Infrared debates Lib Discord Free Market Philosopher. 🚀 Infrared Content Catalog

okay he's back hello

can you hear me now yeah i could hear

you all right

as you as you deduced so what are some

specific disagreements that we would

have

i don't know you wanted to come debate

yeah so you generally seem to have a

fairly dismissive stance towards the

liberal international order

right um

i do not believe in its long-term

survivability do you think that current

attempts

to engage with international

institutions are generally a good thing

or a bad thing

i think they are vain they are not going

to lead

to the survival of the global unipolar

american world order okay so why do you

think that the

um that the liberal international order

is going to collapse

well i'll i'll answer your question by

answering you a question

which countries comprise the

international liberal world order

well i don't i think that the

international that the liberal

international order refers more to an

edifice based on cooperation

which which are the countries that's

comprise the backbone of that

edifice i mean i think that the united

states is one

important backbone of the liberal

international order many of the

countries in europe

i think china is increasingly attempting

to integrate itself into the liberal

international order although it's also

attempting to work against

many of the elements that's really

strange so you think china's trying to

integrate into the liberal world order

i mean to some degree they're also

trying to undermine it in

ways well how are they trying to

integrate into it

that was interesting i mean i guess i

guess china's not integrating into it

so much as they are attempting to

establish their own forms of cooperative

institutions

so what is the most common denominator

of the liberal international order

civilizationally and culturally

um i don't know i mean that that

question seems

like it seems like a weeding question

where you're hoping for a specific

answer

like what do i have to hold in good

faith if you were to answer it honestly

do i have to hope for it or is it pretty

self-evident

what the answer is um i mean

i don't think it's evident what the

answer is maybe really he's missing

something obvious but

oh that's interesting so it's not

self-evident as to the answer of

which what does the underlying with

you and i by few i mean like maybe

one to four you know maybe one to four

exceptions at most

and even those are not really exceptions

you know for example

people will try to say that japan is

part of the liberal world order but is

that true when japan's

ruling party has been in power since the

50s has never been

overthrown an election people might say

that south korea is part of the liberal

world order but

is that really true when south korea was

a dictatorship

for most of the country's existence and

um was only able to industrialize

because of very illiberal industrial

policies that

many of which have been retained to this

day and south korea may

have appear like a kind of liberal

democracy but in reality it's not

there's not really free speech or

things like that it's just america so i

think

there is one underlying cultural and

civilizational denominator to the

liberal world order do i have to say it

or is it clear

i mean is it like being western

that's precisely it it's being western

european

okay but this kind of brings around to

the original question that you didn't

answer

which was why do you predict the

imminent collapse of the liberal world

order

what percentage of percentage of the

globe's population do you think

are part of western european

civilization

um i don't know the percentage off the

top of my head but not that much

it's not it's no more than 10 percent

okay at most sure

but i mean do you think that there's

some some impossibility of integrating

other countries into the international

order

i do think it's impossible i think the

rest of the world's people

i think not only is the rest of the

world's population not capable

of uh assimilating into liberal

democracy

i think even the liberal democratic

countries are shown to be in

contradiction with

his dream of liberal democracy as we're

seeing with the breakdown of the

political uh

and civil edifice of the united states

and the growing turmoils of europe

what breakdown of the edifice of the

united states are you referring to

the fact that half of the country

doesn't even recognize the president

for example yeah i mean that but

do you predict some imminent collapse of

the united states it's obviously a bad

thing and it undermines u.s

legitimacy but i mean if i was a betting

man i would not bet on the long-term

sustainability of the american political

system what do you think will happen to

the

american political system

i think some some kind of political

crisis will happen that will not be able

to be

resolved with the current institutions

in place

can you give an example of a type of

political crisis that would be

unresolvable with current institutions

anything ranging from a civil war to a

coup to a constitutional crisis to an uh

crisis of uh

recognizing legitimacy of elections a

breakdown of unity on state and federal

lines between different

local governments there's all sorts of

things so

city governments entering into

contradiction with state and federal

there's a lot of things that can happen

wait i mean that that is a thing that

happens but it's usually resolved in

court like sometimes state and physical

thus far yes but i think

at a certain point the legitimacy of the

courts will be called into

a question and the court will no longer

be a viable

i mean the courts have already been so

politicized

i mean this is the trend that began

maybe uh

in the time around or before the 1930s

but the courts have become

so politicized that their legitimacy

hangs on a delicate balance of

maintaining the veneer

of some kind of fairness and neutrality

between different judges like

the conservative judges will have

representation and the liberal ones will

have representation so this is basically

what's going on with the courts

i mean i think that the courts have been

politicized for a long time if i

remember correctly i think

william howard taft after he stopped

being the president sat on the supreme

court

polarization is not a new phenomenon if

there was going to be some imminent

collapse

but the the courts were specific and it

would have already happened as a result

of trump's

many legal challenges being shot down

first of all

let's go one at a time the reason i'm

saying the courts were politicized

is actually because specifically in the

30s is because

fdr had to resort to court packing to

um basically fill the court with judges

that he knew

would uphold the constitutionality of

his new new deal and other

programs but had he not done that the

