Kind: captions
Language: en
Since 2008, the US has recklessly
quadrupled the money supply. And the
result is not just inflation. It's an
entire generation getting battered by
the financial system. Today's guest,
Hassan [ __ ] is one of the biggest
voices on the American left. He believes
capitalism has failed young people, that
greedy corporations and corrupt
politicians are strangling their
opportunities, and that government
intervention is the only way to fix it.
I see the root cause and thus the
solution set very differently and that's
exactly why I wanted this conversation.
In this episode, we go head-to-head on
the real mechanics behind wealth
inequality, why housing has become the
makeorb breakak asset for the middle
class, and whether socialism can
actually deliver positive change in the
messy reality of modern economics.
Without further ado, I bring you Hassan
[ __ ]
Why do you think so many young people
are turning towards socialism?
[Applause]
>> That's the first question you got for
gay, man.
>> Yeah. I mean, I think it's pretty
obvious is because capitalism is failing
them. It's it's failing everybody, not
you and me. It's not failing either of
us. We've done quite well for ourselves,
but uh it has been a spectacular failure
for the average person. And therefore,
people are understandably looking for
alternatives. young people in particular
uh especially those who are just coming
out of college or those just going into
college uh they look at the the
opportunities that they have or rather
they don't have and they realize that
the future is grim. So they look for an
alternative uh that that at the very
least chooses to identify the problem
and also solve it. uh material
inequalities, uh cost of living crisis,
not being able to ever own a home. These
are very real problems facing younger
generations and of course they look to
an alternative organization of the
economy as as one that is probably the
best way to go forward.
>> So I'm always trying to map things in
terms of where do I want to end up and
then what are the mechanistic steps that
can lead you there. So if you were to
say what is the way from uh the
mechanisms that capitalism has failed
people what are the features of the
machine that makes it a sort of by
nature flawed system
>> at its base at its core uh it is this uh
inherent contradiction right if you are
someone who's working uh someone who's a
wage laborer and I'm sure you've worked
uh a regular job in your in your past as
well most people want to work the least
amount of time for the most amount of
pay Right? And that doesn't mean like
they're greedy or anything. It's just
human nature. You want to work as little
as you possibly can and get paid as much
as you can for that job. Um, on the
other side, you have your your uh people
that own the businesses that want to
obviously pay you the least amount that
they can possibly pay you for the most
amount of time to get you to work. So,
these these two things when broken down,
Karl Marx says, is the inherent
contradiction of class. You have the
wage laborers on the one side and you
have the bosses on the other side or
those who work for your capital owners
on the other side. And that is the
reason why there is so much tremendous
wealth inequality at least according to
Carl Marx. Um I happen to agree with the
that I would get why. So you set that up
as uh one side wants to work as little
as possible, get paid as much as
possible. The other side wants to pay as
little as possible and get as much work
as possible. But that doesn't me explain
the inequality cuz I think you and I are
going to agree that wealth inequality is
at a level that is literally tragic and
I'll use the word dangerous.
>> Do you see an insufficiency in
explaining why we have inequality and we
need to push deeper or do you really
think that that mere human tendency for
those positions to be the way they are
explains wealth inequality? The very
fact that because the one side that
wants to make sure that you work the
most amount of hours for the least
amount of pay is the side that gets to
basically take home uh what we know as
profits, which is what Marsh describes
as the uh the the uh surplus labor, your
additional output, like what you do and
how much money you generate for the
company versus how much money the
company pays you back in return. um that
that creates a system of wealth
inequality that is normalized. It's
understandable. It's like we call it
profit. We're like this is my business.
I started it. I got lucky or I worked
really hard and I get to reap the
rewards of it. You don't. You're the
worker. It makes sense. A lot of people
buy into it. A lot of people like this
system. But I think over time that
system fundamentally creates this uh
this this inefficiency as a matter of
fact where um every industry wants to
inevitably monopolize. Every industry
wants horizontal and vertical expansion.
So they can be the the doineering force
in the market. Set prices and and uh
just like we see with Amazon for example
start engaging in the process of of uh
increasing the the uh prices that they
initially had set so low and that is how
they justified uh basically eating up so
many different competitors in the same
sector. And I think we're at that point.
This corporate consolidation that has
taken place has created a system where
there's only a couple companies. They
get to dictate prices through not price
fixing, which is illegal, but through
price leadership, right, which is very
legal. Someone does this and then
everybody else follows suit. That
becomes much easier with the corporate
consolidation that we're seeing. uh and
and that is precisely I think the reason
why the system is like collapsing right
now in a way that even someone like
yourself who in other circumstances I I
feel would be very defensive of these
structures is recognizing it. Um, I have
a couple friends who uh used to work for
a libertarian think tank called Reason
magazine and uh I remember having
conversations with them where they would
do these fundraisers and apparently the
rich people that funded the Reason uh
libertarian think tank would call
welfare riot tax. So they even
understood that there was a
>> there was a we pay to avoid riots. There
is a there's a level of like uh giving
back that people need to do in order to
make sure that people aren't so uh so
hungry that uh they recognize that
they're being starved.
>> Okay. So
>> that's falling apart is what I'm saying.
>> Yeah. Um it's interesting. So I have a
uh very different take on the
fundamental flaw in the system that's
creating the problem, but it's not
capitalism per se. It's banking. And so
when you start looking at so you
mentioned earlier yeah the thing is like
I really it'll be interesting to see it
play out in this conversation but I
really feel like uh anybody who's
looking at the mechanistic reasons why
we are where we are will just have a
hard time saying oh yeah yeah we we
agree on all of that and so it just then
becomes as we build out I think people
break into camp one of uh I'm going to
speak to the way that people feel and
I'm going to give them policy
prescriptions that are going to feel
right and then other people or maybe
I'll just put myself in it just to not
speak for other people. For myself, I'm
just like, what are the physics of the
economy and how do we make sure that we
get out of this? Uh you you say it's
called a riot tax. I'll say I don't want
my head separated from my body uh French
Revolution style. And that is absolutely
what ends up happening. And moderate
elites die first. And as a moderate
elite, I'm not super excited about that.
Uh, also as somebody who's spent more
time without money than I have with
money, it's still all very familiar to
me exactly what that feels like. So I
look at the setup and I trigger off of
something that you said earlier, which
is people can afford houses. And so my
whole philosophy is very simple. In
1913, the Federal Reserve system created
a situation where bailing out banks
became the goal. And so now you have a
financial system where they're trying to
socialize losses and privatize gains. So
basically bankers from the act in 1913
got put in a position where heads they
win and tails we all lose.
>> And the way that they pull that off as
money printing and so because they can
print money and money printing is a tax.
It's the easiest way to think about it
although I will often refer to it as
theft. But they can money print and
create a tax that hits everybody. And so
that way they can fund all the deficit
spending, all the wars that they want.
They can just fund fund fund. But
>> you have like a reverse MMT uh
opinion on this where you're like money
is fake. It's printed. That's how you
control um that's how the American
government controls the money supply,
which is understandable. Uh and then
taxing is just like taking uh the
existing money supply out of the uh out
of the circulation at the end of the
year, right?
>> Well, I would say this is modern
monetary theory. Like this is the goal.
So uh so if you're saying it's anti in
terms of I'm just staunchly against it,
it would get you close but not quite. So
I think every system has a trade-off.
Modern monetary theory allows for really
high velocity of money. Once you get
into high velocity of money, hey, like
when I say you need to look at the world
that you have and the system that you
have. So the modern monetary theory
gives us this world. It's a pretty great
world. It has problems and it's going
increasingly in the wrong direction. But
it has created some incredible stuff.
And so we have to figure out where
exactly it breaks and I think it breaks
where you said which is housing. Once
housing becomes unaffordable, the reason
you have a problem is housing is the
only asset that the average person
understands intuitively, the vast
majority of humans are never going to
map how the economy actually works. So
they just know, I want to live in a
house. I want to buy a house. And when
they can buy a house, then this all
works out fine because even though we're
in a high inflation environment where
the government can print as much money
as they want, the price of your house
goes up with inflation. And the second
that you can't afford that house, now
the only asset that you understand
intuitively goes out of reach and then
all that's left is the stock market. And
the vast majority of humans don't
understand the stock market.
>> You brought up some interesting points
and I think I I uh broadly agree at
least with the outlines. I would say
that um as far as like uh banking
insurance goes, I obviously don't have a
problem with that. But what I do have a
problem with
>> You're talking about FDIC?
>> Yeah, I'm talking about FDIC. So I what
I have a problem with is is actually how
consistently this government rewards
failure or as a matter of fact it's not
even a rewarding of a failure system.
It's more so that the expectation is
that yeah, these guys, like you said,
are going to be playing with your money,
right? Your taxes, your money. They know
it. They they demand it and if they
don't get it, they get mad, right? They
expect it. Um I think we see it uh
consistently like with bailouts or or
things that happen with like uh during
CO for example where companies get
bailed out. It's understandable
especially if they're like profoundly
important to the logistics, the supply
chain like uh the commercial airliners,
right? But then you have this this uh
structure where and I thought this is
what you meant when you said I I have an
issue with banking because I do as well.
Um we have a structure where like
everything is turned into a bank where
uh the the once incredibly important
institutions that that developed like
the best new technology like Boeing for
example, right? Are now just a bank. And
what I mean by that is uh they are way
more predisposed with with uh crunching
numbers and ensuring that there is some
corner cutting but like ensuring that
the sharehold shareholder value is going
up at all costs and I think that
actually yields uh worse and worse
products year-over-year. You start
seeing these uh these these issues with
Boeing uh products in general where you
know doors are flying off or whatever.
That's because they've like they have
outsourced big parts of their
manufacturing to lowcost alternatives
and in the process they're actually uh
they're actually taking away some of the
most important parts of of the uh
airline industry which is to ensure that
there's always redundancies like
numerous points of failure. The big
problem here is that Boeing has went
from being a company that develops
things, makes planes or even space
shuttles and satellites and whatnot to a
company that is just a bank. It's become
a a bank that can point to the some of
the stuff that they make to I guess uh
have uh some some kind of assets, have
some kind of leverage, but ultimately
they're just playing with money.
>> It's interesting. So you're pointing out
a flaw that I would say is actually more
of a cultural flaw. And I think that
calling them a bank is probably going to
diffuse the animosity that should be
aimed at actual banks. Uh but to address
the point directly and then I'll get
back to what I see as the mechanistic
side. So if you see a flaw in my
thinking, we can parse through that. But
um the cultural change that's happened
is we have taken this idea of a
fiduciary responsibility to like some
absurd extreme where we're no longer
being sensible about okay what are the
impacts for instance of the safety of a
plane. We know that some of these
industries they are so hard to get into.
