested in getting closer to the truth. A scientist working on climate from Russia, Japan, America, Korea, Germany, UK, Sweden, and India. Alex vs 8 scientists. They will present their facts, data, and statistics and he can rebut with free-market and boot-strapperism.
Good interview. Pakman is dishonest in some areas... or I should say I disagree with how he views reality. His climate change debate is flawed and rooted in his bias as an example. His socialist ideals are not rooted in reality or facts, yet he asserts his deep connection with reality? In his argument for tax rates, it's bogus. He needs to talk to people in business to tell him. For example, if the company does not need a new equipment, they will be forced to sell their used equipment at a lose to buy and finance a new piece... which the did not need. Everything he says has some merit, but it's shrouded in his idea that socialism has benefits, it doesn't.
“What are some critiques of obamacare?” David: heres something trump did to change obamacare that i think is bad and also here’s something the republicans wanted to do instead of obamacare that i think is bad. He answers the questions he hears and not the ones asked, he did this so many times. Its slick and rehearsed but comes across as slimy and deceptive to me
This is just untrue. He directly talks about Obamacare and its history extensively. Instead of mindlessly believing this idiot lying in the comments, fact-check it yourself: 45:02
@@TheCraigrobson at 46:20 he directly brings up criticisms and whats wrong with those criticisms. At 47:06 he even says that the criticisms about the financial viability aspects of Obamacare aren't unfair.
TheCraigrobson His criticism of Obamacare is that he isn’t really for private health insurance and is for some version of government run healthcare. He has done many videos on the topic
that's social safety nets. AOC and Bernies Sanders have no power b.c they are a very small minority among right wingers ( republicans) and right leaning people ( democrats)
@@asitisrequiredasitisrequir3411 I think you are splitting hairs. Social democracy is a blood relative of socialism. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism However you wish to define it, the point is that a really scary portion of American politics is about the welfare state, redistribution of wealth, class-warfare and things like that. And any educated person should know that these lead to poverty, misery, injustice, violence, starvation and death. Lots of them.
@@txdmsk Not really. It's a move to the left and closer to Socialism. However, most countries do not enter Socialism from SocDem. Scandinavia and Europe have yet to even shift and have been Social Democracies for a long time even under the threat of Communism from the USSR. "However you wish to define it, the point is that a really scary portion of American politics is about the welfare state, redistribution of wealth, class-warfare and things like that. And any educated person should know that these lead to poverty, misery, injustice, violence, starvation and death. Lots of them." Completely made up. If that was the case then the countries that are Social Democracies would not have higher indexes of happiness, freedoms, and prosperity. Most of what you listed is fear mongering from some source of people trying to spread a false narrative. Not to mention it would make no logical sense that the Welfare States would lead to violence, starvation, etc... You'd have to clarify what variables and studies have been done to prove that.
My takeaway from this is and maybe this should be the title, "David explains basic political concepts to an open minded low information interviewer". Which isn't as much a critique on the interviewer as it is a compliment to the interviewee who shows politically savvy people how to educate others on political concepts that most people aren't able to decipher themselves, often because they are misled.
I'm from Denmark we have social democracy so we are a capitalist country. I would strongly advise you don't abandon capitalism. capitalism is flawed sure but it is also the engine to growth and wealth. in social democracy you can redistribute some of the wealth so that the gab that capitalism creates is reduced and people have their basic needs covered.
Ugh... Thought this guy was going to be an opportunity to lean a bit more left of center than I already do, but the video list on his channel is just ragebait, dunking and showboating. Very cool interview all the same. David seems really smart and maybe that's why he's posting inflammatory content (views/clicks/$$$), but I'm not looking for more political theater.
Sweetie, I love the fact that you had David on, but you seem a little bit uneducated on many on the issues. But nonetheless, it was a phenomenal ways to get David to explain his ideology in a long forum. B+
@Reflex It sounds condescending, and makes him look like an asshole. Makes him look as if he thinks, that just because her knowledge on some concrete specific topic is (maybe) less than his, then she's a lesser person than him. Now he might not have meant it this way when he wrote it, but people who read it did, so if that's the case, it's probably a poor choice of words. It's a good general practice to admit your weakness in a certain topic and ask more knowledgeable people for their input. It's also a good general practice to remember that most other people have some strong sides that you don't have and not be condescending to them about their "weak" sides. And lastly, in this specific case (an interview that random mix of people will watch, most of them "uneducated on many of the issues") it's better that the interviewee will be explaining things at a level that the audience can process. It would be stupid if the interviewer would "know everything already" and they'd just sit there for 2 minutes like "- social democracy is good - yeah I see where you're coming from with this"
Wow...this guy is a classic case of a little knowledge being dangerous. He's got a superficial view of economics and climate change, at least from what he stated here. Don't know where to start.... A very misguided individual.