conservative judiciary would have never

let it

allowed it to be possible and ever since

then the veneer

of uh the judiciary as this like

politically neutral

party is i mean pat taft may have served

as a on the judge whatever after he was

president but

the real politicization of the courts

happened around that time

i mean well i don't know that i mean

imagine if like obama was put on the

supreme court that would be a pretty

unprecedented but it was it was it was a

different it was a different time and

circumstance in which statesmen maintain

this kind of stoic veneer of

allegiance to the kind of neutrality of

the americas the republic institutions

the

by the time the obama era is here that

is all gone i mean it seems like

all of the stresses that american

democracy has been under

with you know trump challenging the

legitimacy of the election

with the increasing politicization of

the judiciary demonstrate the resiliency

of the american system

why do you think why do you think that

tests yeah why do you think it's over

well i didn't say it's over i said that

the fact that there has not been an

imminent collapse demonstrates the

resiliency of the american system why

does why would the collapse have to be

imminent why couldn't it simmer

slowly and take hold and take root more

slowly than you could have

expected i mean you do realize this is

not a united country half of the country

still does not accept biden as president

right and i think that the fact that the

country has not collapsed that there has

not been a breakdown in the united

states okay

so let me let me walk you through this

what you're saying

from what i'm from my perspective what

you're saying is like

we're basically on a sinking ship and

the fact that the ship has not sunk

attest to the strength of this ship even

if that's true

the ship is still sinking so are you

sure the ship is not going to sink well

the water's filling up to the brim

well i think a better analogy would be

if if it were an aircraft and it had

just survived five nuclear bombs that

were dropped directly on the ship we

would probably predict that it was

unlikely to

sink given that the fact that it's so

resilient that it's been able to resist

the strength of the current assault on

them but how do you know the worst is

passed

by that same analogy like how why do you

think the worst is past us

i don't think the worst is past us i

think the the real tensions the real

contradiction is going to heat up

when the midterm midterms and the next

election come around that's my view

uh okay what do you mean by the real

contradictions walk me through how

materially that would manifest

um well i think you need to realize that

the trump movement is well and alive

trump is still a kind of shadow

president for 50 percent of people in

america

and what they what they are banking on

is first of all winning the midterms so

that trump

will uh consolidate his base

and consolidate the foundation for his

next pr

plans for presidency whatever those

happen to be whether he wants to run or

he wants one of his uh kids to run or

something

and then when trump runs it's going to

heighten america's political

antagonisms to such an extent that uh i

don't think

it's going to work what like what do you

predict the

the end result of that will be do you

think there will be like a civil war as

a result of

what we are witnessing is a

contradiction between the founding

liberal institutions that hold together

so-called american democracy and the

actual

site of the political conflicts and the

political struggles

it seems like what's the definition

it wouldn't have a contradiction that

you're using

are you joking right now um i'm not

joking i generally take it

and you're an irresolvable conflict how

about we just

what is that like what do you mean a

definition of a contradiction like what

why did

why do i have to qualify the meaning of

the word contradiction

like there is a contradiction right

there's an irresolvable deadlock

yeah so well okay i think that the

definition that you're using is fine i

find people often use contradictions in

ways that are kind of vague and

amorphous

but i mean so it seems like based on the

election betting odds the like democrats

and republicans are both

about equally likely to maintain the

house but i mean what what like what is

the

what is the breaking point so like you

know there is the midterms i i don't

i don't know exactly what the breaking

point is going to be but i have no

reason to think the breaking point

necessarily would have had to been

the recent election i mean the recent

election alone was like huge

right that was a really big a lot of

people thought that was going to be a

breaking point right and i just think

the idea that this is the worst to come

and all we weathered the big storm the

big test

i don't see how that's the case because

it like if anything you

the the antagonisms and contradictions

are now

simmering and heating up under the

surface

in such a drastic and radical way i mean

it suffices to only look at

how okay i i bet you to this day if you

turn on cnn

you're still gonna see people talk about

like this issue of domestic

terrorism and domestic extremism that

threatens our democracy they were

talking about that months

months after the january sixth event to

to the extent that i remember and it's

like

this is still a problem and the problem

didn't go away

you know the problem the problem of the

fact that

americans whether they're on the liberal

side or the conservative side and this

is true

and uh let's be fair because it's true

that when trump was elected in 2016

the left by in part did not accept the

results

they did everything in their power to

find ways and excuses to

impeach trump or mount legal cases

against him to go out on the streets and

protest and go crazy and go wild

so it's on both sides both sides are

placing their political allegiances and

loyalties to ideologies

over the stoic and the neutral veneer

of the sanctity of america's founding

institutions of the republic so this is

a contradiction i don't see

but i mean so there are two so there is

some amount of existing conflict and

polarization

building up why does that mean that the

degree to which the conflict and

polarization builds up will be

sufficient

to trigger a crisis that demolishes

american democracy when it survived

hundreds of years

and enormous numbers of stress tests

because this contradiction is in the

context of a

a global order and a world in transition

a world in which illiberal and

non-liberal

forms of uh politics and statehood

are outmoding the liberal kind

wait so okay but how does that make it

so that you i mean well one there have

been

cases there have been battles between

liberal and illiberal states before

for example the cold war and yeah but it

was the

it was a very naive assumption on part