There's such a barrier to entry
>> that starting up your own plane company
is basically not going to happen. And so
there's going to be a very limited
number of people. And so there's the
level of innovation has declined,
declined, declined. And so when you look
at innovation in aerospace, it was like
uh 66 years between the Wright brothers
realizing that we could fly and then
landing on the moon. And now uh until
Elon Musk comes along, there's basically
no innovation whatsoever. It's pretty
wild. So that uh that's one problem. So
culturally we could get people behind
the idea of we want there to be more
competition there. What do we have to do
to facilitate that? that within the
company that you know that there's just
certain things that you don't do and you
predicate your company on safety or
innovation or whatever, but you
certainly don't predicate it to your
point of just like optimizing every
single penny. Uh but going back to the
banks, I think this is such a
catastrophic problem and the beef that I
have with people that are turning
towards socialism and the reason that I
think that that is going to be
absolutely disastrous for assuming that
we want to get to the same place um is
that mechanistically
it doesn't yield the economic outcomes
that people want where people actually
can thrive. They can buy a home. they
can uh if they can outperform, if they
can build something that the world
wants, that they can change their
station. Um that we have economic
mobility and that comes down to the way
that the the banking system and money
printing is structured such that the
banks can't lose. They can make every
ridiculous loan they want to. There's no
discipline forced upon them. And so it
ends up creating a situation where you
make a home impossible to purchase
really through two things. One, the
banking that we've talked about so far
and then globalization by making it
impossible for laborers to actually have
a voice.
>> Yeah. I mean, like I said, I don't
disagree with you. I just expand further
on it uh and and and describe the system
that we're existing under as like uh or
banking as a as a profoundly important
aspect of this. Again, Markx did write
extensively about the financialization
of the economy or the the global
financial uh market structure and what
uh and how different that was uh as
opposed to uh a a a new way to approach
the inequities within the system. a a
different way to approach uh the the
built-in inequalities within the system
because these are like at the end of the
day is it's like a uh this is not my
term for it but it's like it's like a
faceless lifeless bourgeoa class that
never actually ends up going to the
factory floor, right? Like they have no
um they have they have no say. They have
all to say in how the product gets made
or or corner cutting and and things of
that nature, but like they have no
understanding of the of uh the way that
these uh these things are being
produced, right? They can just own
things and they make money through
owning things. So, I think that's like
uh the fundamental problem that he
>> uh identifies. You're saying that when
you're the owning class and you are
disconnected from the hands-on building.
>> Yeah.
>> Uh that that breaks something in the um
certainly your relationship to the
labor. I'm putting words in your mouth
now, so please definitely tell me if I'm
reading this wrong, but
>> it would break your understanding of
them as like humans that deserve
dignity. And so making sure that they're
paid well and they're treated well, but
it also makes you optimize the actual
product in a way that's nonsensical.
>> Yeah. because optimization
um I was listening to uh how Toyota was
able to like restructure uh at a time
when they were at the on the verge of
bankruptcy is post World War II.
uh they have this like industrial base.
They're using it to for car
manufacturing. And a certain point like
I think uh there was these two guys,
one's last name is Toyota, I forget the
other one's last name, but they like
come to America, they look at the Ford
assembly line and they're like shocked
by how well it works. But then they go
to this like grocery store I guess and
then they find out that uh in that
process there's like um there's there is
so much input that you could rely on for
from every point of the assembly
process. So in the Toyota factories they
decide
um to to put this like yellow line where
any person any human being on the
assembly line can actually stop the
process at any point because human
beings are are much easier especially
doing this route task where they're like
constantly doing the same thing over and
over again. they're they're much more
tuned in to minor changes or minor
issues so that uh they don't have to
rely on like uh the the assembly line
continuing no matter what with like uh a
a failed buildout that they figure out
later down the line and then they have
to uh suffer uh financial consequences
and and do like a recall. You don't have
to do recall or whatever. Um, and I
think that that kind of impact uh or
that kind of feedback is is profoundly
important because the person that is
that is their hands on the product is
always going to be more knowledgeable
than the person that's making decisions
by simply crunching numbers or simply
looking at uh how to maximize the
efficiency. We'll be back to the show in
a second, but first let's talk about a
big mistake I see aspiring entrepreneurs
make all the time. Most people never get
their business off the ground because
they get overwhelmed by the legal maze.
When we were founding Impact Theory, I
wanted to reach through the phone and go
berserk on the people on the other end
because the legal stuff is so painful.
I'm talking about LLC paperwork,
business licenses, tax structures,
invoicing systems. You're ready to
build, but you are drowning in legal
requirements you don't understand.
Taylor Brands eliminates the roadblock.
You can register your LLC in minutes,
not weeks. They handle every legal
document, license, and permit
automatically. You get invoicing and
bookkeeping built in so you can collect
payments from day one. Plus, their
coaching program guides you through your
first 100 days, step by step. I'm going
to hook you guys up with a 35% discount.
Just go right now to
tailors.com/mpodcast
35. Do not be a statistic. Set your
business up right from day one. All
right, let's get back to the show.
I I would agree with that in the
abstract, but I know I I'm presuming
that people that lean socialist hate
Elon Musk and Elon Musk sleeps on the
floor of his facilities, understands the
engineering of the facilities probably
better than anybody on the floor because
he's done it at all of his different
companies. If I had to make a bet on who
would be the best person to build any
manufacturing facility it would and I
mean in the world uh I would bank on
Elon Musk just given the number of
industries that he's done this across.
Now it's possible that he's just uh
spinning PR but Samsung has invited him
to come and walk the floor because
they're going to be making chips for
Tesla and they want him to help improve
their output. So it it but I know that
that doesn't solve a lot of the problems
that people are rightly angry about in
terms of the wealth inequality. I I
teach entrepreneurship and I will often
tell entrepreneurs one of the biggest
problems you're up against is emotions
are going to make dots feel like they
connect that don't actually connect. And
as soon as you try to turn that into
policy prescriptive like go do this, it
won't work because it's not actually
rooted at the level of physics. And so
when you look at like what's breaking
down with wealth inequality, that to me
again, we're just right back at money
printing. So once people understand
there's a difference between income and
wealth inequality. Wealth are assets.
It's potential income, but it's not real
income. And so right now the top 10%
Americans own 95% of the assets. I mean,
it's just absolutely staggering. So
you've got people, they understand the
game of assets. They're scooping them
all up. And then you've got a basically
everybody else that the only asset they
understand intuitively is a home. And
from money printing, we've made that
impossible. But the the value of a
company, which are the assets, the
stocks, they go up with two things.
Innovation, so people care about it in
the marketplace.
>> So Tesla's doing something different and
better. And so people are like, I expect
that to be worth more in the future.
That's the bet they're placing.
>> No, I know. I I think
>> and then hold on really fast. And then
the second thing is money printing
because money printing creates the
illusion as you devalue the dollar. It
creates the illusion that the stock is
going up in price.
>> I would agree uh that innovation is
supposed to be like uh the the primary
way that your your stock is valued and
your stock goes up like the valuation of
your stock goes up. But I feel like um
that's not I don't think that that is
necessarily the case any longer. I feel
like the market is so reliant on uh
constant
uh being in a constant state of of uh
bullishness that uh even when you see
>> drives that because I agree but I think
we're going to for different reasons. I
think it's partially because money is
fake and we've just decided like oh it
doesn't matter if Donald Trump decides
to slap 150% tariffs on like all
incoming goods. You'll have a week of
instability and then ultimately he'll
turn around and say actually the tariffs
are gone and then the market will rally
again uh and we'll inevitably recover
back to the point that it was at and
then he will turn around and say tariffs
again. And at after the, you know, 10th
time he's done this after months and
months and months, um, you start
noticing that these companies are like,
okay, maybe it's not that significant.
Um, maybe it's not that impactful. Maybe
we can actually eat some of these, uh,
costs. And that's the reason why you
haven't seen the hyperinflation that was
uh slated to come if companies were
supposed to uh respond in uh the way
that the the market is normally supposed
to respond to immediate tariffs like
this, like broad universal tariffs like
this. So I've uh and as far as like
innovation goes, as far as Elon goes, um
I'm not a fan of Elon. He's not a fan of
mine. He's uh he's cursed me out on his
on his platform in the past. But uh I
will say uh the you brought up
innovation in the first 66 years going
from the Wright brothers all the way to
landing on the moon right um and you
said before Elon we had no innovation uh
in the space uh traveling sector and
there's some truth to that but I think
that's uh an that is an inefficiency of
the government because the first 66
years big leaps were made by the
government by publicly funded research
by NASA and it was always in a state of
disrepair because it turned into
political football. The only reason why
we even went to the moon was because we
wanted to flex on the USSR who had
actually beaten us to space, right? Um
and and therefore there was funding in
the program. But as uh the cold war took
a turn and uh we decided that this was
no longer as important, NASA funding was
always on the docket for to be cut,
right? Uh instead of something that we
focused on for the sake of advancing
mankind and my point always has been we
shouldn't rely on on we shouldn't wait
for private industry to make up for uh
these issues. We should have uh
especially when especially fields that
require innovation and requires failure,
requires big technological leaps like
you know figuring out the internet like
inventing the internet or inventing
space travel things of that nature like
that should be still heavily funded by
the government, heavily subsidized by
the government and even uh controlled by
the government. I have no issue with
this. A lot of people especially in
America get worried when they when they
hear me say this kind of stuff. Same
with housing. you can do uh major public
housing initiatives and just completely
explode the housing market uh in its
entirety. And by that I mean
>> yeah, sorry.
>> Explode the housing market as in like
build free or or uh incredibly
affordable price adjusted housing that
the government owns. Many countries and
many cities uh that have actually damn
near eradicated the issue of
homelessness have done so through public
ownership over the land. This is a scary
concept for a lot of Americans.
>> Where are you talking about?
>> Singapore is a great example as a
country. China is another great example.
>> Singapore specifically privatized.
>> No, no, but Singapore Singapore still
has like a government land lease program
that
>> Yeah. But if you like if you really
research Lie Kuan Yu, he was I use this
word um playfully, not literally, but he
was a gangster. Like he said literally,
I made sure the communists know I will
fight you to the death. Uh he went in
and told unions, "Fucking knock it off.
Get to work."
>> I But in terms of housing, in terms of
like the way that
>> his whole thing was, I wanted private
ownership. People had to know that they
were in on the economy because the only
way to build an economy on capitalistic
principles is to make sure that
everybody's in on it. Like Singapore is
an incredible model for people that want
a way out, but they often look at that
and don't realize that this guy was like
captain capitalism. It's
>> Yeah. I'm not saying this guy was a Oh,
no. My I never said that any of these
countries well I guess China with the
exception of China are like uh even
abiding by uh the the principles of
socialism or communism. That's not my
advocacy at all. The other example I was
going to use is is Austria uh which
again was led by uh obviously Red Vienna
was led like uh led by uh people who are
from that background Marxist socialist
communist and whatever but like Austria
as a country is not a communist country
and not it's not a socialist country and
yet Vienna has uh I think 65% uh public
housing and these are fantastic houses
like it's just owned by the government
and then they're uh they have uh these
lease programs. Uh every country has a
different way of doing it, but I think
ultimately government intervention of
that sort is not something that I
disagree with. I don't really care. They
don't have to be like communists or
socialists or whatever. I just I want to
fix the problem. And I think one of the
best ways to do that or at least one of
the most efficient ways that people have
done that is through this kind of
intervention or uh direct control to a
certain degree.