The thing with Pakman is I tend to find myself agreeing with everything he says except he comes to the exact wrong conclusion after laying out his case.
@@rachelmcadamslover very fair comment, I probably would have written the same one if I didn't agree...just too exhausted to enumerate here...just not worth it..but hopefully you will see what i mean one day. thanks for the comment, good luck...
@@rachelmcadamslover well it's kind of hypocritical of him that he is constantly calling out trump for lying but he also seems to be throwing his hat behind Elizabeth Warren even though she lied about being native American for years. I could name other examples too but there are too many to even mention.
32:35 to 35:35 was a great conversation about how an increase in taxes would make business circumvent that tax through investing in their businesses and not count that as profit, as opposed to tax cuts, which businesses would keep the profit and not necessarily increase their supply of goods or services via employment as only an increase in demand would prompt businesses to start doing that.
...his argument is specious. He's correct that higher tax rates coupled together with deductions often compel companies and individuals to make purchases or investments to avoid the taxes, but the incentive to avoid an expense is not the same as an incentive to buy or invest. The motives are different and often for opposite reasons.
The deductions themselves promote the use of money that the company or individual might not have otherwise wanted to spend, or compels them to spend their earnings on things that are of low or no priority. The tax/deduction scheme promotes wasteful spending, excessive spending, or investments that are not wanted or not well understood.
Wow. Great interview. I've never heard David articulate his ideas and worldview in an hour long segment like this. The way he challenges even Michele's assumptions about questions she's asking, followed by the detailed explanation of issues ranging from socialism and taxation to healthcare is really incomparable. I feel like we barely scratched the surface with this interview and actually there's so much more to unpack. David is one of the few calm, collected and eloquent gems of the political left in America, and I wish he had more opportunities to explain ideas like this in a similar format. If more people saw how sensible and objective David is sincerely trying to be, far more people would be convinced of the left in general. Would be good to see a self identifying socialist or communist on too!
ua-cam.com/video/VIlI-Se-pk8/v-deo.html
This is a great channel you deserve many many more subscribers. Your interviewing is superb, you actually listen rather than just impatiently wait for the interviewee to stop talking.
Thank you so much Louise!
David Pakman is a very dishonest actor, who shadowbans everybody calling out his dishonesty on his channel. Try it, take down his lies, and have a friend check the commentsection. It is gone. You invited a bad faith actor who does not allow discourse.
@Daisy Unchained Yes, I know alot of you leftist false report conservative opinions as hatespeech, racism, etc. But that is not the issue here, I have been in contact and checked my site for strikes, so that is not the issue. And just a headsup for you, if you continue falsereporting people, you get strikes back when people complain and it gets sorted out. There is a new day now, as the algorithmchange has shown, there are congressional hearings. You are no longer protected. False accusations do not fly anymore. You or they must take responsibility for it, and now they have stopped doing it, so it falls on you.
@Daisy Unchained You were the one telling me about your falsereporting. Wanna play the "I said it, but I did not say it" thing? Wanna pretend like you do not stretch racism and hate to delete comments from conservatives? And you even break the TOC in your statement, there is not rule against conspiracytheories, so you flag those without grounds.
@Daisy Unchained Thank you for showing how you get discussions stopped instead of arguing them, people need to see the mindset. Want videos challenging the climatetheology removed. How sick, you are a fascist. And stop using the manufactured word climatedenier, it is sick to hijack the holocaustdenierword like this. And who knows what you mean by alt-right. it is a vague term that you box as many conservatives in to justify your censorship. We need governmental control over this platform now, leftists making up new tedrms, rules, and stretch the rules to insanity, to censor is a crime against humanity and democracy.
I 100% agree with David's view of "I don't care if you hate me or my views, as long as you correctly understand me as you hate me or my views" I have always felt that way in life. I truly don't care what people's opinion of me is, IF they truly understood me. I HATE being misunderstood or misinterpreted, and having people love or hate me for the entirely wrong reasons
Thank you for having David on and actually giving him all the time he needed to speak. I going to have to watch more of you now if your interviews are all like this. :)
Good interview with Pakman. Get Kyle Kulinski on the show!
We'll see what we can do!
@@exploringminds_ +1 for Kulinski
Exploring Minds with Michele Carroll Kyle would come on! I also recommend you inviting Michael Brooks and Ben Burgis!
@@henryjonesjr.3245 Michael Brooks is my favorite, he doesn't know how to make a short point.