of liberals that the cold war ended

and that this was that it was over

liberal democracy one this is what

francis fukuyama thought

yeah okay but it's not true it's it's

paintedly not true the first

the first there was many signs that's

not that's not what i said i know but

that wasn't a stress test because it's

not over that conflict is still

okay still here their cold war was

certainly at

a greater intense there was certainly

greater intensity of a conflict between

liberal and

liberal states greater no omni omni

there was a greater apparent

intensity from the western perspective

even after the cold war ended

illiberal forces prevailed all over the

world

okay it may not have been communist but

they were certainly illiberal

so is your claim that the conflicts now

are greater than they were during the

cold war

the conflict in question being the

demise of the liberal world order the

demise of the conflict between liberal

and illiberal i think

no i think what's happened i don't think

there's really a conflict anymore i

think what's happening is we are

reaching the decisive breaking point

of both global liberalism as well as the

american empire

and it is at the hour of its dusk we

have reached the decisive

point uh the final so

how why what leads you to that

conclusion

i just gave you a host of reasons well

wait no you gave me like

okay but i told you about how

90 of the world you think are unique to

the president because

non-liberal and non-european powers

which are very

economically successful or at least

sufficiently economically successful to

um

mount a real alternative like no longer

can you excuse me

that they're just lesser developed is

basically the point there's a

multi-polar

world order that is emerging where

europe and america are no longer the

center

um and then there's also the internal

political contradictions within the

liberal countries themselves

okay let's talk about some of those

contradictions within liberal countries

so you're you're you're a communist

right

okay okay so

what would be your solution to for

example i don't think there's a solution

i think

uh the contradiction was to develop and

must

play out my question was what's your

solution to

the calculation problem for example

do you want to talk about the

contradictions or do you want to talk

about the calculation problem

i want to talk about the calculation

problem okay well we're moving on

to the next subject which is about the

calculation problem now

um actually believe it or not

there's basically a few responses to the

calculation problem that are prevalent

the first one is that whatever problem

there was

whatever problem the calculation problem

was trying to describe

um was addressed in the form of uh

the rise of computers and the

computational uh

uh techniques and forms of uh

i don't know what to call in production

but that basically computers

solve this problem and this is what how

do computers solve the prob

the calculation yeah i will point you to

the works of paul

cox he's a

he's a computer scientist and his

followers are the ones who basically

have this response by

by calculating inputs and according uh

outputs of production uh by the use of

computer calculations

okay but how do we decide what things to

produce like what what do we plug into

the computers to decide the things that

should be produced

i think his basic idea is that inputs

by consumers in the form of what they

prefer are measured by the computers and

basically the system modulates the

outputs of production accordingly

something like that

okay inputs are measured by con well

okay but

in the amount that consumers consume

will be dependent on price right

um supply supply and demand basically

right yeah so

sure so well demand is a market-based

idea so how absent in market to figure

out

how much of the stuff to produce i think

paul operates with the kind of labor

voucher idea at first and that

after the labor voucher idea basically

um

you won't have to deal with this kind of

supply and demand

okay so how would a labor manager work

people would be subsidized based on

i actually don't know the details of how

he describes i'm just trying to

introduce you

to that perspective that there there is

a huge school of thought that's very

popular among marxists

they're the followers of paul cox and he

he's wrote many books on this

um and he he goes into huge like

everything you're talking about he talks

about

um okay yeah i'm sure so but i mean so

if you don't have enough information to

supply

answers to for example the calculation

problem why do you trust that there is

an

answer to the calculation problem that's

satisfactory

because i actually don't think that

cockshots

is the like you don't have to know about

his like specific utopian

or compute maybe not utopian he might

not like that but his computer idea

i think the calculation problem was

always wrong basically it was always

wrong

even before computers were invented well

okay so but so then what's your solution

to it if it's wrong

i don't think there's a problem requires

a

solution okay so how do we how under

your system do we decide how much of

stuff to produce

and allocate resources effectively

it's a bizarre question because that

would depend on the time and

circumstance

uh and you know of what what we're

dealing with like what

i mean how should i make a cave well

okay let's say people

like take a small village of 100 people

how

wait so is would there be a market where

they can

tr like they're in their loyal community

there be a market where they can trade

with outside communities

what does that have to do with what

you're asking well i'll explain just

answer the question

hypothetically we're talking about a

post-market

okay so so then how would so okay so

like for example there are

places where they do not have the

ability to grow food very well

so how do they allocate resources and

how do we get food there without a

market

by there what do you mean to the places

that cannot adequately grow by places

what do you mean do you mean what

territory are you trying to describe are

you trying to describe a village of 100

people

a country uh yeah let's say let's say a

village of a hundred people

yeah i don't actually think a village of

a hundred people would comprise an

economic unit

in the first place okay but how do we

get food to them

regardless of whether they come

of transporting the food to them yeah

like how do we decide

what probably with whatever means of

transportation at whatever time

it's possible who who decides how much

food goes there what type of food

the needs are decided first on the basis

of what is necessary for their

subsistence and a state of

industrialization like in the ussr and

then

from their uh preferences and you know

well wait okay so so they all get food

that

