Comments by "TheEVEInspiration" (@TheEVEInspiration) on "The Rubin Report" channel.

There is a lot of misinformation of what happened and politics is to blame a lot for this. In short it was a cocktail of stupid policies and easy money by the FED. Presidents that wanted every person to own a home, with low wage job or none at all, and think that forcing banks to facilitate that will make it a reality. Any rational person that traces back what happened (and many did just that) will see the lunacy of it all. It had really not much, if anything, to do with deregulation (not in the way you would expect). The regulation was there, everyone that made money of it, just looked the other way! It was a free party due to federal loan guarantees and the FED kept supplying the funds to keep it going for a long time so it could build up to catastrophic proportions.
5
\o/ I see you have started strong by inviting Sam Harris.
4
s stevenson That is just following a political narrative without looking at the actual politics of those days and the actions taken. There were price controls at levels that made no economic sense at all. There was mass destruction of cattle and food to drive those prices up, in the hope that would stop deflation (it just made life harder, how surprising). And taxes were increased to insane levels. Government was right in the face of people doing their own business as it tried to regulate everything in minute detail. Sounds familiar? Well, it did'n work in the mighty USA either! All this (and more) threw the economy into chaos and they kept doing that until after WWII. It is always stupid politics...always! Some administrations can help make a country be run well, yet others will be a total disaster. Hoover and FDR are of the later category, with respect to their economics at least. No history book will try to paint a president that came out a winner in a world war as the bad guy. History is written by the victors! We do well in life to peek under the surface on complex historical issues. It is almost a given that most of what we learn about history is in fact a lie. Some small to create a bit of healthy patriotism, some really big that can haunt a civilization for centuries. Unfortunately you took the big lie and are even combative about it towards others. No-one person can know it all or can dive into every subject in detail. Personally I fine tuned my senses that help me choose what people to follow on which subjects and learn from them. Knowing full well that all those people will have the same limitations as me. They will not be omnipotent, but can still be capable in their respective fields. Be critical and willing to review your position when confronted with new facts or ideas. Most importantly, be prepared to disagree with your favorite persons on matters. Worshiping and cult forming is the dumbest thing to do as that means killing your own identity and it results in taking everything personal (you and the group or idea become all the same). Every viewpoint, every thought, everything. That is like existing in a constant psychological war and that can only end badly.
4
If free will does not exist the way we usually tend to think about it, which i do not dispute, it has profound consequences. Ask the question why we keep violent people or ideological destructive people alive at all? And locking criminal people up that are just a witness of their own being, would serve no purpose other then to torture them (hence criminals get out of jail worse then they got in)! It would mean every serious criminal should be sentenced to death. Probably not the outcome Sam would expect, but it is a perfectly logical outcome.
3
I am halfway in....but it is already clear this is a very good interview and amazing guest.
2
From an social economic angle, racial IQ research could be immensely beneficial. Policies and social organisation that work in one ethnic group might be impossible in another. The subject is inflammatory in the west only because of social justice and multiculturalism. A century ago, no-one would think bad of it, it is a relative new phenomenon.
2
The CIA hacked every device in the world. The CIA tells foreign media what to report on and how exactly. The CIA outright sponsors terrorism and the USA supplies the weapons for it. Really, who gives a shit if other countries are involved in leaks of things the american people ought to know in the first place. If anything the leaks/hacks were a service to the american public.
2
+Brad Bradington The differences between the two are minimal and only visible at the top of their respective hierarchies.
2
Nirvan Sengupta As far as I know that is all true. What made it a long lasting depression however was what happened after that that change. From a birds eye perspective the system turned quickly into state control of just about everything economic. Not to mention that setting those interest rates by decree was in that same style to begin with.
2
s stevenson Are you honestly convinced you just made a rational argument?
2
Great guest and always nice to see a host that allows a guest to really talk (it is rare these days).
2
Free speech won't kill anyone, but immigration on the other hand does. Immigration from incompatible countries is a rot in the roots of society. So first things first, send all immigrants back to the countries they came from. If they do not go voluntary, then use force! And never ever give immigrants voting rights that can influence laws or other crucial systems in society. Immigrants are NOT equal, never!
2
This is a weird mix of good reason, proven facts...but also religious thinking and worshiping a persona.