>> This kind of intervention is
governmentowned. uh government-owned
intervention like the land ownership
uh the land ownership concept goes back
to the hands of the government and you
can get like like in China you can get a
100red-year lease right and the
government will always restore your
lease there's no uh you know there's no
problem there but for this very reason
um there is a lot more control over uh
focusing on building inventory for uh
future demand
rather than holding inventory in the
hands of people that want to keep that
inventory limited so that their prices
are constantly going up. So there
because like you said, the only way that
the their their net worth goes up is is
if this finite supply housing if you're
lucky enough to be able to purchase it
um or lucky enough to get a mortgage to
purchase it. Uh the finite supply of
housing stays limited so that it's
constantly going up and therefore your
leverage is more uh valuable. your your
nest egg is more valuable and you
understandably have this like perverse
interest in maintaining the housing
supply as low as possible. In the
inverse of that, if you if you were to
blow up the already limited housing
supply and you were to actually explode
and build so much housing, specifically
government uh through government
intervention,
>> why specifically through government
intervention? because I don't think that
there is uh ever going to be uh an
unleashing of the markets that will be
able to overcome the interests of like
real estate developers or even like any
anyone who owns uh this kind of
inventory
>> and Austin have both shown that you can
do it privately.
>> So that's actually a great example of
this as well. Uh Austin and Houston,
Texas went in and built a lot of uh
built a lot of housing, but now there's
tremendous complications. Obviously
Houston in itself is literally on a
flood plane. And so it's they're they're
cooked irregardless.
>> They might be dumb. But so the
fundamental debate is going to be okay,
you and I, shockingly, we agree on a lot
of the problem,
>> but where like we haven't even gotten
into the DSA yet.
>> Uh which I have like wild uh reactions
to, which we'll get to, but um I'm like
like you, I sincerely want a solution.
And so then I'm like, okay, well, as an
entrepreneur, when you're faced with I'm
either going to be able to make payroll
or I'm not, you get pretty realistic
really fast. It's not ideological. It's
just like, Jesus, how am I going to make
sure that everybody's family can go eat?
Uh, so I take a similar approach to
this. So when you look at all the
different countries that have tried
socialistic programs including the rent
controls that we did in the Bronx in the
60s and 70s which absolutely decimated
the Bronx and the way that you build
back of course is to release the
regulatory requirements not keep adding
them. So it becomes a question of
mechanistically what works government
control or regulation because when
capitalism is left unchecked you get the
guilded age. Not good.
>> Yeah.
>> A total atrocity. Dangerous levels of
inequality
>> when you overregulate. Yeah. But for a
different reason. And this is the thing
like I'm always trying to get people to
understand. When you try to map what's
happening now onto the guilded age,
you're going to miss that they're
happening for very different reasons.
And so if you try to rerun the playbook
of how we dealt with the guilded age, it
won't work here. Because here you have
one very simple problem. And that
problem is you are money printing. And
when you money print, you're stealing
from everybody and you're only giving to
the wealthy. And so it's like, bro, you
just you can't keep doing that. And so
if you're in a situation where you're
just going to embrace modern monetary
theory, because if I could snap my
fingers and get rid of the Fed, that's
probably a better place. But as Drew, my
producer, keeps assuring me, that's
never going to happen. So I'm like,
fine. But if you're within that system
and you know that you have a high
inflationary environment, then you have
to act as if you're in a high
inflationary environment. And the only
way to deal with that is to make sure
that people can get into assets. If you
do not make it possible for them to get
into assets, you're toast. So then we
go, okay, well, if we agree that the
house is the one asset that everybody
understands intuitively, and the stock
market's become this big terrifying
gambling machine, then it's like, how do
we get people into housing? Is it going
to be governmental control? I would say
we've tried that. Other countries have
tried that. Always a disaster. And they
end up even in the Nordic countries,
they end up reverting to privatization
just because of the the price signals
alone. And so zooming in on Houston and
Austin because they ran these what we'll
call natural experiments, it it has
shown us exactly like how you can win at
this problem. Now, there's always going
to be uh moments where okay, this is
rough. Like the prices over COVID in
Austin doubled or tripled in like six
months. wild. And so now people were
like, "Oh my god, like how am I ever
going to afford a home?" But then the
over the next couple years the prices
normalized because builders were allowed
to build. They were fasttracking. They
were changing regulations so they could
fasttrack building. So everything
normalized. Houston already had that. So
in Houston, you can basically build if
you want to build and so housing prices
don't go up much and you keep an
available supply for people, flood plane
or not. And you can argue that this is
dumb. They shouldn't build there. But at
least the mechanism by which they allow
people to build ensures that people have
access to reasonably priced homes.
>> Florida is another example of that as
well where like they let builders build
and the city is exploded, right? And the
time frame that I lived there, I lived
in Florida for the first year of my life
in America in 2009. It was like Bickl
was non-existent virtually. It was just
being built at that point. and now it's
like so expansive and and um I see the
advantage of that certainly I don't mind
the the explosion of the housing supply.
I want that to happen regardless whether
it's private or public. Um my my
assessment always is well the reason why
the the um Texas housing market is like
re not rebounding necessarily but like
kind of uh uh I mean it's going down in
terms of uh prices is because like
people are leaving Texas or at least
people are leaving Austin and uh and
Dallas and Houston like these places
that they initially moved to during co I
feel like that's a big part of that um
or at least maybe this is anecdotal
because I see a lot of like people who
are uh rich in my immediate group of
friends uh who are streamers who moved
to Texas in that time frame and are now
like going, I don't know what to do with
this house that I bought. Like I want to
leave. I want to sell it. Uh and they're
having a harder time doing so. Um but
but ultimately, you know, there's
there's more than one way to skin a cat.
And for me, I just don't care about and
I'm a homeowner myself. I got cancelled
for buying a house. People were very mad
at me. They're like, "Socialism means
you can't have an expensive house. What
are you talking about?" Um, I I don't
mind if the if the property value goes
down. I don't think that uh homes are a
speculative asset. I think they should
be treated as shelter, something that is
necessary for survival. And um and that
is the fundamental disagreement that I
have with many other people. Uh and I
think that the fact that this is
associated with perhaps the only way
that people can have some kind of uh
asset, some kind of capital, uh homes or
the only way that people can have like
some kind of upward social mobility is
part of the reason why uh the housing
market never changes in the direction
where people can afford homes or people
can buy homes. And it goes back to what
you said earlier. Uh we privatize the
gains and we socialize the losses.
homes are uh they were not intended as a
speculative asset. The GI Bill and all
of these numerous other protections that
people have implemented uh in in terms
of home ownership or even the banners
that we placed against home ownership uh
or or mortgages for example for black
people in the form of redlinining have
always been uh have always been used by
the the bankers to uh safeguard their
investment. Which is why a lot of people
both look at homes as an investment but
also a shelter and take advantage of the
safeguards that exist that were put in
place so that people don't lose their
homes, but they use that to like beef up
their inventory and and gamble with
other people's money basically to never
lose. It's almost like uh if we're
looking at investments as a form of
gambling, a little bit smarter than
gambling obviously there's fundamentals
associated with it. Um home ownership,
>> what's up?
>> Uh sort of. I get a lot of flack for my
take on that, but I get your point. It's
>> if people adhered to the fundamentals
different
>> there are fundamentals in the market for
sure. There's fundamentals in the stock,
but like there's still probability,
right? You never know something.
>> Yeah, but you can make money betting
against something and by betting against
it, you influence the market blah blah
blah. There's I don't want to derail
down that rabbit hole, but uh so one in
>> what I was saying is like buying a house
is almost like it's still a speculative
asset that you're technically investing
into. It has to be
>> uh and and it has to be. Sure.
>> A minute ago you said it shouldn't be
and I'm saying it has to be in in
>> No, but but my point is it's a
speculative asset that's also shelter.
So there's so many protections against
like losing it and that I think a lot of
people basically take advantage of that
uh that dual structure that exists for
housing. So they make it into a
speculative asset that is like
impossible for its price to go down
pretty much unless there are major
market uh uh major market incidents like
the 2008 housing market bubble.
>> Yes. But we have to like figure out why
is it that it's so hard for these to go
down in value. And the reason it's so
hard for them to go down in value is the
amount of money that's being printed
causes assets to go up. And then to your
point earlier, if you have nimiism and
people are not in my backyard, you're
not gonna build um highdensity housing.
And so the problem
>> high density housing
>> of course. And so it's like this is how
you're going to have to drive down the
cost of housing and make it affordable.
That that's just a reality. So it's what
I'm saying is people need to understand
why that's happening. It is not
happening because capitalism bad. It is
happening because of money printing bad.
Now money printing tradeoff is probably
the right way to say it. Money printing
comes with advantages and it comes with
wild disadvantages and people are not
they are not mapping cause and effect
well and so we're getting into a
situation where they don't realize that
money printing is the problem. So going
to the democratic socialist um of
America. Is that what DSA stands for?
>> That's what DSA stands for.
>> Going to the DSA it's like all of the
things that they want are going to
exacerbate those problems. And so this
is where I'm like, hey, even if we can
agree, I don't know that I agree with
the DSA and where they're trying to end
up. So it's probably worth me saying
where I want to end up and if you see
yourself as a member of that or not, if
you can help us understand what people
that want that organization to thrive,
what they're aimed at, that would be
very useful. Uh what I'm aimed at is
uh people can save money and it's not
stolen away from them through the hidden
tax of inflation. that people can afford
a home because it is an asset that they
understand intuitively. Uh that people
can make a living wage through market
dynamics. Um and that basically you're
not stuck in your class. So there's high
social mobility. You're your future
isn't determined by your zip code. I
round that to human flourishing. Um but
those are like the specific things that
I'm pointed at. Now, when I look at the
DSA, they seem literally at wild odds
with that. Wanting to abolish the
family, uh, capture the means of
production. Like, it gets pretty wild.
>> No, the first thing is funny. That's not
the abolishing the family is not a thing
that the DSA is predisposed with.
Everyone always says that, but they're
not.
>> That's cuz there's clips I've watched
with my own eyes where they say that.
They had a whole like meeting about it.
I think um I can't speak on the exact
clips that you've seen, but uh there are
people with uh uh wildly different
opinions on things of that.
>> You would say that's that's fringe even
for them.
>> I would I would go so far as to say that
like not only is it fringe, but it's
also uh not like a like a real
consequential uh policydriven focus of
the Democratic Socialist of America.