enough food that's necessary for

subsistence

yeah obviously they have to okay what

what what food would they get that's

necessary for subsistence

i mean it's a stupid question because

all of these things you're asking me are

dependent on like

local culture and the food consumption

traditions and it's like what are you

actually asking me

like i don't know bananas and oranges

and bananas and apples and

okay like what do you want me to say i

don't know what you're asking

no i mean i don't think that there's a

good way of allocating goods under a

non-cash sure i know that but you

haven't demonstrated that by asking me

the question of what food should they

get

and it's like i don't know okay but i

mean the thing is that there's

there's no there's no solution even in

principle because

the only if the only adequate way of

allocating resources is based on

principles of supply and demand

if the price goes up as a result of

there being less stuff

then that knows that there's a shortage

and people have an incentive to conserve

whatever resources yeah

the argument you're making is total

logical yeah it's a total logical

argument do you know what that means

i do i taught a lot it's a form of

circular reasoning what you're saying

well okay so if it's a form of circular

reasoning

then what which part of the argument do

you think is question begging and

disagree with

you're saying that the only form of

allocating resources is a market because

markets are the only way to allocate

resources well no i mean

give i i think that there was economic

theory

so i there i've given you an account of

how markets are able to do this

adequately

i don't think that your system is able

no markets can't do this

what what first of all the reason what

you're saying is tautological is because

the way you're describing markets which

is how the austrians describe them by

the way

is actually and this is why austrian

economists are secretly socialist

is because you're describing markets as

an organ of planning you're describing

markets as an organ as a tool

by governments to ensure no uh yes you

are you're describing markets as a tool

to satisfy the needs and demands

of a population but actually a market

a market run by government markets work

they don't have to be run by government

shut up shut up shut up they don't have

to be run by the government directly

but you're describing them in such a way

that they serve the political goal

of satisfying the needs of a population

but actually markets do not have

any inherent disposition to allocate

resources in a way that benefits the

welfare of any given population

whatsoever

it's not what a market a market is just

a site of exchange so what you're saying

is tautological

if we presuppose that um the form of

private property remains

and uh you know the um

the basically capitalism exists then of

course markets are the only way but

the whole point is that it's kind of

circular reasoning

sure so okay under a market system what

happens is if there's less of a resource

then the price of that resource goes up

and so then there's an incentive to

conserve it and to not use it

unnecessarily because the price

went up how would that affect function

under your ideal system calculating the

quantity of resource first of all

two things there's a two pronged problem

with what you're saying

the first uh one is scarcity economics

right this idea that

markets and prices are actually

determined by

scarcity is completely fake and false

markets are determined by both supply

and demand

yeah sure but um the whole thing about

scarcity is

basically oh no it's not just scarcity

it's it's

costs of production are when you're

getting to the point of

real real scarcity it the the economy

doesn't actually really

have a good way of uh measuring that

what the economy is responding to is

dealing with different costs of

production

oh wait when when a resource is more

scarce the price goes up so people use

lots of it

what i mean do you disagree with that

i'm gonna say why

um there is rarely a situation

in which the scarcity of resources is

relevant

to an economic that is that is

absolutely not true

any good any good in a market will have

its price be determined by the demand

curve

the demand curve is largely determined

by the scarcity of the resource

no it's not no it's not wait how what do

you think goes into the demand curve

what do you mean by demand crew first of

all wait you don't know what a demand

so okay

okay so in economics we have the demand

curve which determines how much

consumers demand of wait oh sorry i was

being stupid it was

the supply curve that's what i that's

that's what i was trying to say

like no the demand curve is not

dependent on

supply curve yeah but i'm trying to say

that supply

curves are much actually more determined

by cost of production not

actual scarcity of resources well okay

so

caught so the scarcity of resources

is rarely don't talk to me about

scarcity of resources when we talk about

the economy it's not well scarce

scarcity of resources is a question at a

given

level like at a given price right so

the scarcity of resources is a constant

factor across the entire history of

mankind the cost of production are what

change

okay so let's just move on from there

second of all we can produce some more

things and there's an incentive to break

okay it's cost of production okay we got

it cost

second yeah cost of production yeah sure

i mean cost of production determines

what the supply of it is

sure that's what i was trying to say um

the second issue with your question

which was wait what would you say at

first you got bogged down in this

needlessly bogged down in this first

prong that i forgot to say yeah so

so my question which still has not been

answered is under a market system

if the if there's less of something then

the price of it will go up

if the price of it goes up people have

an incentive to use less of it

how does your system make it to the

people oh yeah the second the second

prong

is that hypothetically uh some kind of

um

even in a utopians you know just

something i can imagine in my ass

the at the the um costs of production

can be measured in many different ways

they can be measured in terms of the

amount of resources they consume they

can be measured in terms of

the energy costs they can be measured in

terms of labor i don't really see why

you would have to um i don't see why

i don't see why prices are the only way

to measure

the given uh cost of production in an

economy well so

okay so that that explains on the supply

end and i think there are problems with

that but on the demand

let's go to the problems first before we

get into demand let's go to the problems

what what i mean yeah go to the problems

well okay wait sorry repeat what you

just said

yeah there are other ways to calculate

the given um

[Music]

