Kind: captions
Language: en
Let's now break down one of Mam Dani's
proposals to make housing more
affordable.
>> We'll have to go beyond the market. We
can establish community land trusts to
gradually buy up housing on the private
market and convert it to community
ownership.
>> Possibly go wrong.
>> We can give tenants a right of first
refusal to buy out their landlords when
buildings go up for sale. And we can
fully commit to a new era of social
housing, ending subsidies for luxury
housing development and using our wealth
to build beautiful, highquality social
housing projects. It's so easy to make
terrible ideas sound good. The problem
is it it really doesn't work out like
this because you think that people are
away other than they actually are and
you're giving them this incredibly
valuable thing. Some percentage of
people are going to be like, "Oh my god,
this is the first valuable thing I've
ever had. I'm going to protect this with
my life. It's going to be incredible."
But that isn't going to be the normal
response. They end up being crimeridden,
terrible. They never go well. So, I know
what people want to happen when you give
people something for free, but it isn't
what actually happens. And then they
also forget that people won't create
these things for free. And so, they
think, well, we're just going to go take
the money from the people that are
already winning and then we're just
going to give it to the people and it
doesn't work. Is there a way to make it
sustainable? Like, how? That's where I
think a lot of people are like, "No, we
have this money. If we just start from
here, we can set it to be sustainable so
we don't make the mistakes that happened
in the past." What am I missing that
that's not enough money to make it?
>> You're going to hate the answer. The
only reason that we have tax dollars in
the first place is entrepreneurship. I
want to let people sit with that for a
second. There is nothing else. People
think there's some other thing. There is
no other thing. The reason the
government has taxable revenue is
because of entrepreneurs. Full stop.
Period. End of story. An entrepreneur is
somebody that looks at the world and
sees problems and goes, I'm going to go
solve that problem in a way where I do
this incredible miracle. Even though I
have to pay people to help me to build
the thing, create the thing, provide the
service, whatever, I'm good enough at
problem solving that I can solve that
problem in a way where the output of the
system creates something more valuable
than the inputs, the people working, the
cost of the raw materials and all that.
that is so hard to do that a vanishingly
small number of humans are ever able to
do it well.
>> And society rides on the back of that,
not 90%, it rides on the back of that
100%. Now, you've got a whole system
that's predicated on a very simple idea
that people despise. And that very
simple idea is that you need a filter
for who is able to add more value with
their time than the next person. We call
that filter money. Nice things go to the
people that can afford it. These are the
people that are able to exchange their
time for more value than other people
because humans despise at a cellular
level inequality. They look at that and
they get mad that there are people that
are pulling ahead of them. I get it.
People are going to look at me and say,
"Well, yeah, but you're so rich." And
I'll say I'm way closer to a homeless
person than I am to Elon Musk in terms
of wealth. I'm never going to be Elon
Musk. I've had 50 years to to try and I
haven't been able to do it. I'm not mad
about that. I just go had I believed
that I couldn't get better when I was
younger, then I would still be the kid
scrging into couch cushions to find
change, to put gas in my car. But I
believed, oh, this is totally my
responsibility to get better. This is
about a value exchange. I have to be
able to create value with my time. Let
me go acquire a bunch of skills because
that's how you add more value for your
time. If that were the message that
people were pushing, I'd be like,
"Yeah." So, people should be saying,
"Oh, we broke the economy for reasons
I've explained ad nauseium. We have done
evil things to our economy that are
putting kids behind the eightball."
Unfortunately, that whole thing that I
just said about value and it acting as a
filter will never go away. You can look
at history to find that that just is
true. So the example that everybody
wants to use is China. China said, "I
don't want to keep starving my people to
death." Okay? Ma dies and people go
[ __ ] finally because this man was a
tyrant who said he was giving things for
free to people and all that, but what he
was actually doing was starving them to
death because he did not have a filter
for who is able to add more value with
their time. This is horrifying. We've
killed approximately 45 million people.
we want to immediately stop. How did
they immediately stop? By introducing
capitalism. I don't know how that's lost
on people. Now, when capitalism is
mutated, betrayed, whatever word you
want to use by oligarchs or regulatory
capture, that's terrible. The system
that we have right now is evil. But it
isn't evil because of capitalism. It's
evil because people don't understand
fiat money. Now once you actually
understand how the system works, you
stop being bamboozled by the headline to
bring it all back around. When you do
not have a filter for who can add value
with their time and you just start
giving things away to people for free,
>> you don't have a way to incentivize the
people to make the thing that you're
giving away for free. So it's already
trash. Then you don't have a way to say
who gets it and who doesn't. So you're
going to get a whole lot of lowest
common denominator. And so inevitably
you're going to get violence. You're
going to get people that use might
instead of intellect or trying to add
value and it just becomes total chaos.
You get the inner cities. And then if on
top of all that you have a corrupt
system which you will have by definition
when it's an authoritarian system
because what people do not understand is
even when you're going to give things
away for free. People will not agree on
what things to give away, how to build
the things to give away, who to give
them away, where they should be put.
They won't agree on any of that. So what
you realize very quickly is, oh, I have
to enforce compliance. And then to
enforce the compliance, you pull out a
gun. And then you realize, whoa, some
people won't back off until I kill a
few. And so then you start killing. And
this is exactly how you end up with a
dictatorship. And I think the perfect
analogy of a dictatorship is it is like
riding in a car without a seat belt.
Everything is fine when you're driving
smooth. When you get in an accident
though, and the accident is that
dictator breaks bad, everyone dies. We
just have examples of this over and over
and over and over and over and over and
over. The one thing I need people to
just recognize about human nature is you
will never get people to agree on what
free thing to give,
>> who's going to get it, where to place
it, who's going to build it, what
materials to make it out of. How are you
going to get them on the same page? You
will get them on the same page with the
threat of violence. That's why people
say capitalism is the worst system
except for all the other systems.
Capitalism says, "I know I can trust you
[ __ ] to be selfish and so go be
selfish and I'm going to put a couple
constraints because you will also go
evil if I let you. And so I'm going to
put borders on this so you can't go
evil, but I'm going to let you be
selfish." And when you let people be
selfish, you yank people out of poverty
so fast that you dislocate their
shoulder. It's wild.