It's not a focus of the DSA at all.
>> Would you advise them against it? What?
Abolishing the family?
>> Yes.
>> I because it's not even like like a
legitimate uh point of contention. It's
it's not even worth discussing. I will
say it's usually I think in my
experience the way that these things uh
work is like people will have sometimes
even like academic conversations in
these sorts of settings about like what
it means to have a family or like what's
the traditional nuclear family or what
its impact has looked like in society or
whatever. And then someone will
basically film like a piece of that
conversation of someone being very
sincere but maybe being uh almost
hysterical, right? And then they'll be
like, "Look, this is so silly. The
entire organization is predisposed with
this." They're not. Um especially when
it comes to to cultural things like
there is no policy making about about
like family enforcement within the DSA
whatsoever.
>> Okay. So, walk me through then cuz I'm
looking at those clips and I am
admittedly going, "Yo, this is crazy."
And from a Marxist standpoint of wanting
to eliminate the family as an economic
unit, which they echo that language.
>> Uh it does make me go there there are
dots for them to connect and I see how
if they believe in a Marxist worldview
that they end up there. Uh you saw that
play out in China. Like people really do
enact these policies and it ends up
being from where I'm sitting absolutely.
Do you mean like the one child policy or
something?
>> No, no. I'm talking like Ma's China.
Ma's China was the state is going to
take care of you. All that matters is
the state. You're not there for mom and
dad. You are there for the state. And if
you got to turn on mom and dad so we can
beat them to death, then you better do
it. And they would literally beat them
to death. I don't think the cultural
revolution was uh uh good, per se, but I
also don't think that it was because
like they young people abolished the
family unit and decided to to beat on
their parents because they were
counterrevolutionary.
>> You're not going to get kids to turn in
their parents if you don't break that
unit.
>> So anyway, if I'm deranged on that, I
don't think that's what the DSA wants.
>> So map out for me. My initial question
is, hey, a lot of people are turning
towards socialism. M you're saying
that's self-evident and I'm saying these
are the things that I believe about the
socialist movement and you're saying no
no you're the family stuff is the family
stuff is utterly irrelevant and also
these guys uh there are there are so
many different uh variants of of uh how
to implement socialism uh that uh that
exists under one umbrella where they're
broadly I would say anti- capitalist but
even then there's still people who are
social democrats for example not even
democratic socialists that uh play a
role in this movement that just want
like some kind of uh regulation over uh
the the most insane aspects of of
endless greedbacked capitalism. Um but
things like abolishing the family is not
uh is not a real point of contention uh
or or even remotely relevant. And I
think they care more about like labor
union organizing uh implementing certain
policies like Medicare for all
>> labor. So let's take them one by one. So
labor union organization, what's their
end goal with that?
>> Um they want workers to have more power
to collectively bargain directly at
their place of business and uh and
therefore create like a network of push
back against uh capital owners when uh
when they implement certain policies.
Now, the data shows that union
organization is far less impactful on
somebody's um economic gain than
globalization. Globalization, where I,
as an entrepreneur, can be like, nah,
I'm just not going to do this in
Michigan. I'm going to go do this in
Tokyo or whatever,
>> uh, is the thing that erodess their um
power. So is the are people that are
headed towards socialism are they like
is that a big bone for them where it's
like listen what we care about are
worker wages and unions are maybe part
of it but the reality is as long as
we're importing cheap labor and we're
exporting jobs workers blue collar
workers for sure are not going to have
negotiating power.
>> Oh no I I think this is something that a
lot of people understand. There's um I
mean plenty of all labor unions are
pretty much trade protectionist. Like
that's part of the reason why even the
UAW
uh despite its uh anti-Trump position
was looking at uh the initial tariff
conversations and saying like hold on,
we're not going to immediately attack
Donald Trump for this because on
principle this is something that is uh
if done correctly could be very helpful
to the auto manufacturing uh uh
business, the automobile industry. But
of course, given the way that we've
designed the automobile industry,
especially with like some of the free
trade negotiations that we've built with
Canada and Mexico that Trump also
implemented, even though he came in as
an anti-NAFTA force initially, um they
there is uh no way to uh there's no way
to do trade protectionism that doesn't
actually uh eradicate certain sub uh
certain parts of the manufacturing base
in this country and still ultimately be
harmful to the UAW. Um but going back to
the DSA or labor unions, you're right.
Um outsourcing, displacing labor is the
primary function of capital. They want
to displace labor because that is
efficient. If you have technological
improvements that allow you to, for
example, do the work of 10 people now
with one person, then um what I would
say should be done is to make that never
fire the nine other employees, but
instead make all 10 of those employees
do
uh a tenth of the work that they have to
do, like a tenth of the direct out labor
that they have to do when their output
remains the same. um a boss looks at
that situation and goes, "Oh, that means
we can fire nine workers and make one
worker do the work of 10." And labor
labor is obviously the most malleable
aspect of of of commodity production.
And therefore, it's the one that uh
bosses are constantly looking to depress
the wages on or to outsource uh to the
global south where it's a much cheaper
alternative. Labor unions play a
formative role in ensuring that that
transition
does not uh harm the existing domestic
manufacturing base of labor to the best
of their ability. Uh they either create
better exit packages that take away from
you know CEO pay or whatever that will
allow these people to transition into
other sectors easier. they or they
retain pensions or ultimately in places
where they do exist where there is
continued output uh at the domestic
front according to the Bureau of Labor
Statistics uh they labor unions are
responsible for increasing uh people's
wages by 10%. in areas where they
unionize. And they even have a capacity
to uh increase wages for the non
unionized parts of the same sector in
the immediate vicinity because other
comp uh other companies look at that as
market competition and they have to
improve their wages and maybe even offer
additional benefits packages in an
effort to avoid unionization at their
workplaces. So it's it's profoundly
beneficial and I think like a lot of
people look back fondly at the uh the
'60s right where uh at a time when like
America was great when we had a job you
could do like a bluecollar job at a
factory and you could own a house and
you could raise two children right um
and and what they mistake is it was
actually the union power and the labor
power that people had back then that
allowed these uh these jobs to exist
with the benefits with the pension.
>> Okay, this is where we violently
disagree. So if you look at if you look
at the timeline, this is a money
printing problem. This is about debt and
money printing and people get so
confused about what caused the real
problem. So you have debt, money
printing, and globalization. That's it.
And if people just talk about those
things, then all of a sudden they're
going to be able to map to reality what
happened. This is why people always ask
the question, what happened in 1971?
Because in 1971, that's when all hell
breaks loose. And in 1971, we broke our
last remaining thread. We were about 25%
tied to the gold standard. And so when
we finally let that go, then it became
unhinged money printing. But for a long
time, we actually didn't go that ham.
And it wasn't really until 2008 that we
just got unhinged. And if you look at
the M2 money supply graph, it goes
berserk.
>> I don't disagree with you. It's just
funny because like um I think that that
is just another aspect of like the the
way that the system has been designed.
So we're just like basically unleashing
the same forces because uh these are the
these are the exact same principles that
that create income and wealth inequality
in general. So like this is more of the
same in terms of like the superw wealthy
making out far better than the average
person. We'll get right back to the show
in a second, but first, let me tell you
what keeps my team fueled. At this
point, Impact Theory basically runs on
Paleo Valley beef sticks. Walk through
our office and you're going to find them
tucked away in every desk drawer,
including in my backpack. Anytime I'm
going to be traveling, I have these bad
boys with me. These are what keep people
going. Paleo Valley's Beef Sticks are a
smart choice for high performers with
six g of clean protein, zero sugar, and
zero artificial preservatives. They're
made from 100% grass-fed, grassfinished
beef with organic spices and have no
gluten, soy, or corn to slow you down.
Paleo Valley is amazing, and they use
natural fermentation, the oldworld
method that creates gut- friendly
probiotics in every stick. While other
brands use harsh chemicals and GMO
citric acid, these are made clean. Right
now, you can get 30 beef sticks for just
$36.
That's clean, gut- friendly protein for
barely over a dollar per stick. Make
sure to click my link below and get your
30 beef sticks for just 36 bucks. And
now, let's get back to the show. Yes,
but what the reason that I harp on this
is because to get the problem right and
the solution wrong, or more importantly,
to get the problem right but the cause
wrong means that you will definitionally
get the solution wrong because you don't
know what's actually causing the
problem. The story I always like to tell
is um I woke up one day with a skin rash
and it got so bad that I would wake up
in the middle of the night and I just
wanted to cry because it just itched so
badly. I couldn't sleep. It was an
absolute nightmare. So, of course, I go
see a skin specialist and they're like,
"Hey,
>> uh you've introduced some detergent or
something." They're like, "This happens
all the time. You just don't realize
that you're having an allergic
reaction." So, we're like changing
everything. No scented like all this.
It's not working. And I'm like, "If
somebody came to me and said they had a
skin condition, what advice would I give
them?" and I would say it's something
you're eating. And so I'm like, even
though uh my diet is perfectly clean,
there's clearly something I'm eating
that's causing a problem. And so I
completely cut out artificial
sweeteners. 72 hours later it was gone.
So I was like, "Oh my god." But
everybody wants to give you a topical
solution. And that was the first thing.
They wanted me to put creams on it and
the creams helped and it alleviated. I
was like, "Oh my god, thankfully." But
that didn't address the underlying
problem. And as soon as I actually got
to the thing that was actually causing
it, it went away and it went away
forever. And so what I'm saying is we
all agree that the skin is itchy. We all
agree that America has a skin rash. What
we don't agree on is what's causing the
skin rash. What's causing the skin rash?
1913 Federal Reserve Act says we can
print money. 1971 our last like
restraining
thread gets broken. And then in the '9s
we go full globalization. most
importantly China. And so like once you
put that very small, very understandable
bundle on the table, it's like there are
all your problems. But people focus on
more um the rhetoric is all about
animosity towards wealthy people, which
is why people got mad at you when you
bought your house. Instead of going,
"Oh, wait a second. I actually
understand the fundamental nature of the
system. It's broken at the level of
debt, money printing." And when I say
debt, government debt is the right one
to focus on, but there's personal debt,
corporate debt, and government debt. But
we are we are in such a dark place from
a debt and money printing perspective.
And I just cannot get people to focus on
it because it it doesn't feel
>> well. I think the difference in opinion
stems from like you're saying the
artificial sweetener in this situation
is the debt and globalization and money
printing. Correct. And I'm saying that
the the artificial sweetener which is
like the the like we we are identifying
the symptoms and I think that the debt
and the money printing is is yet another
uh yet another factor in a in an even
broader uh in an even broader problem in
a broader systemic problem.
>> But when you start looking at the actual
impact of what drives it uh I did the
math on this once but it was like um
union negotiations is like 8% or
something. So it's like it's not that
it's nothing. It's that when you look at
the totality of the problem, it's not
even 10%.