efficiency or uh resource intensity or

cost of production beyond prices you can

measure them actually in terms of their

objective

empirical and scientific uh wait what is

their

what is their objective empirical and

scientific

cost like how much energy

it consumes for example well okay but

it'll require

labor and that requires determining how

valuable labor is

right yeah labor is also a factor

obviously that's why

cockshot and those other people talk

about labor tokens and labor vouchers

okay so the government decides like how

much

so the government would top down decide

how much of

how much a given product

costs to produce

i think they would measure it somehow

okay so how would they measure it they

would measure it in terms of the actual

empirical cost of production well that's

what they're trying

to measure but how do they measure the

actual empirical

costs of production

through its labor value

or not value but its labor content it's

labor

content labor time plus uh

resources plus energy

um plus uh

yeah the things like that decide the

value of those things

it doesn't have to well you said

how when determining the value of the

good it looks at the value of those

other things

why do they have to have value well

that's what you said you said that when

they're deciding

i said labor values and then i said i

misspoke i don't mean value that's what

i said

okay wait so then then we're back to the

original question of how do they decide

how much of the stuff to produce

based on the needs of the society i

don't know like what you're asking

like based on the needs of society okay

okay how do you so the needs of you

you know the saying in communism is from

each according to their ability

to each according to their need do you

understand what this means it means the

needs of society plus the ability

okay the constraints and the ability to

fulfill that so what are what are the

needs of society

i don't know what society you're talking

about no i mean you mean

so so the the needs of society

so

i mean different people need different

things

and there's and so there's the only

efficient way to aggregate this

unless you can give a better method

which you have not is by

making it so that there's a price system

people generally will pay quite a lot of

money for the things that they need

you can actually produce according to

need itself hey how do you decide what

people need

we're back to square one

you can you can decide what people need

through inputs of what they need

okay how do you decide what the inputs

of what they need are

they can somehow communicate what they

need okay so everyone everyone

communicates

what they need so people like just

people like description

and also based on precedent

okay so why when president patterns of

consumption

they need a lot of things there's also

precedence patterns of consumption

okay so you look at past consumption

okay so well but that that that won't

but that won't determine what people

need right because people consume

things that they don't need sometimes

right okay well there's different

there's different levels of planning and

this was true in the ussr there is

the primary sphere of production there's

the sphere of production that is

necessary for the survival and

subsistence of the population

and then surpluses are where there's

excess and with those excesses there's

room for arbitrariness and kind of

preferences and

things like that

but i think there's a big fallacy in

your argument to begin with

what you're saying is that right here

and now

in this discord call since you have

described

some vague uh description of how markets

work

you have put forward how something works

if i don't go into detail about how an

alternative there is no alternative

that is a complete fallacy that's not

true yeah

you don't know if there's an alternative

or not because you're just not i mean

you're not informed that you're not

informed enough about what critics of

markets say

well i think i'm somewhat informed and

have you read paul cox

books i have not now you've never even

heard of who he was and that's one of

the biggest critics of markets there is

around today well okay so the general

consensus among both

economists and historians is that

markets are

the best if not the only efficient way

of aggregating it okay but i don't

actually care what their consensus is

when you make a claim like there is no

other solution until you has

go into detail about how it would work

that is just a complete fallacy

all that i'm saying is that you don't

have the answers and the majority of

of people who have studied the issue

agree that there are no answers

that that there's no solutions but

actually that's another logical fallacy

you're committing just because the

majority of people

came to a conclusion doesn't mean that

it suffices to satisfy the criterion of

its validity whether it's true or not

and that's it that's

you actually have to engage in the

independent and critical use of reason

to judge

you you just you just said that you're

not willing to do that because you're

not informed enough about how it works

but then implored me to read paul cox

shots yes right

so what i'm saying what i'm saying so

wait what is what is hypocritical about