Kyle would be fun, but if you get sick of the political stuff having Dr. Lindsey Doe from the Sexplanations UA-cam channel would be amazing :)
David has stumbled upon the problem of our generation; this new schism in politics is so profound that the depopulated wastelands of nuance and neutrality are not interesting to anyone, and business models appealing to both sides fundamentally appeal to no one. Political bias is, therefore, the only economically viable way forward, and this system of 'profit before principles' will only deepen the schism, and perpetuate this era of extreme politics. Another brilliant conversation, thank you.
Thx for an interesting and informative interview.
Just found this channel, love these kind of discussions.
We're happy to have you!
Awesome 💃🏻
Love the Healthcare and Free Market discussion during the last 3rd of thee conversation.
Can we just stop asking pundits to define words. We have these cool thing called a dictionary, it has definitions in it. Our society would function much better if we knew how to look words up and not just make up what we "feel" words mean:
SOCIALISM: www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
SOCIAL DEMOCRACY: www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/social%20democracy
Yes, there are differences across different dictionary's are updates have been made. But, the definition of socialism has been the same for a long time.
Well, most of the times during these kinds of interviews, asking about definitions is a great idea to know what the person _really_ means by a certain word or concept, and or if he/she actually knows what he's/she's talking about.
@@DiegoMonroyF Correct. It would be nice if most of the time a dictionary was used. And if a dictionary doesn't provide the definition they want, then reference a peer reviewed article to establish the definition.
I'm not even saying that DPs definition was that far off. But this show has far to much integrity to let it slip into the same downward spiral as most media. People are very polarized about Capitalism v Socialism. Correct use of the terms would really help to mitigate that.
When I see people arguing the Fire Departments and FEMA are socialism on national news media it makes me wonder if they ever passed ECO101 as an undergrad!
I disagree. I like hearing what their definition is of the words. For your example of socialism, I hear things in the media and out in the world that make me think a lot of people don’t know what the definition is. And if they do, the parts of socialism they want are different. In a few cases, I am not sure what a term means because I have only gotten the definition in how people have used it and have never looked it up. Getting a clear understanding of a term or the person’s use of it is valuable to me. I see this complaint every video I have watched so far and I have only watched a few. I want to make sure that this opinion is not the only one.
Two quick points about taxes that Mr. Pakman treats with superficial arguments.
First, taxation is only necessary when the citizens of a country neither understand the nature of nor the purpose for government.
In a free market economy every participant must produce something of value and present it in exchange for values produced and offered by other participants. When a trade occurs, both parties gain a value that they didn't have before. It is an exchange of values to mutual benefit, between consenting participants. Government has a singular and vital role in this type of economy: the protection of individual rights, particularly property rights. Taxation as a general means of raising revenue to pay for the institutions needed to serve that role are not only unnecessary, they would require the violation of the very rights the government was created to protect.
The alternative to taxation is simple, yet most people reject it specifically because no trustworthy government has ever existed...just like no truly free market economy has ever existed. In the history of mankind there has never existed a government whose nature and role did not necessitate the violation of one or all Human Rights. From this understanding it is no wonder - to me, at least - that people reject voluntary funding methods.
The second point is about higher taxes producing the incentive to avoid them, thus spurring economic activity. This is a specious argument and ignores the wasteful consumption and mal-investment this kind of tax policy creates. The incentive to avoid an expense is not the same as the incentive to buy or invest. The motives are different for both and the results are typically polar opposites.
Explain how taxation is only necessary if citizens are ignorant of the parameters of government. That literally doesn’t make any sense. Government needs revenue to function no matter how free market of any economy there is.
Great, you explained how capitalism works, doesn’t really support your argument at all. Number one, your claim that the only role of government is to protect individual rights is just wrong. It also is, or should be, to regulate businesses so they don’t exploit workers or make decisions that are detrimental to the environment, to negotiate foreign policy, or to, at least in my view, provide basic fundamental programs such as roads, public schools, social security, etc. Number two, what rights would taxation be violating? Unless it’s in the constitution, or whatever set of rules a particular country abides by, as I understand we’re speaking broadly here, that the government is not allowed to tax anyone, then no rights are being violated.
I want to indulge in your logic for a second. So you say that free markets are two parties exchanging goods or services of value in exchange for something else or value. By that same logic, shouldn’t a government be compensated for the rights they are giving you? You can’t expect to be given all these inalienable rights and not give anything in return, correct? If you’re living in a country that is uplifting its citizens, it needs that revenue to enforce the laws that do protect your rights, such as police and the judicial system.