>> Oh, I I don't I'm not saying that unions
are first of all, I don't think unions
are only uh the only impactful force
here. I don't even think that unions are
uh the the only way to solve this
problem. I think it's just one
mechanism. It's kind of like you brought
up rent control, right? Rent control in
and of itself is not a solution. It's
it's barely a band-aid. It's a it's a
move. It's an initiative to to in the
interim to to move in the direction of
decommodifying housing. That's the
reason why uh people utilize it. But I
think without like adjusting the supply,
without actually uh either introducing
uh some kind of market force like new
interest in in uh developing uh housing
projects or uh and and readjusting the
inventory that's readily available so
that more people can can live in homes.
And then that actually depresses the
existing um the existing price, the
average home price for the average
person. And it and it actually uh lowers
rents as well because there's no now new
inventory available even from a a
healthy market uh assessment. Um if a
private industry is not going to do
that, I say let the government
intervene. I have no issues with that.
Um but
>> okay, but the
>> but it's just one aspect of a of a much
larger issue is what I mean. like labor
unions are not the end underlying
read of the situation that I think is
incorrect. And if I'm painting you
wrong, I consider you at least
sympathetic to socialism.
>> Oh, for sure. I am I I am uh I say I'm a
leftist because like I'm I'm big tent in
terms of of uh all the way from you know
revolutionary socialists or even
communists uh to to uh people who want
to implement modest social democratic
reforms in the interim. I believe in in
harm reduction and I think the best
possible way to achieve that is uh
especially with uh the way the appetite
that Americans have in general for these
sorts of uh ideologies that they either
completely don't know or have been
propagandized into being fearful of. Uh
>> but so that's where I'll say um it's not
propaganda like there is there are
mechan I mean but let's dig into it cuz
there are mechanistic reasons to be
fearful of socialism or communism and I
we can literally take them one by one
but there some things work in the like
messiness of reality and other things
don't work in the messiness of reality
and I think the reason that people are
going so ham into socialism right now is
that it feels right? But it's not
actually going to yield the right
outcomes. So it feels right because
people have been propagandized that what
you're actually up against is an evil
capitalistic system where people are
trying to take advantage of you and
they've come up in a system that is
extraordinary. They've come up in the
west and things are stable. People are
relatively safe. Um until recently it
was like most people could get on the
property ladder. It was like Yeah. So
people have lost sight of what drives
tax dollars. The very thing that gives
people the money that they want to spend
on these systems is the entrepreneurial
class builds a thing a company that
outputs something more valuable than the
inputs. It is excruciatingly difficult
to do. And when you see only negativity
in that system and think that somehow
the money is still going to be there
even if you are punitive towards that
class which I think is what most people
that are on that bandwagon want and now
you end up breaking the very goose that
lays the golden egg.
>> See this is where we uh fundamentally
disagree because I don't think
innovation is uh immediately tied back
to profits. I don't think that uh and
and I don't think it's even a
historically how it's been like I I like
to joke and say like you know people
didn't invent the tire because they
thought you know I can commodify this
and sell it and make money. I think that
there are many achievements that we take
for granted uh throughout history all
the way from primitive accumulation down
to uh the the current existence of
society, the current economic formation
that we exist under where plenty of
people have actually advanced humanity
not on the basis that they'll make a lot
of money but on on advancing humanity
alone like other factors that contribute
to it. uh whether it be improving
people's welfare or whether it be
because you have a a human first
approach. Um and beyond that I think
even still
>> and you think that's gone now. No, I
think it still exists, but we are we're
tampering with it at the for the sake of
greed because I think capitalism
inevitably creates a system where people
are focusing on short-term profits. And
when you focus on short-term profits,
you end up throwing aside all of these
like technological leaps that we have
made uh in times when there was a lot
more government funding, a lot more
public funding, a lot more public
investment both uh in other countries,
even ones that we have declared foreign
adversaries, even ones that had their
own personal systemic failures. Mind
you, I'm not saying the USSR was like uh
amazing, but um there were issues there
as well. But ultimately uh we've lost
sight of of why uh people innovate, why
people develop uh new things. And it's
not necessarily just because they want
to make money. I mean, there's so many
>> I would say China has proven it's
because people want to make money.
>> Wait, really?
>> A thousand%.
>> I was about to say China is the exact
counterargument to China tried to kill
everybody and to get them to fit in
line. They killed 45 million people in a
pretty short stretch. Like that one's
wild to me that people brush that one
off.
>> I think I think there were uh USSR had a
similar uh problem as well with like
crop mismanagement and famines. But um
since that uh since since that happened
there has uh there has never been
another uh instance of famine in China.
>> But China literally came to the west and
said okay what do we do? And they said,
"How many banks do you have?" And China
said, "We only have one bank." And
America said, "That's crazy. We have
30,000 banks, and let me tell you how we
do this. You push the decision-m down to
the regional control element. You let
them all be profit incentivized." And
then they will loan out to the people
that are actually going to be
successful. What is the thing that
drives somebody to take that tremendous
risk? When something like 90% of all
companies fail to make a million
dollars, 94% fail to make $10 million.
So the that 6% of companies make more
than $10 million. That means 94% of
people effectively fail. So it's like
you have this insane failure rate that
still manages to give you America, the
West largely. So the capitalist system
ends up with problems and you have to be
careful because left unchecked it
metastasizes. I like to say there's
pathology on both sides. But China
literally goes, "Okay, I'm tired of uh
Deng Xiaoping comes into power and he's
like, "Well, we're not going to keep
doing what Mao is doing and starve
people to death." So he comes up with
the two phrases. Doesn't matter if the
cat is black or white, which was
somethingish that you said earlier. Just
matters if it catches mice.
>> Uh so it doesn't matter if it's black or
white, only matters if it catches mice.
And then the second thing that he said
was getting rich is glorious.
>> Well, that was attributed to him. Uh I
say it all the time as well. Socialism
is not uh socialism is not about poverty
or the glorification of poverty. To be
rich is to be glorious is falsely
attributed to Deng Xiaoping. He never
corrected it though, so people assume
that it's actually something that he
said. Uh, and it makes sense. I mean, I
think it's an attitude that that
reflects in modern Chinese society as
well. But, uh, Deng in of itself, uh, is
is seen by, I guess, some hardline
mauist as a as a liberal or a a
reformist. But I think like there's a
reason why even Xiinping considers uh
like in China they considers as like
socialism with Chinese characteristics
because it is evolved in accordance to
the material conditions uh and the and
the global marketplace like where
capitalism is looking at some of the
even failures of the USSR in terms of
global trade and trying to have a trade
first approach to make themselves an
undeniable force in the global
marketplace so that there is not a lot
of tremendous foreign intervention uh in
the way that um and in the way that
allows them to develop in the ways that
they want to. But I think Chinese
development isn't uh this this
profoundly impactful force around the
globe now because of uh foreign capital
just coming in simply on the on the
basis of foreign capital coming in. But
I think it's what they've done with that
foreign capital that has made China into
this powerful hegemonic force that can
even counter American influence uh
around the world.
>> I don't even think that it's necessarily
sure in the early days getting foreign
capital in was huge, very
transformational, and I'm sure uh they
would love it if it happened again, but
they're not going to change their
strategy. But what they did learn was
American capitalistic principles. They
learned how to VC the way that we VC,
which is massive. They learned how to
bank the way that we bank, which was
massive. And so taking those
characteristics, they're basically
saying, "We're the state. You're going
to do what we tell you, but we recognize
that by letting you get rich, as long as
you don't get uppety, letting you get
rich is exactly how we convince people
to take all these risks to regionalize
things so that we can move forward
because it's just the way that human
incentives work. Now, what I would
obviously uh Xiinping is not going to
agree with my assessment here. Uh, but I
look at that and I go, "Hey, I'm
Xiinping. You guys can keep doing this
version of capitalism, what I call red
light, green light capitalism, as long
as you don't [ __ ] with my agenda. And as
long as you understand that I'm going to
negotiate in the world globally with you
as one big block and so everyone here is
going to be in lock step behind what I
want to do and then within that
framework, you guys can do whatever you
want."
>> I know. But their their economy is is uh
built around central planning still.
Were they like
>> hard pass? False. Oh, okay. Well, then
we definitely disagree on this because
like uh I use ghost cities as an
example, right? Like where there is um
for years and years we look to China and
we were like why are they developing
these like fake cities? Oh, it's to just
probably try to get people to work like
to try to get like fake work so that
>> it's modern monetary theory. It's money
printing.
>> So, but what we found out uh at least
now is that all of those ghost cities
have been populated. There are still
other cities where they're like still
building. Uh they're they're rapidly
expanding. There's rapid urban
development. But like the reason why
those cities were built was because they
had a 15-year plan in mind of like
inevitably moving people from rural
areas into more urban uh tier one cities
and tier 2 cities. Um and there are
still issues with the structure as well.
There's a hook system that uh I think uh
needs uh tremendous reform. uh this like
almost interior passport structure that
they have in China. But that actually uh
was was a process in which you know 800
uh million people were were uh able to
to escape uh extreme poverty in China.
That was a direct consequence of good
government initiatives that did not put
uh the the speculative interests of the
market first but instead uh put the
interests of citizens first. I would say
it's the exact opposite. So what they
wanted to do
>> So you're saying China was doing
capitalism better than America and
that's why they're at the place that
they're at.
>> They did capitalism with um communist
elements and they have pulled more
people out of poverty faster than
anybody else in history. It is
absolutely insane. And anybody that sort
of brushes that off and says that's not
a functioning system I think is a fool.
>> I you look at that and go okay what kind
of system do you want to be? One other
historic example as well was the USSR.
>> Well,
>> again, tremendous pain in that process
>> collapse. So, that one's probably not
great. They used to joke that uh we'll
pretend to work and they'll pretend to
pay us. So, again, going back to what is
it that gets people to innovate? You
have to let people get wealthy. In the
'9s, what happens? The government
collapses. They let people get wealthy.
They rush into the modern economy. Then
a strong man comes in and takes over
again and is now uh you've got
capitalism with Russian characteristics,
which is basically again, you can get as
rich as you want as long as you don't
get uppy. If you ever challenge me, I'm
going to re-educate the [ __ ] out of you
until you're either dead or uh until
you're back in line.
>> I think social repression is is uh a
major issue in u virtually every system,
but certainly in these in these
structures as well. We also do tend to
highlight uh some of the uh inequities
while simultaneously refusing to see our
version of that as well. And
>> do you think I'm doing that? Because I
>> No, no, no. I'm not I'm not saying that
you're doing that. I'm just in general.