what i just said

well i didn't say it was hypocritical or

how is it how is it inconsistent with

the argument i just forwarded

well all that i was saying was that just

if you're if you're going to point to

other people who disagree with my

position who i haven't read

say that that's sufficient grounds for

discounting my position such that you

don't actually have to provide

i'm actually not saying i'm not saying

it discounts

your position and i think that the fact

that the majority of people who have

studied the issue

have disagreed with your position is

good evidence against your position

it's not it's not even a smidgen of

evidence

okay so would you like let's say 95

percent of

scientists yeah that that that would

require some kind of explanation but it

still doesn't to suffice to constitute

evidence of the validity of one position

or the other

wait you don't think that the fact that

the uh communi that the

consensus among people have studied the

issues is overwhelming no i think

i think so i think that's evidence no i

think i think i think institutions and

the people you're talking about are a

bunch of lazy

good-for-nothing uncreative pencil

pushers and i don't actually give a [ __ ]

what they have to think about anything

not only

not only in the sphere of economics but

also in the sphere of history philosophy

art

and basically every other sphere of

human thought please don't appeal to

authority to me

i don't care what they say i don't care

okay do you i mean do you tend to

believe conspiracy theories

are you familiar with the work of

psychoanalyst jacques lacon

i am very familiar i think so when you

refer

when you refer to what they are saying

actually has a word for this it's called

the big other with a capital o

it's the b so a subject will often defer

to some kind of imaginary big other as

an excuse

to not engage in the sober and critical

and independent use of reason themselves

well okay i think say well okay a few

things one i

think that psychoanalysis is [ __ ]

and is not able to make reliability

but it's still it's still a pretty

accurate description of the

psychological

relationship you have to what the

majority of economic economists are

saying i don't care

what predictions does it make that are

accurate

what predictions does it make why does

it have to make predictions

okay so the way that we distinguish

[ __ ] from not [ __ ] is we look at

if

uh per theory can make predictions that

turn out to be

who's we all the anglo-dumbasses like

you no

not okay so what is your criterion for

determining if theory is [ __ ] if it

can't make predictions

if it's unfalsifiable i actually focus

on what people are trying to mean

and trying to say and trying to okay i

don't i don't

i focus on what people are trying to

make intelligible and whether they are

making

an eye that way whether people shut up

shut up shut up

shut up whether people are making

something intelligible that was not

before

intelligible in terms of what uh the

world for human meaning of

you well i don't know deny that lachan

was trying to make something

intelligible

i just think that the thing that he

concluded

oh god now we're going to debate about

lacan i know i shouldn't i just we

shouldn't have mentioned

i mean i'm i'm somewhat informed about

psychoanalysis

are you tonight yeah okay

and i don't generally take it to be okay

does not care what uh

science soy science science people think

and he's not trying to yeah

he's not trying to be popular on reddit

he didn't care about that okay

okay he also didn't yeah this is what

happens when you mention lacan

in front of a redditor they literally

have to veer it into a discussion about

the philosophy of science and the

criterion of whether they should

entertain the wealth and treasure of

mankind

so all of human history was just dumb

[ __ ] until

anglo-saxon modernity that's the

conclusion we draw basically

no i didn't think that that's basically

the conclusion we draw because there is

there is literally no way there is no

way to actually make sense

of the forms of meaning that human

beings

actually use to convey what they

considered meaningful and real

without resorting to things that step

beyond the bounds of what you consider

meaningful as an anglo-saxon

dogmatic science guy well i mean if you

can

provide an account of how it is

meaningful and how

they literally they literally do that

they literally describe

his they describe things like the whole

sphere of continental philosophy does

that

they engage with and i think continental

philosophy is largely bs

yeah i know you call it bs and you

basically describe everything that's

outside of the anglo box

as bs i mean i get that it's your coach

you know i mean

it's your code it's your so-called cope

right it's fashionable nonsense it's

nonsense it's [ __ ]

we get it you're not smart enough to get

it so you have to call it [ __ ] well

no

i'm i'm actually that's that's actually

how colonial is

that's actually how colonials treated

things they didn't understand

they went into other they went into

other corners of the world

and they didn't understand they didn't

understand all of these religions and

philosophies and practices

so they're like oh this is just dumb

meaningless primitive [ __ ]

