Comments by "Kristopher Driver" (@paxdriver) on "Jordan B Peterson" channel.

  1. 169
  2. 9
  3. 8
  4. 8
  5. 5
  6. 3
  7. 3
  8. For a scientist Dr Peterson is not much of a data guy.. There are plenty of well considered economic and environmental studies on climate change, you just need to read them. It's the data that spell doom, climate moves slowly just like culture, but it doesn't mean acting now isn't imperative it means the effects of our hubris takes years to become apparent. And 20 years after Green Peace begging us to listen we have annual storms of the century, rising sea levels and massive droughts. It's not fear or irrational dommsday saying, there are quantifiable data. There are oil companies who have engaged in suppressing climate studies which turned out unfavourable, then they paid out for disinformation campaigns instead. As a market analyst I can tell you it's not a secret the affordability of climate change initiatives is achievable without any pain if all we did was shift corporate tax rates back to what they used to be when the economy was not only viable but incomes were more evenly distributed and we maintained / built national infrastructure with it. You're the ones spazzing out about how expensive or necessary things these issues are without knowing the costs. You're the ones too lazy to do the dirty work of learning how to read stats by deltas and out sized returns of subsidized energy companies or real productivity of the highest income earners who are protected from paying proportional taxes. You guys are catastrophizing about solutions to a fixable problem you haven't looked at. You read the analysis of someone else and assume you've understood. Just look for yourself by doing the math. How many billionaires worked at McDonald's as kids to pay their way and earn their spot? How much of their genius relies on selling data people never knew they were selling, or buying startups with their daddy money and rebranding without innovating, or extra ting from national resources without paying a tax rate the people who share that land pay on the incomes they make selling hours of their lives rather than fund raising. The money supply from mortgage accessibility helped one generation of low means become middle class by retirement at the expense of every subsequent generation. The focus on growth as a measure of economic strength ignoring demographics or need. You can see in all these data how your ideas are myopic if you just out in the effort to learn calculus, stats, economics by learning dynamics not just principles of a certain school of thought. Just watch markets and make predictions and follow through to see how and why your forecasts in the markets are right or wrong. Do that for a few years and you'll actually know what you're talking about.
    3
  9. 2
  10. 2
  11. 2
  12. 2
  13. 2
  14. 2
  15. 2
  16. 2
  17. 2
  18. 2
  19. 2
  20. This is extraordinarily dumb... 14:00 "gi-GAN-tism" isn't the issue of the educated, the enabling of disproportionate power is what people object to. It's not fitting into your narrow archetype model because educated people don't have the need of reduction to simplistic categoricals. It's not the size, it's the lobby. It's not the left/right, those are moral views, it's about who is more trustworthy: uncle Sam or father Ted. It's not political at all to not fit a categorical that's never been proven to be accurate in the first place. Plenty of lefties like guns, plenty of right wingers don't. Both have the same reasons for liking or disliking guns. The difference is the lobby. Left and right is a lesser evil strategy of voting, and that's not acting purely democratic its game theory. In a true democracy there would be no lobbying, no parties, and campaigns would be real debates instead of signs and commercials so people could only vote on policy. That would be democratic. No gerrymandering, no lobbying, no fundraising, no ads, no calls, no polls, no signs, no media preference, no tribes; just policy and voters. That's working democracy. If moneys not well used by government check your tax laws. Check subsidies, check abuse of power, partisanship, and lies about economics peddled plby people who live off of the public without ever having had a job but claim to represent workers by giving tax cuts which advantage the least in need by orders of magnitude thereby amplifying the problem they were elected to fix. They not only didn't fix it like they promised, they made it worse, and that's where the data are conclusive. Peterson hasn't read real data in like 10 years, when I first watched all of his videos and talks before the major drama and his nervous breakdown. He used to be critical thinking but now he just pushes agenda under the guise of rational thought. He doesn't understand economics, which he admits, yet forms opinions on false economic pretenses. He doesn't understand political leaning isn't a