I'm saying like broadly we look at like
um like the example I always use is like
uh like America has slave labor built
into its uh built into it structure,
right? We slavery as a mechanism of
punishment is still very much legal in
the 13th amendment which was supposed to
abolish slavery, right? Um and we look
to other countries and we say, "Oh, they
have goologs," right? Like we
technically have them as well. We have a
we have a structure uh we have a a
similar very violent carceral state here
uh where we house 25% of the entire
world's incarcerated population despite
making up only 4% of the overall
population in this country. This isn't
to say that like the systems are
similar. I'm simply stating that like
sometimes we end up having blindsides to
our own inequities while simultaneously
highlighting the the inequities and the
forms of repression that other people
do. This isn't to excuse their forms of
repression. I think they're inexcusable.
>> Are they worse?
>> I I think in some instances, yes,
certainly, especially historic examples.
Um and in certain instances is like it
can even be sometimes overblown like the
social credit system that they have in
China where people will be like oh they
have a mass surveillance and like a
social credit uh system but we have uh
we actually do have a credit system that
is I think far more consequential for
the lives of American citizens as
opposed to like what we assume the the
Chinese social credit uh function looks
like. Do you want a world where people
have where the government has that kind
of control over your life? Because you
don't put um the ability to track how
much meat somebody buys into your system
unless at some point you plan to control
how much meat somebody buys.
>> Um do you like that level of control or
do you fear that level of control?
There's a healthy fear to have under
that kind of structure because you
assume that it could be used for
understandably used for evil especially
when you have so much power in the hands
of so few people and I think the
solution to that is like uh an unlimited
transparent democratic process that is
constantly measuring the efficiency of
of the representatives and there is a
very swift mechanism of replacement when
uh people fall short of the expectations
or the demands that people are making a
a democratic process. Um the Chinese
style of governance uh I think we assume
is like super top down. There is a
constant feedback that comes from uh the
the party system. It's it's not
technically one party even though there
is one governing party obviously but
that governing party is still beholden
very much to like every single locality
and what u what their local
representatives are saying what the
demands are from uh the population
there. I don't know if it's the best
possible uh system, but I do know that
we here as an American citizen have a
tremendous amount of inequality and with
no real way of addressing said issues,
which is why the organizations like the
Democratic Socialists of America try to
uh work within the existing duopoly to
try to push the Democratic party to hear
the demands of
>> So what what do they want to see from a
policy perspective? What does the DSA
want to see actually happen? So, um,
again, I'm not even a I am a big booster
of the Democratic Socialist of America.
I'm not technically a card carrying
member, but
>> if you know their policies,
>> um, I don't I don't mind like broadly
explaining uh some of their outlook, but
like
>> u for example, Israel Palestine
um this is a a major issue for many
Americans, especially in the democratic
base right now.
>> Is this a moral issue or a financial
issue?
>> Both. It's both a moral issue and it's
also a financial issue because
>> you had to split the amount that they
care. Is it moral or financial?
>> I don't know what the exact adjustment
on that would be, but I certainly but I
I think it's it's negligible. It doesn't
matter. I mean, it's it's a horrifying.
It's immoral, but ultimately it's um
it's also a policy decision that impacts
Americans lives. Uh and and it's not
doesn't yield any benefits. if we want
to make like a cold calculated
adjustment there in terms of American
foreign policy and our reliance on on uh
Israel being as violent as it wants to
uh to uh a a captive population of
Palestinians that doesn't actually
return any significant benefits and it's
seemingly a system in which uh we're
just like giving, you know, billions and
billions of dollars of weapons and
financial aid to a country that actually
does have free healthcare, ironically
enough. Uh, and they can do that because
we handle all of their offensive and
defensive weapons, 70% of it since
October 7, 2023.
>> And why do you think we do it?
>> The reason why uh we do it here in
America and historically have done so is
because it's a settler colonial
apparatus that uh is is smack dab in the
middle of a uh a a region that has uh
incredibly important choke points for
trade, for global trade. Uh and also
it's a resourcerich region. the resource
that uh runs the global economy, oil.
>> So an unsinkable aircraft carrier that
we can operate on.
>> That's part of it for sure. And that has
given uh Israel a tremendous amount of
of freedom to operate within American
politics in a way that no other ally has
ever been able to uh exist under. like
there's no level of influence that uh
Saudi Arabia has on US uh policy to the
same degree that Israel has had because
it was an invaluable cold war ally at
times when there was pan-Arabic
nationalism that was taking place and
like a lot of these countries were uh
beginning to to demand sovereignty and
maybe were finding themselves uh on the
on the Soviet side in terms of like
global trade or or global partnerships,
right? And America did not like this. So
they used Israel. And because of that
that profoundly important status that
Israel had, it was able to develop a
perverse network of of influence and and
um and uh create a system where
basically any any kind of push back
against Israel or any kind of push back
against like uh the Israeli interests
could be uh quickly squashed away. Is
that because they gave us influence over
the region or because they're spending
money on individual politicians in
America and those individual politicians
want the money to keep flowing so they
don't mind sending taxpayer dollars. So
they're basically accepting
>> it's both.
>> Mhmer there's two different minds on
this. Noom Chsky says it's a unsinkable
aircraft carrier and therefore uh it's
it's profoundly important to American
foreign policy which I agree with. Mhmer
says it's the lobby, right? He It's not
just Apac, though. It's just like all of
the different arms of of Israel's like
incredibly incredibly sophisticated
network of influence, a network of of
like mechanisms of control that it has
over politicians in terms of like
lobbying dollars and whatnot. I think
it's a bit of both. I think it's it's uh
it's not a chicken or the egg situation
because it's like if it wasn't so
profoundly important as a vassel or as a
as a mechanism of American imperialism
or western imperialism in the region it
would not have been able to de develop
this sophisticated network of influence.
But without that sophisticated network
of influence um there would have been
numerous points where America could just
like pull the rip cord and say you're
done. And as a matter of fact, there
have been times when American presidents
have said have enforced their tremendous
power over Israel and tremendous
influence over Israel. And we see that
less and less now. Uh especially after
Trump won. Uh we we we saw that with
George HW Bush in the past with
settlement expansion. We saw that with
Ronald Reagan, with Lebanon. Uh we saw
that with Joe Biden in 2021, as a matter
of fact, when Joe Biden said made that
one phone call said, "No, you're done."
Uh we're scaling this back. Uh, and
Israel, of course, followed up on those
demands. But Donald Trump,
unfortunately, is um is a very malleable
person. He's very persuadable and and
you can just buy his uh loyalty and and
Israel certainly was able to do that.
And that's the reason why we're
experiencing that's the reason why we're
seeing what we're seeing right now. It
was a failure on Biden's part as well.
Make no mistake, because on Trump one,
we started the Abraham Accords. Biden
did not actually scale back on that at
all and did not actually put
Palestinians at the forefront of this
conversation in any way, shape or form
and only accelerated uh this this same
design that that Trump had implemented
initially moving the embassy to American
embassy to Jerusalem. Very impactful uh
did did not actually uh scale back on
the the recognition of annex territory
in Golan Heights which is technically
supposed to be some Syrian territory,
some Lebanese territory. Donald Trump
made that annexation, which is illegal,
legal. He said, "We recognize it." Um,
and Biden didn't scale back on any of
this. And of course, this created the
the powdered keg that unfolded in
October 7. Bringing it back though to
the DSA. So, uh, are they
protectionists, isolationists, like how
do they look at that? So, they don't
want to send money. They also see a
moral injustice. Yes. But beyond the
moral injustice, what like policy um
core principle is it that drives them to
say we got to get out of this?
>> I think uh many people in the DSA would
be anti-imperialist in the sense that
like they don't want the system of
dominance that America has created
around the world that ends up having
horrible consequences that we can see in
real time like in Gaza uh to continue.
So, scale back America's influence on
the international stage.
>> Scale back America's violent influence
on uh and its violent interventions
around the globe uh is is uh broadly the
idea here. And like one of the things
that they voted on at the national
convention that just took place that I
went to in Chicago was like um
do we continue endorsing politicians
because they have a massive doornocking
operation all around the country, right?
like there are a lot of these guys are
activists. They're at the forefront. Uh
and also they are ready to go. They're
ready to go and and uh and and uh
promote politicians, right? That's
something that's like very impactful. We
saw that with incredible success with
Zoramani in New York. And uh the
question is like does the DSA continue
endorsing candidates that have a
wishy-washy position on this like
otherwise black and white thing,
genocide? Um and uh
>> what's the biggest issue for the DSA? Is
it Israel Palestine?
>> Israel Palestine currently is one of the
biggest issues I would say for sure.
>> Okay. And that stems from America should
not be violent around the world.
>> Um America should not be engaging in
violent intervention around the world
and America should not be supplying uh
unlimited weapons to a country that is
using those weapons on a captive
civilian population.
>> Okay. Is there a sense of because not
only is it wrong, but we want to
allocate those dollars to social
programs here in the US?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Uh
>> because every dollar spent, I think it
was Eisenhower ironically said that, but
like every dollar spent on bombs is a
dollar that could be spent on books, a
dollar that could be spent on the roads
here, a dollar that could be spent on
hardening our infrastructure. And yet
it's this uh endless endless greed that
we have in one of the only impactful uh
manufacturing bases that we have
remaining in this country which is
weapons uh that that we have this uh
steady flow of subsidies going to the
military-industrial complex and then
those weapons have to be sold somewhere
and you know Israel is one of the
clients that we sell those weapons to
and and it's a we're burning the candle
on both ends. were first subsidizing
subsidizing these companies. They're not
even taking those subsidies and then
like evenly distributing it to their
workers. They're just usually keeping it
at the top in the same way that uh most
companies do. They do stock buybacks and
and uh other forms of manipulation uh
rather than u rather than just like get
offer better benefits and better pay
packages to their workers anyway. And
then uh we send those weapons out to and
someone's got to use those weapons.
That's endless war. uh war not meant to
be won or lost, but war that is meant to
continue basically so that there is uh a
a consistent churn of of weapons going
somewhere. And then um this uh and then
our our tax dollars also then go to uh
aid packages to these countries that
then buy the weapons that we initially
subsidize the development of. I'm still
not sure why that's their biggest and
most breadandbut if it isn't the just
staunch emotional reaction that they
have. But what would be their next like
economically what do they want to see
happen in the US?
>> I think they um once again I'm not a DSA
spokesperson so I think there's probably
better people to to speak on this than
myself but from what
>> what prescription do you want to see?
>> Well yeah I can speak for myself. Uh I
think like um there are certain
inequities uh certain uh issues in
American society that broadly harm the
the largest uh the the largest group
working-class Americans. Um I would say
that healthcare is another great example
of this. We have a for-profit middleman
that doesn't necessarily need to exist
at all in the in the form of of
healthcare uh private healthcare
insurance companies. um that have been
tremendous for the GDP overall, but have
have led to an incredibly costly system
that doesn't actually heal people um and
and ends up uh putting them under
tremendous debt, tremendous financial uh
pressure that needs to go away. Uh I
think that uh workers need to have more
control over their own lives, have more
autonomy, have uh have more say in the
process of labor.
>> I get that. So
>> I think the first step is is
unionization. That's the first immediate
solution to this problem uh is is being
able to to have a say in the process.