1
Donald Clifford In my view it is more then giving credit. The way it is done is like following in her footsteps and relive the decisions she made. Reminds me of how religions handle their holy figures.
1
Donald Clifford Freedom has always value to peoples lives, both in body as in mind.
1
And still I feel alone as people near me are ** not ** interested in anything but their own consumerism, getting things their way in that one day look-ahead window. Politics would be a huge improvement, at least then there will be a 4 year look-ahead window. Talk about progress by leaps and bounds!
1
+Dat16uy We can only look a limited time ahead with respect to likely innovation and the impact on available jobs. In the past no-one living then could have predicted X number of people working in modern industries. Out blindness and limited imagination makes it really easy to seed doubt about, and fear of, large scale automation in our lifetime. When in fact this process has already happened...several times...and we got better out of it each time! Maybe those facts will ease your mind? And if for some reason, 95% of the people do not need to work as 5% can do it all with limited effort...will you think society will still rely on work as a means of growing and distributing wealth?
1
Liberalism is extreme right too, from a certain perspective :)
1
Separate from Hillary Clinton understanding the issue or not, does Sam Harris really think she does care at all? If only half of her behavior is true and it looks like most of it is actually, then she clearly does not care and there is zero reason to have any trust in her doing right as a leader.
1
LOL, this is so great, i wish this would be possible in Europe! Here I was thinking the USA was starting to look like a lost cause, then these people happen!
1
You called me flawed....gets the pitch forks!
1
This talk is so well done, calm, constructive and with time for nuance.
1
That is way too simplified, an economic system will put constraints on what can be done at a social level.
1
Western nations should not feel bad about their own racial and cultural heritage and they have a right to defend it against others. But as soon as white people defend their culture, they get viciously attacked and/or labeled white supremacist by media figures. When other races, nations and cultures do this in extremes, nobody takes offense or even it gets loudly applauded. This shows there is a severe and hostile bias against white people and their culture. It shows there is a race and culture war going on against white people at this very moment. If anything breeds extremes, it is this and it will end very bad. Ben Shapiro makes a grave error by labeling people by loose association, without any argument of wrongdoing in the first place. Pure identity politics at work! So, defense of race and culture is not even a bad thing and all non-white groups do it. As long as people are not attacking others in the streets because of their conviction, there is no wrong going on. The reality today is that white people get attacked for their color and in their own countries no less and then the blame is put on these white people too. I have to call double standards by Ben, even when he seems to mean well. He could have done better IMO.
1
Self censoring is always a clear sign of oppression by the establishment. There is also a generational angle where the old generation watches and believes TV and newspapers, while the rest gets its news online. My point is, the division is created by those in power of disseminating information and that lie constantly.
1
acvarthered That only shows a clear lack of empathy with the victims and a personal urge to deny people can be really bad. As such the tendency is to wish it away and measures quickly looks harsh, even if just. The wish is the farther of the thought, more or less. Another phrase for it is common stupidity!
1
acvarthered Punishment is setting a new set of conditions and in severe crimes that is primarily to protect victims and society from the criminal. When learning of no free will results in assigning less punishment, society will be at greater risk. That subjects did not give weight to this side of the equation, shows they observe a sentence as a means to punish or take revenge on the criminal (like a child would view it). That can work as a deterrent for normal people, but not to protect society from real basket cases. As a result it means they have more empathy after learning a criminal could not help himself due to lack of free will. The other side of the equation is that they have less empathy for the victims and society as I stated. It apparently shows empathy only for the helpless witness in the criminal body and lowering punishment is an obvious way to protect this separate victim in the body of the criminal somewhat from society, instead of the other way around. Pretty screwed up if you ask me as we cannot separate both.
1
acvarthered I never argued such a thing. I put forward the question why we would keep violent people or ideological destructive people alive at all! Followed by what would be a logical thing to do with this knowledge in my opinion. One result from poorly articulated research conditions changes nothing in all of this. You are just arguing for the sake of arguing and when confronted with clear reason are crying red herring. You proved nothing and are just upset you did not get your way just by referencing some science experiment!
1
+s stevenson Your posts are arguing words and positions I never used/posted. Then you attack me on those same positions, in a rather hostile way by being accusative Unfortunately your latest reply is of the same level.