and that's basic and they were wrong

basically you know so that's pretty much

the

attitude and mentality you're describing

now like what what about for example the

socal hoax or the socal squared hoax

or uh karnap's deductive demonstration

that heidegger was wrong

about karnataka didn't describe anything

except the conflation

of truth with certainty which is an

elementary

you know middle school error in

philosophy i

i i don't think that that's an act i

don't care what you think

did not ever actually level carnap did

not actually levy a critique

critique against hyderabad how would you

how would you explain

the examples like the socal hoax for

example okay you mentioned the so-cal

hoax thanks

the so-called hoax demonstrated nothing

well okay so then demonstrating nothing

you want to know why

because [ __ ] pranks have actually

made their way

into peer-reviewed empirical science

studies as well

not just you want me to look it up for

you now

well no so i'm familiar with cases and

generally they've been using yeah

the so-called hoax is a complete fraud

because

it's an issue with institutional peer

review in general

not anything even specific that's not

true yes it is it literally is

there was literally a response to the

so-called hoax of these humanity guys

pranking scientists dealing with uh stem

[ __ ] and it worked

so no the so-called hope doesn't prove

anything yeah no and that

that was a test of a specific field that

the person who did that

hoaxen did not think was reliable and

then they did tests and

determined that it was not reliable and

it published [ __ ]

there are other fields what are you

talking about

hey before you go further what did you

just say

okay so the case that you are

referencing of there being a hoax

done on some depart on like by a biology

it's happened multiple times it was just

specific

un reliable biology journal which they

were attempting to okay so why why does

the journal that so-called was pranking

stand for the whole history of

continental thinking well because

with the socal squared hoax it was done

in a variety of different terms

so why does that why did that's and why

does that speak for the credibility of

all

continental thinking in general well i

don't think it does but i think it

serves as quite strong evidence if they

routinely publish [ __ ] serves us

quite

no it's it's it's actually the fact that

they routinely publish

things that they assume with good faith

means something but themselves don't

really

you know really read and engage with

themselves if they routinely publish

word salads that they take on

faith no no no no you you misquoted me i

didn't say they

they routinely publish word salads i

said they probably routinely publish

things that they don't allocate the time

and intensity to try and understand

that's different from saying it is

imminently

world war salad well okay i think that

there are also a one with an omni omni

let me tell you something

between the british isles and

continental europe there's the english

channel right

so your english channel is when you draw

a line and say everything you say is

word salad meaningless [ __ ]