And I think that's the reason why uh
capital earners have successfully combed
the influence of labor unions in this
country. And you can point to other
countries like European social
democracies where there's still the
process of like sectoral bargaining for
example that that has allowed unions to
still have some kind of power or some
kind of say in the process that have
protected or uh that have allowed these
countries to have uh more worker
protections. When I look at the two
biggest economies in the world, the US
and China,
>> um
I see those as countries that have won
through innovation.
When you look at the countries that have
run socialism, obviously you see
innovation pull back. So innovate um you
there are graphs that will show this.
I've shown one so many times just the
number of billion dollar companies that
the US has created versus anybody else.
literally can aggregate every other
country in
>> I don't I don't think that's like
innovation. I I don't consider like a
billion-dollar company to be innovative
in and of itself cuz like there's a lot
of there's uh there are a lot of billion
dollar companies now that are just um
you know they're they're I don't
necessarily think their output is that
innovative like Uber is a great example
of this. Uber in and of itself is a
disruptive force. It's very uh I mean
it's it's a billion dollar company.
>> It's not innovative. Yeah, I think it's
it was it was innovative in the not in
the sense that like they were able to
build out a new technology. Uh it was
innovative in the sense that uh it
created uh a massive gig economy of of
>> you may not like the output but in terms
of innovation they they saw that oh
everybody now has a phone in their
pocket drivers and people alike we can
completely dis disrupt this system by
putting these things together.
>> Yeah. So from that perspective, it feels
like you may not like the outcome, but
to say that it wasn't innovative feels
very strange.
>> So it's it is innovative in the sense
that like you said, it's disruptive, but
it's actually taking a
>> but it made my life better.
>> Yeah, it but it's taking So there's
again we go back to the multiple
numerous ways to skin a cat. Black cat,
white cat, as long as you're catching
the mice, it doesn't matter, right? But
there are differences here where like
your life could be.
>> Have you lived in uh other countries in
the past at all or no?
>> Where where have you lived if you don't
mind me asking?
>> London.
>> So you lived in London. Uh London is not
necessarily the best example of this but
like you lived in a system where there
was public transit. You I assume took uh
public transit at that time.
>> You privatized it.
>> Yes, I know. Which is why it's it's bad
now. But there was
>> by the numbers it's better. So they do
twice as many trips at roughly the same
level of consistency as when it was
privat uh made public and that like if
you look at across Europe you see that
over and over and over. So Sweden privat
or public makes public the telecom
system only to reverse that realizing
without the market forces you just get a
degradation of service. This is why we
protect against monopolies in the US. I
have the exact opposite. I have the
exact opposite assessment of the
situation where I think that
privatization and uh at first looks like
a better thing and it's sold as like uh
innovative but then inevitably it leads
to private companies corner cutting and
and actually giving a a worse service
overall. Whereas not being beholdened to
uh endless profit seeking allows some of
these systems to thrive because
ultimately it's not supposed to be for
profit. It's supposed to make sure that
people are transported. It's like the US
postal service,
>> right? So not supposed to be for profit.
I get why you say that, but when you're
dealing with the realities of the human
psyche, it's like you have to do
something to incentivize people to work
that hard, take those huge risks. And
that always becomes the part where I
think people are not being honest about
how hard it is to build and scale a
company. And so there's this idea a as
my read of socialism goes something like
this. The miracle is redistribution
versus the miracle is being able to
create a system that outputs something
more valuable than its inputs. And I've
spent the last 25 years of my life
trying to do that. Sometimes succeeding,
sometimes failing, but it's always
brutally difficult. And so the question
becomes why would I put myself through
that? And the reason that you put
yourself through it is you're playing a
game where it's like ah I can win like I
can really make something that the world
loves that people are like man you've
made my life better and that feels
awesome. I've been able to maximize my
talent and intelligence in a way that
matters. So meaning and purpose means a
lot to me. I control my own destiny so I
have autonomy.
>> Yeah. You have autonomy. You're you
that's the reason why you want people to
become entrepreneurs so they have
autonomy. I have autonomy in my life as
well because I I I guess technically own
and operate and I'm the sole laborer of
my own business, right? And I want
people to to have that
>> editors are going to be hurt to hear you
say you're the sole laborer. Your
editors will be hurt to hear you say the
soul labor.
>> True. I'm like the keyman and if I
wasn't actually streaming like there is
not another person out there who is
working that I'm paying uh so that they
can stream and then uh we ship off that
uh footage to the editors right like if
I were to stop streaming then my editors
would also not be able to make any money
in the process because the business
would not uh generate any sort of
revenue you're right though you're
absolutely right I do have editors um I
also have a cooperative uh uh owner
cooper operative owned podcast as well.
But the point I'm trying to make is that
if I stopped streaming or if I stopped
podcasting, like the these businesses
would fall apart in and of itself. Um,
but I want everyone just like my editors
have uh to to be able to have autonomy
in and to have a say in uh the the
process of of making things. Uh and I
think that actually helps with the
efficiency or helps build better, more
innovative products down the line um in
ways that we can't immediately foresee.
>> I agree. But why is the government the
right way to make sure that happens?
>> Well, the government simply acts as a a
regulatory mechanism here. it. This
isn't to say that like everything should
be state-owned enterprises, but I think
that even if you have a private
structure, for example, like in many
European social democracies, as long as
you don't allow uh the the uh
profit-seeking aspect to take complete
control over uh whatever the services
you're providing or whatever the goods
that you're creating, then the
government should uh implement certain
regulatory checks to ensure that there
is still this balance where workers do
have uh fair wages, better benefits
packages and that the market is heavily
regulated because it's already heavily
incentivized through the form of
subsidies. But we demand nothing in
return in western liberal uh democracies
for said subsidies in most
circumstances. We just kind of give uh
people money. We give companies money
and we're like do whatever you want with
it. We trust you to make the right
decision with this. I think when we do
this uh subsidy process, there should be
certain demands that the government is
making. You have to ensure that all of
your workers have a living wage. You
have to ensure that you're not like
employing children. You know what I
mean? You have to ensure that uh they
they get uh paid time off, paid family
leave. I think these are perfectly
reasonable demands that the government
should make from their
>> what happens when take minimum wage,
right? where
>> uh you want to increase it as much as
possible, you want a quote unquote
living wage. Uh but when you do it, you
get adverse from where I'm sitting
consequences like it increases the rate
at which people automate. Uh that people
have a harder time getting entry-level
jobs because as an entrepreneur, if
you're making me pay somebody, you know,
twice what I would otherwise pay them
for that entry- level position, it's not
an entry-le position anymore. So now I'm
going to look for somebody that's worth
that amount of money. This is where
labor unions come in. Um, labor unions
are supposed to ensure that even in the
process of automation, you don't
actually end up firing people. That
automation is not used as a as a uh
mechanism to displace the existing labor
force as we talked about already, but
instead it was to lower the burden of
the existing labor force. So that
>> how do you reconcile though that the
average consumer wants everything as
cheaply as possible? they seem
completely blind to the fact that they
as a worker are the reason things aren't
cheaper.
>> Uh so it's like I want cheaps, but I
also want a much higher minimum wage.
And that tension, which I honestly think
the vast majority of the public is
unaware uh of where that problem comes
from. Like how do we reconcile that?
>> I think in a weird way, we're kind of
seeing a version of that with Donald
Trump right now who's like bullying
companies to ensure that they eat the
cost of the tariffs. Not sure exactly
where this is going to go, but like Do
you like that? Um, I I dislike Donald
Trump heavily, but that is one aspect of
his administration that I was like
genuinely shocked by that like companies
are openly admitting that they're
currently eating as much as the tariffs
as they possibly can, which means that
there was room, there was some movement
to uh to to shed away uh some of their
profit rates uh in an effort to even
improve uh workplace conditions and
improve uh the the uh benefit structures
or compensation uh that they are
offering their regular workers. They
just had never done so because there was
no intimidation coming from the
executive. Whereas right now there is
intimidation coming from the executive.
So they're basically just eating away uh
as much as that uh as much as the profit
as possible and then in return they're
giving that in the form of tariffs, the
entry tax back to this administration.
God knows what they're going to do with
that money. I don't think they're going
to actually uh use it for anything good.
And that's a a totally separate problem.
But on on principle, it seems like there
is more money to move around in in a lot
of these companies than we actually
previously thought and and they're
showing that reality right now.
>> Okay. So, is this a black hat, white hat
thing for you where you don't mind the
executive intimidating companies as long
as it's yielding an outcome you think is
more
>> Oh, for sure. I I actually well I
wouldn't say this about Donald Trump
because like I said who knows what like
there's a better way to do this because
it's not technically a redistributive
policy if you don't redistribute the
wealth at all. It is taxes though right
like Donald Trump has implemented this
broad sales tax which is a regressive
tax. I'm not in favor of it for that
reason, but he has been able to
implement this and it hasn't even turned
into a broad regressive sales tax yet
because companies are seemingly not
actually increasing the costs uh in the
ways that we thought they would. I think
it's still going to happen down the
line. it's impossible for them not to,
but the the very fact that they haven't
done so in the interim implies that uh
they did have room for uh they did have
more room to to lower their profit rates
without taking too significant of a hit.
And I think in the best in the best
regulatory system, the the same
intimidation would exist by the state,
but in the direction of of taking
instead of giving it, you know, as an
entry tax, uh taking some of that money
and and telling the companies to to give
it back to their workers so that they
have more.
>> What would you want to see Trump spend
the tax the additional tax revenue on?
>> So many things, but uh he's just not
going to do that. But uh I mean you got
>> surely there's a mechanic thing
>> I mean healthcare infrastructure
uh education there are so many areas of
need I'm not even going to say
improvement at this point like areas in
dire need of of uh resources that
they're not getting rural hospital
networks are completely eviscerated at
this point and it's only slated to get
worse with the new uh triple B bill that
he passed through with $800 billion of
Medicaid cuts that are going to come
after the midterms that is going to rip
apart the the existing network of like
rural hospitals. Hospitals that uh rely
on Medicaid uh to to serve uh their
their patients are no longer going to
have this financial uh they're no longer
going to have uh patients that are able
to pay for their hospital bills at all.
So, it's going to destroy what remains
of rural hospital networks in this
country. Uh that's devastating and I
think we should be moving in the
opposite direction on that. Um
abolishing uh the interest of profit
from healthcare in its entirety because
it's an inelastic it's an inelastic
demand good. Um so either you need heavy
market intervention from the government
or no no uh market intervention
whatsoever no market whatsoever in that
process.
>> Okay. So um what about debt? So, if I
have made any headway, which I'm I'm
fearing I have made no headway. Uh, if I
made any headway, some of that money or
in my universe, virtually all of it
would go to paying down the debt.
>> Mhm.
>> Good allocation, bad allocation.