Voluntary funding would not work for a couple reasons I can think of. One, there’s no guarantee that people will give sufficient money to the government. Even if there is enough donations in one year, budgetary necessities will vary over time, so there’s no possible way the government would be able to make ends meet with voluntary funding alone. The second reason is that if voluntary funding somehow becomes incentivized, which it really couldn’t be in a total free market, that would be asking for government corruption. It would be mostly the upper class donating, meaning the government would then be in the pockets of wealthy elites, which would in turn create an oligarchy. Which btw, we arguably already have in the US.
Lastly, your point about higher tax incentives is entirely speculative. If there is incentive to avoid higher taxes, a business is not going to simply spend all its money to avoid paying taxes, that’s preposterous. If there are products a business can invest in, then they will most likely do that either way, the tax rates just gives a business extra incentive to do so. If they don’t require investments than they’ll just pay the higher tax rate and it’s not the end of the world. I think any sensible business owner would understand that, and I don’t think any data actually supports any of your claims.
he should learn some economics .... needs are infinite ... resources are scarce, Says law .. u have to produce first... and so on ... truly economically illiterate
nothing he says goes against economics
@Reflex yes they are ... everybody likes to have a house by the beach.. most ppl will go to the doctor for smaller and smaller things if its free .. f.e. i want to ask million questions a good doctor ...how many ppl can have lamborgini.. why not two ...why not jay leno collections ..what about an apartment in any city i go.. doctors dont grow on a tree ..there is limited amount of them... thats why surgery or adv treatment are expensive.. everybody need something but there are limited ppl that can provide it
@Reflex u may not need a doctor but may be a better car.. new house.. somebody have to build it first ... doctors have to study years first.. can not have unlimited doctors .. but the need is bigger ..thats partially why its expensive
This whole interview went over your head and im sorry about that
@@jasonealing2440 There is a thing called Says law
“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”
― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
It's not about pretending to believe something that you don't, it's about giving real platform to the best proponents of the opposing views that you can find. Real informed neutrality is hard to come by, but opposing biases are abundant (and unfortunately necessary). The biggest offender takes the form of the pundit - or even worse: the educator, who erects a straw man of the opposition and then proceeds to refute it before the audience. The performer (perhaps unwittingly) spreads disinformation and plants deeply rooted prejudice and biases against those who hold the opposing position, as the audience is left to believe that their opponents must be ignorant, stupid, or evil. Probably a combination of all three!
Why do shows most always make the host's chair higher than the guests chair(s)?
I believe that may be the way the camera is angled playing tricks on your eyes. The chairs look perfectly identical to me. Also I believe David Pakman isn't particularly tall.
Him and Kyle Kuliski Ying ang yang For Progressives
How 'bout an interview with economist Russell Roberts of Econtalk?
"Communism is when the state takes over" :facepalm:
JOSEPH STALIN - The Social-Democratic View of the National Question - 1904 (aged 26) "Social democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism.... These organisations ( ie Fascism and social democracy ) are not antipodes, they are twins"
Love to see him debate with Alex Epstein on climate since he seems to feels he has good grasp on it.
Get Alex Epstein to debate a panel of scientists instead if you're really interested in getting closer to the truth. A scientist working on climate from Russia, Japan, America, Korea, Germany, UK, Sweden, and India. Alex vs 8 scientists. They will present their facts, data, and statistics and he can rebut with free-market and boot-strapperism.
You guys should date
Good interview. Pakman is dishonest in some areas... or I should say I disagree with how he views reality. His climate change debate is flawed and rooted in his bias as an example.
His socialist ideals are not rooted in reality or facts, yet he asserts his deep connection with reality?
In his argument for tax rates, it's bogus. He needs to talk to people in business to tell him.
For example, if the company does not need a new equipment, they will be forced to sell their used equipment at a lose to buy and finance a new piece... which the did not need.
Everything he says has some merit, but it's shrouded in his idea that socialism has benefits, it doesn't.
“What are some critiques of obamacare?”
David: heres something trump did to change obamacare that i think is bad and also here’s something the republicans wanted to do instead of obamacare that i think is bad.
He answers the questions he hears and not the ones asked, he did this so many times.
Its slick and rehearsed but comes across as slimy and deceptive to me
This is just untrue. He directly talks about Obamacare and its history extensively. Instead of mindlessly believing this idiot lying in the comments, fact-check it yourself: 45:02
@@totlyepic which criticisms did he bring up?
@@TheCraigrobson at 46:20 he directly brings up criticisms and whats wrong with those criticisms. At 47:06 he even says that the criticisms about the financial viability aspects of Obamacare aren't unfair.