1
s stevenson I was referring to your post before that, YT does not always display posts in logical order. As for your position there was not enough regulation in certain areas. What specific regulation are you talking about here? And we are still taking big depression period here, correct? My arguments with respect to regulation is that price controls, destruction of property and heavy tax burdens do not make an economy run well, but make it sick. These are all bad decisions in my book! If that is in line with supply side economics, that is fine with me. Personally I do not think pure supply or pure demand side talk does proper justice to the complexities of real economies.
1
s stevenson Thank you for the calm and reasoned response. The financial industry is indeed heavily leveraged and fuels the stock markets, no argument with me on that point. But even banking leverage has limits. Banks work on incentives and will try to cover their buts for when things can go south. Too much negative risk falling on their own shoulders is avoided. On their own a bank would never supply money to a broke jobless man, even if they genuinely suspect the house will appreciatie in value. It takes other ingredients for them to become so reckless. What can influence the industry besides a lust for profit? I would argue these points: 1. Money supply, low intrest rate and easy money supply means cheap access to capital to leverage with. 2. Bookkeeping regulations, which to my knowledge always existed just like for other businesses. It regulates what counts at capital, how much leverage is allowed, that sort of things. If such incentives change in a radical way (like the first did), unintended consequences are set in motion as the rules of the game get changed. Rules that were sufficient before, suddenly aren't. This is what makes it dangerous to meddle in complex systems from the top-down and one rule at a time, like we still do today. The answer is never just more regulation as more regulation means more complexity. More complexity makes it harder to tune for the right regulation that makes banks behave. It is just so much easier to keep a simple system in check! Do not think for a second I am opposed to regulation, I trust the banks just as little as you likely do. But I do trust them to act in their own interests! Rules that leverage that certainty are the rules that likely work best. As for depression politics, I think it is clear that issuing more rules was not helping at all and made things worse. It might not be the most popular opinion given what people are told to believe, but it is sensible and I settle for that over popular.
1
Matthew Deyling From my point of view, that is a correct observation. There is at least one more dimension to it all, namely dirty politics to kill off existing competition and prevent new competition coming into existence. It is easy to create rules that take out a competitor that uses foreign made components in their products. Simply put tariffs on those foreign parts, using political connections and spin a story that sells. That example is very specific and easy to understand. But in a more general way, many rules establishes an environment that makes it hard for new home grown competition to emerge as the costs to comply are proportionally higher at smaller business scales. Large well connected businesses can thus by stimulating politics to create more rules, create (semi-) monopolies and thereby exploit the population. This is what is happening in the EU, large corporations and bureaucrats love it. This has more knock on effects in society, like lower business efficiency and more non-productive jobs in government. It shifts the balance of power from rational actors in touch with reality to dependence/feelings based thinking. Now we enter the debate on collectivists vs individualists (aka oppression vs freedom). If hope you followed my reasoning thus far can agree. If so, it is not hard to see how fundamentally dangerous big politics that layer many rules down on society can become and indeed has become. I doubt there is even one person in the US that knows all the rules that potentially are directly applicable to a common person. This is a dangerous way to structure society and does not promote rational thinking at all in any way shape or form.
1
Adding a colon in the title after "Bangladeshi Blogger on", would characterize the video far better!
1
Helped you out a bit within my means. Good luck!
1
Rubin, I can follow your "feel" for ** some low level of ** progressive taxation. I can only think of two arguments: 1. When having a good position in society with assets and all that, defense becomes proportionally more important. 2. There will be persons what cannot contribute financially at all, so progressiveness to compensate that fact. Both I think are not major reasons either way. And if it simplifies debates, one can just as well remove them from the table and come with less forceful alternatives.
1
But the PIE is growing, all the time. But most people are just pushed away from it by a cabal of boomer insiders that keep everyone out. Productivity of capable people has gone up over tenfold these last thanks to computers, did we see an increase in wealth...NOPE! Incapable people are often paid far more than capable people, its as far away from meritocracy as it can get.
1
2:13 This is all you need to know that this video is just pure propaganda. Disgusting, just stop it!
1
Pretty good? Several generations have been robbed of their potential by the baby boomers that are now the elite and still deciding for us. Are you fucking blind? Look at wages vs living costs, look at home ownership, look at debt, look at the quality of education, at anything really, its a fucking mess.
1