>> Oh. Um, I don't necessarily care about
that at all because I think that the the
international
the international uh financial markets
are just dictated by the confidence that
people have in American might and the
American economy in general. I don't
think it's like tied to anything
tangible like you said. It's not tied to
like any sort of commodity. It's not
tied to gold, right? Uh so
>> and you don't think the debt can break
that confidence? I think uh it is
virtually impossible for the debt to
break that confidence because in the
same way that I was just talking about
the stock market which is like no longer
as associated with like a like the real
market fundamentals that we think of or
like an innovative product that we're
talking about and it's more so just like
the overwhelming confidence or the
overwhelming uh need for for uh uh to to
have endless unlimited growth. Uh the
same goes for the international design
that we have where people are just like
we can't break this apart even when
Trump is forcibly trying to break it
apart. Look at the design that we have
around global trade right we built it we
built it in a way where we just give IUS
to other countries and and we could then
have them build the products and then we
could just say like okay you know the
the dollar is the is the uh currency
that trade is is being conducted on. we
have complete control over it and we'll
just give you IOU and then we'll buy
these uh cheap goods that you are
creating over there so then our consumer
base can uh you know enjoy endless
treats. Um Donald Trump is trying to
break that apart or at least by his own
admission he was like actively
attempting to disrupt the system for no
discernable reason whatsoever. He claims
it's because he wants to build a robust
manufacturing base uh and and do trade
protectionism but you have to build that
base first. uh uh instead of just like
deciding that uh all of these other
vassal states are supposed to pay
additional tithing to the American
lordship in the way that he has done so
far where he goes to countries and says
you have to buy our chicken, you have to
buy our F-150s uh and you have to make
up for this trade surplus uh and and in
the process you're supposed to pay
>> actually free up enough dollars to start
paying down the debt. Great. It would
actually be wildly advantageous for the
very people that you want to help. But
the hard reality is that everybody at
this stage in the debt cycle thinks that
it goes on forever. And this is when
you're literally uh a small handful of
years. I'm going to peg it at roughly 10
years away from mechanistically it just
can't go on. You're adding a trillion
dollar in debt every 100 days. And
already you spend more in interest on
that debt than you spend on national
defense. So it's like it eventually
becomes bigger than all of your
healthcare programs. then it becomes
bigger than all of your healthcare
programs put together. Uh and it happens
very very fast. There is no country
that's not true. 98% of every country
that's spent any significant amount of
time with a debt to GDP ratio of over
130 has ended up in civil war or
revolution. So Japan is the only country
that has avoided that. Now Japan has
cultural reasons why I think they'd be
fine. I'm not even sure we have to go
all the way to 130 before we start
pulling ourselves apart at the seams.
So, it's like debt is the thing where I
am like banging pots and pans and
screaming trying to get people to hear
me. But because it's not emotionally
sexy, it doesn't feel like punishing the
rich. I cannot get people to wake up to
the fact there's one thing driving your
problem. It is debt and money printing.
>> Well, the reason why I just, like I
said, the reason why I don't think it's
um as consequential or as significant is
is precisely because
uh there's this um it's almost like the
red button, right? Once America
collapses, the entire system collapses
and therefore even when
>> China will be like peace.
>> No, I I understand that empires fall.
>> But I know when England fell, America
>> I think the American empire is is slated
to fall as well. But my point is,
>> don't you want to stop that?
>> I want the I want America to be a force
for good. It's currently not. I wish it
was, but it's it's just a force for
endless unlimited greed and death and
destruction.
>> Force for good. Is that an international
comment or
>> both international and also domestic?
>> Okay. And so we talked about the
external part internally domestic. How
do we economically become a force for
good? Like mechanistically though I want
to know like what are the policies?
>> We have unlimited wealth in this
country. We have uh
>> well explain that.
>> I mean we have tremendous wealth in this
country. This is the wealthiest country
on the planet in the in the history of
mankind.
>> Yes. Leveraged to the gills with debt
>> for sure. But ultimately, we have so
much technological innovation. if we
were and we have uh a we have an
incredible infrastructure that we're
relying on that we that we made gains on
uh in the New Deal that we're still
basically eating off of and we haven't
necessarily improved it in ways that we
could have for a very long time due to
that same uh you know private public
partnership structure that we've
designed that makes it so that these
companies get the benefits, get the
subsidies, get the tax cuts and don't
actually deliver anything in return. the
regulatory agencies that are supposed to
enforce these companies to follow
through. Give you the example of like
ISPs in the 90s, they got like billions
of dollars of tax cuts because they
weren't they were supposed to create
broadband that was easily accessible.
They were supposed to uh move in the
direction of fiber optic cables. I live
in West Hollywood. I still don't have
fiber. I have worse internet than like
Chattanooga, Tennessee. The reason why
Chattanooga, Tennessee has better
internet than me, living in [ __ ] West
Hollywood and uh you know and paying 50
plus% in taxes overall year-over-year
because it's just pure income. Um is
because they had a local government take
control over the situation and said,
"No, we're going to deliver this
unconditionally. I don't think that we
should leave it up to, you know, private
industry." And
>> but you don't look at what Elon is doing
and go h
>> like this is pretty interesting
>> in terms of what Starink
>> is going to Yeah. Starlink is going to
bring high broadband low latency
internet to everybody.
>> No, I I think I think there are things
that Elon Musk companies are doing that
are are uh a direct consequence of the
brilliant people that work there and uh
Elon is is simply sitting on top of all
of these.
>> I don't need you to Elon. I'm just
saying
>> all of this innovation,
>> privatization, that's how how do you get
engineers to get behind you?
>> Oh, well, what I was going to say is
what I was going to say is like it
doesn't have to be that cuz it's all
still uh it's heavily reliant on
previous technology uh that was publicly
funded. It's like it's like sitting on
top of a lot of a lot of like NASA's
Jeep JPL uh uh engineers for example.
Like they're it would not exist without
NASA. Elon, listen, I love the
government, like if they're going to
spend our dollars on things that the
private industry isn't going to tackle,
but could yield something advantageous,
I love that
>> we are all standing on the shoulders of
giants. The question just becomes
>> what yields the most innovation. And if
you look at SOES, you can literally so
state-owned enterprises, you can
literally compare them to privatization
and on mass, not that there won't be
examples here and there where SOE
somehow pull something off, but on mass
privatization just always becomes more
efficient, more innovative, because
humans don't want to work for free. And
so they need that incentive. It's like
when I talk to people that lean
socialists, it's like they really get
the need for workers to have dignity and
to make enough money that they can exist
in the economy and that they can make
the promise to themselves and to their
kids, my kids' lives will be better than
mine, but my life next year is going to
be better than my life today. Like
that's so important and we have to
facilitate that. But I'm saying they get
that, but then when they translate it to
what system yields that and it's letting
those people go. For instance, uh Elon
Musk is a [ __ ] I want to spin off my
own company. I want to do this myself.
I'm going to outsmart him. I'm going to
show the world. And enough people do
that that they end up creating something
extraordinary.
>> Well, like you said, there's also
natural barriers uh of entry into, you
know, space travel and and airline
commercial airline industries as well.
So then then there is uh that problem in
terms of uh industries that tend to uh
monopolize. I mean every single industry
wants to do that.
>> Monopoly is very important.
>> Yeah. Um and and that's another
regulatory function of the of the state
as well. Um it's just it seems like it's
a matter of like how much state
intervention uh we want in this process.
>> How much state intervention works? This
is the thing like watching you I you're
a big supporter of mom dami. Mom,
Donnie. Yeah.
>> And bro, like I'm like, "Hey, he really
seems like he has a good heart and he
wants to do something rad." And I'm just
like,
>> "Go look at what happened in the Bronx
when they tried rent control before."
>> Well, he's not even doing he's not even
proposing rent control. He's saying rent
freezes on rent stabilized uh units
because that is an independent
commission that is like appointed by the
mayor.
>> Literally part of what happened in the
Bronx.
>> No, I know. I'm saying that that has
actually happened in the past on
numerous occasions and it hasn't led to
>> catastrophe. I don't I don't
>> literal catastrophe. You have to like go
do like a breakdown of what happened in
the 70s and 80s in the Bronx. It's wild.
>> Well, I think rent uh rent stabilized
housing having rent freezes. Rent freeze
means like increase in rent uh has been
successfully implemented even during
COVID and whatnot as well. So let's take
a maybe in like the world's most hyper
like right in this moment for 18 months
or something. But the cost of
maintaining the building are going to go
up. This is inflation. This is why I'm
saying once people stop understanding
inflation, they they [ __ ] themselves six
ways to Sunday because all the plumbing
is going to go up at the rate of
inflation, right? So if I'm a building
owner and I've got to deal with plumbing
issues and I know since 2020 we've gone
up by 25% conservative estimates. That's
from true inflation. So you've got an
increase in 25%, but if I'm the
landlord, I can't up my rents. So that's
just one of the many things that could
go wrong. And so now all of a sudden,
you're putting the business owner in a
position and the building is a business.
And I get why you don't like that. But
it's like, hey, I took all the capital
risk and all that to build this
business. I have to keep the ongoing
stuff. This is why now people will
actually advise people don't own because
there's so many costs with owning.
>> But the landlord has to like upkeep that
building. Now, as you force them into
leaner and leaner margins through
freezing rent, what you end up doing is
changing their cost structure, and now
they're like, "Okay, well, then I have
to cut back on servicing the building."
And then it got so bad.
>> I think I think in many instances, these
these buildings are not being properly
serviced to begin with. Uh, and and
regardless, rent still going up.
>> Greed.
>> I think it's greed for sure, 100%. Can
we agree that deregulating and letting
people build more housing is at a
minimum part of the solution even if
it's not the whole solution?
>> I think building more housing is uh
definitely part of the solution.
>> But you want the government to be in
control of that.
>> I want um in my estimation and what I
have seen uh is is uh methods that are
successful. I think uh the government
already has tremendous power in this
country and in all countries. Uh and
using that power for good in terms of uh
even like eminent domain and like uh
expansive uh public infrastructure
projects which include like public
housing uh would be a a necessary
intervention in the uh in the the market
that is currently dominated by endless
greed. And every every type of
regulation is actually used as a
loophole for for people to continue uh
protecting their their speculative
assets uh housing.
>> All right, brother. I know I have to get
you out of here as you need to go live.
I thank you so much for your time, man.
Where can people follow along with you?
>> Uh I'm live every day at
twitch.tv/hassanabi.
Uh and uh I'm on Twitter at Hassan and
on Tik Tok and Instagram at Hassan
Deiker.
>> And when he says every day, he means
every day is wild. All right, everybody.
If you have not already, be sure to
subscribe. And until next time, my
friends, be legendary. Take care. Peace.
If you like this conversation, check out
this episode to learn more. By
definition, the American government's
job is to protect the government of the
United States, not the people of the
United States. Government employees, by
and large, are not your sharpest,
smartest, most motivated, most dedicated
employee. Help. What?