TheCraigrobson His criticism of Obamacare is that he isn’t really for private health insurance and is for some version of government run healthcare. He has done many videos on the topic
"No socialism in the US"
--> Obamacare? Minimal wage increase? AOC? Bernie Sanders? I could go on.
that's social safety nets.
AOC and Bernies Sanders have no power b.c they are a very small minority among right wingers ( republicans) and right leaning people ( democrats)
You didn't listem then. Socialism is Workers Owning Businesses, rather than stock markets, or, private ownership. AOC/Bernie is democratic socialism.
You posted cringe your gonna lose subscribers
@@asitisrequiredasitisrequir3411
I think you are splitting hairs.
Social democracy is a blood relative of socialism.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
However you wish to define it, the point is that a really scary portion of American politics is about the welfare state, redistribution of wealth, class-warfare and things like that.
And any educated person should know that these lead to poverty, misery, injustice, violence, starvation and death. Lots of them.
@@txdmsk Not really. It's a move to the left and closer to Socialism. However, most countries do not enter Socialism from SocDem. Scandinavia and Europe have yet to even shift and have been Social Democracies for a long time even under the threat of Communism from the USSR.
"However you wish to define it, the point is that a really scary portion of American politics is about the welfare state, redistribution of wealth, class-warfare and things like that. And any educated person should know that these lead to poverty, misery, injustice, violence, starvation and death. Lots of them."
Completely made up. If that was the case then the countries that are Social Democracies would not have higher indexes of happiness, freedoms, and prosperity. Most of what you listed is fear mongering from some source of people trying to spread a false narrative. Not to mention it would make no logical sense that the Welfare States would lead to violence, starvation, etc... You'd have to clarify what variables and studies have been done to prove that.
My takeaway from this is and maybe this should be the title, "David explains basic political concepts to an open minded low information interviewer". Which isn't as much a critique on the interviewer as it is a compliment to the interviewee who shows politically savvy people how to educate others on political concepts that most people aren't able to decipher themselves, often because they are misled.
I'm from Denmark we have social democracy so we are a capitalist country. I would strongly advise you don't abandon capitalism. capitalism is flawed sure but it is also the engine to growth and wealth. in social democracy you can redistribute some of the wealth so that the gab that capitalism creates is reduced and people have their basic needs covered.
Ugh... Thought this guy was going to be an opportunity to lean a bit more left of center than I already do, but the video list on his channel is just ragebait, dunking and showboating. Very cool interview all the same. David seems really smart and maybe that's why he's posting inflammatory content (views/clicks/$$$), but I'm not looking for more political theater.
Well done on this video!
Destiny got crushed in this debate
Bring Hasan Piker on.
Thank you!
This guy is ridiculous
David Pakman is the best! His intellect is spot on.
Sweetie, I love the fact that you had David on, but you seem a little bit uneducated on many on the issues. But nonetheless, it was a phenomenal ways to get David to explain his ideology in a long forum. B+
The interviewer does not need to know much, merely needs to get the interviewee to spill all the details of their beliefs and their ideology.
Yikes. People using "sweetie" unironically in 2019. Just yikes.
@Reflex It sounds condescending, and makes him look like an asshole. Makes him look as if he thinks, that just because her knowledge on some concrete specific topic is (maybe) less than his, then she's a lesser person than him.
Now he might not have meant it this way when he wrote it, but people who read it did, so if that's the case, it's probably a poor choice of words.
It's a good general practice to admit your weakness in a certain topic and ask more knowledgeable people for their input.
It's also a good general practice to remember that most other people have some strong sides that you don't have and not be condescending to them about their "weak" sides.
And lastly, in this specific case (an interview that random mix of people will watch, most of them "uneducated on many of the issues") it's better that the interviewee will be explaining things at a level that the audience can process. It would be stupid if the interviewer would "know everything already" and they'd just sit there for 2 minutes like "- social democracy is good - yeah I see where you're coming from with this"
David is super fkn smart!
Wow...this guy is a classic case of a little knowledge being dangerous. He's got a superficial view of economics and climate change, at least from what he stated here. Don't know where to start.... A very misguided individual.
you could start by providing a single piece of evidence.
The thing with Pakman is I tend to find myself agreeing with everything he says except he comes to the exact wrong conclusion after laying out his case.
@@romanduelin care to elaborate? one example?
@@rachelmcadamslover very fair comment, I probably would have written the same one if I didn't agree...just too exhausted to enumerate here...just not worth it..but hopefully you will see what i mean one day. thanks for the comment, good luck...
@@rachelmcadamslover well it's kind of hypocritical of him that he is constantly calling out trump for lying but he also seems to be throwing his hat behind Elizabeth Warren even though she lied about being native American for years. I could name other examples too but there are too many to even mention.