rule of nature it's a simplification. He doesn't understand fascism, Canada is nowhere near that but he confuses it often for socialism, and socialism isn't communism which he always confuses. He doesn't grasp stats, he failed to rebutt his critics yet continues to cite the same debunked studies of rats and the extrapolation even the author he lauds rejected later in life. He doesn't consider new information, he plugs ads despite not being for want of cash yet claims to educate for principle and Christian values, the opposite of how Jesus undertook that enterprise. Very deep thinker at one time, Jordan Peterson was held in high esteem for many years. I can't help but force these corrections at least just to point out his followers to fact check as he used to advocate regularly. Just think about what you're hearing and question the assumptions he glosses over in particular. For example, if left to right is a spectrum with no bounds how is it a binary reference with respect to Republican policy or democrat policy? Guns happen to be right wing, they are not inherently in favour of government over people as right wing and fascism at the extreme would require. Technically freedom to bear arms in theory would be left leaning by the model, which is obviously inaccurate. He doesn't even notice because he doesn't know what it means outside of social media. Notice his old videos never mentioned politics because he didn't know much of anything about it? Since he's been attacked by the woke and revered by the modern right for lashing out at the left, suddenly he knows politics well enough to interpolate and extrapolate? Based on provably false pretenses as I've noted above, he's just profiteering at this point. While I don't doubt the intent and outrage are sincere, but the value of his contribution to discourse without the thought process requisite for it being productive is on par with any marketing material or propaganda campaign because its deliberately distorted with an agenda and intentionally ignores any rational refutation when articulated point blank. It's tragic and shameful of JBP imho.
    2
  21. 2
  22. 2
  23. 2
  24. 1
  25. 1
  26. 1
  27. 1
  28. 1
  29. 1
  30. 1
  31. 1
  32. 1
  33. 1
  34. 1
  35. 1
  36. 1
  37. 1
  38. 1
  39. 1
  40. 1
  41. 1
  42. 1
  43. 1
  44. 1
  45. 1
  46. 1
  47. 1
  48. 1
  49. 1
  50. Poilievre brags that people like his blunt direct style of explaining economics he doesn't understand "not because it's overly simplistic but because it's true". I'd never heard this guy speak before so I was curious, but now I'm ready to actively speak out against him. Incompetence is the very last thing we need right now in Canada, especially the kind that doesn't recognize his own ego. It doesn't take a genius to recognize supply and demand is year 1 econ, it is not all of economics it's just the first 3 chapters of the first textbook of the first year's first term of economics class. The gap is widening because the largest earners are the least productive and are paid in percentages and awarded all of the tax incentives. That's why. It's because capital gains incomes are múltiples higher than labourers yet still asset holders raise prices faster than payrolls. On aggregate, that's the thing he's getting completely wrong but explaining accurately relative to currency. Currency printing is necessary because it is a response to employers and developers of luxury homes. His anecdotal 32 yr old with the same job as the mother who can't afford a home the mother could is about affordability, and access to credit caused by low interest and lax regulation prints more money than the central bank ever has this century. Look at the treasury auctions and look at household debt. There are numbers. If Poilievre understands his economics so well he wants to run the country he should at least understand how debt and credit circulate. Bonds don't hardly circulate at all except as leverage for debt. He should know this if he's going to come on camera bragging about how people love how smart he explains complicated economics to them, never mind casting aspersions in every direction without reading a single first year economics text before assuming he knows it all already. This guy, this type of politics and this superficial self aggrandizing pontificating is what's ruining our country. This is why we do worse and worse it's because we trust stupid people who tell us they're geniuses. If you don't know something say "I think" or confer with someone who does. Don't ask the public (who can't manage a credit card or mortgage without going bankrupt over a 2% change in a 25 year mortgage) what they think of national trade flows while the data and formulae are kept hidden from all of us. They're not financially literate man, that's the problem. To say illiterate people all think you are an amazingly astute reader is practically speaking "en retard M. Le ministre... "
    1