that's where we continental people say

[ __ ] you

suck my [ __ ] i don't care what you think

we're going to keep doing what we're

doing

and you can stay on your cope island and

think what you want and basically have

this primitive view of the world

well no i think a hallmark of

continental philosophy is that they

don't say things like [ __ ] you suck my

[ __ ] instead they hide behind these

words no they don't you literally don't

know anything about continents

you don't know anything about no you

[ __ ] don't you only know about

[ __ ] american humanities

importation of continental philosophy

you don't actually realize

that in continental europe they

literally don't care about you

i can i can cite you a plethora of

papers that are continental philosophy

that i've read

which ones okay so one example is

it was by um arachlis ionitis i believe

which country i don't i don't remember

what country was it english speaking

i don't remember what country he's in so

why is that an example against me if you

don't know if it proves your example

well i don't i don't remember exactly

where the author

lived right but i was it was it an

american author

i was not an american author okay

i think he was british but i could be

wrong okay he's british which is the

same thing

wait britain is not america um

it's the same thing because they both

belong to the analytic

and non-continental schools i've written

well no okay so

i read bo triard for example who

beau drayard and you didn't understand

him so you dismissed it as meaningless

no i think that i i beau triard

i think that beau jared is meaningless

what substantive claims that are true do

you think beaudrier made

what true sons of claims did beaujord

make why don't you read him and find out

well i've read him and i don't think he

makes any sense so so it didn't make

sense so

this is tell me this is what the this is

what anglo-saxon colonialists did all

around the world

they didn't get it therefore they

concluded with absolute

certainty that there could not possibly

be any smidgen of meaning

i don't take it with absolute certainty

okay i've read a large amount of content

i don't

care about convincing tell me tell me

i don't care to convince you i don't

care to convince you to tell me tell me

one thing that beaudrier

says that you think is true and

meaningful no make me

tell me one thing no you you can't tell

me

okay you cannot give me a single

conclusion

from though jared that is meaningful the

reason is because you because there

isn't one that can be explicated is that

really the reason

yes and you know this with certainty

well i don't know it with certainty do

you know it at all

i i hold the view with quite high

confidence i'd give

95 95 so is the view that our society is

increasingly moving from a society in

which people

experience the world as having direct

phenomenal access to reality to a world

in which

the simulation of reality is

indistinguishable from reality itself

you don't think this is something to

think about and is worth maybe

entertaining and thinking about a little

bit well i mean i've thought about it i

don't think it's a particularly deep

point i don't think that there's but

we've moved

we've we've shipped the goal post first

you said there's it's completely

meaningless

then you said you didn't think it was

particularly interesting your subjective

judgment

of whether it's interesting or not has

nothing to do with whether

what he was saying was meaningless you

see the difference

so my claim is not that there that there

are not meanings to the words that i

said i think

much of the time but guess what listen

listen you know what we call you people

we finished let me finish let me finish

okay so what my claim was

was that i think that the claims that

are made by people like bojar are not

backed up by anything

beyond assertions and abstractions

and you didn't back up and omni you said

beyond assertions and abstractions

i'm the omni we're not talking about the

[ __ ] thing we talked about before

because you decided to veer this

conversation into a completely different

topic

multiple times by the way first you

wanted to talk about the calculation

problem after you got

[ __ ] wrecked about liberal world

order then you shifted and you decided

you wanted to talk about continental

philosophy

and why you think it's not backed up

we'll go one by one we're going one by

one yeah i would be absolutely

happy to talk about uh the calculation

problem you didn't give an answer

because you [ __ ] changed the topic

you [ __ ] idiot

second of all you're the one second of

all shut up

never did bartillard make a claim make

an empirically controversial claim that

has to be demonstrated

through the institutional scientific

method in order for all scientists to

respect it and take it seriously

you [ __ ] won that's like saying an

artist has to pass the test

of scientific validity or a literary

artist in order to make a

engage with reality in some kind of

[ __ ] way do you think that in the

history of humankind

people engaged with on an existential

level the humanity in the world

only at the level of these airtight

certain experimentations which are only

relevant

in their practical application at the

level of institutions of scale where

they cannot afford to make mistakes and

[ __ ] up

have you never considered that nobody's

saying nobody's saying you have to

accept barterlard as a dogmatic

doctrinaire truth but he does allow you

to

see the world from a different

perspective and think about things in

new ways

nobody's saying continental philosophy

has to be accepted as some kind of

practical dogma which

you know your life depends on oh if you

don't accept this

then that's just as dangerous as if uh a

dam that's holding water from a river

breaks and floods a town or something no

one's [ __ ] saying that

you're just misinterpreting you're just

misinterpreting

continental thinkers shut the [ __ ] up

shut the [ __ ] up and don't speak over me

do you think it's rational to speak over

me when my voice prevails over yours

so don't [ __ ] do it you're just

making the assertion

you are making the assumption you're

straw manning continental philosophers

into making claims they never [ __ ]

made whatsoever

did i straw man when did they make the

[ __ ]

first of all how can you okay first of

all how can you justify the [ __ ]

assumption

that the only meaningful and here shut

the [ __ ]

speak over up it's [ __ ] pointless

so shut the [ __ ] up how can you justify

the claim

that the only meaningful and real

engagement with reality we as human

beings can make

is through the epistemologically

empiricist philosophy

of science and that is the only

criterion of truth

how can you justify that claim you never

justified that [ __ ] claim

you just assumed it was true and then

said

well borderlord never passed the

scientific test of the scientific method

but

he's not making a claim about an

empirical reality that's somehow

controversial

or requires experimentation you [ __ ]

idiot

look so i generally want to figure out

things that are true

and i don't think that that what did you

think about

what is true let's

yeah you actually have in 2021

unironically a correspondence theory of

truth i

do that's how i know you're a discord

philosopher that's how i know you're a

discord philosopher

so according to you truth means the

correspondence between

what's in our head in the outside world

that's truth according to you yeah i

think so

yeah and how do you justify that view of

truth in the view that the entire

history

the entire history of humanity's

conception of truth

contradicted that one so how do you

justify yourself conception of truth ben

that contradicts my definition

humanity's conception of truth yeah what

has it been if it's not my definition of

truth

it's not the correspondence between

what's in it

if it's i don't want to hear what it's

not i want to hear what it is

it is the disclosure of reality

okay so it's the disclosure how is that

different from my definition because in

a novel disclosure of reality it

actually isn't

some kind of correspondence between

what's already in your [ __ ] head in

reality

it is reality's actual disclosure

and it's recognition by a subject

that is truth it's subjective

articulation

and response that's not different that

is true yes it [ __ ] is

it absolutely no it [ __ ] isn't no

it [ __ ] isn't okay so it is right no

it's not

well yeah they're very different

actually you can keep asserting that

but the reason why they're not different

is because both of them agree that a

thing is true

if the thing that you think corresponds

to reality i was not making a claim that

but it doesn't correspond it doesn't

correspond to reality

okay so then what's its relationship

with reality if not corresponding

it participates in the reality what does

that mean

it means it doesn't merely represent

reality it actually participates in that

very reality itself so let's say we want

to verify if the claim

that my wall is yellow is no that's an

imp that's a strictly

empirical claim divorced from

but you're making a soulless

you want to interrupt me little boy

interrupt me one more [ __ ] time

one [ __ ] time wait what

one more time interrupt me the claim

of what color your wall is or whatever

is a strictly empirical claim that

obviously could only be verified by some

kind of empirical measurement

but actually most of human reality

is not strict empirical claims divorced

from our subjectivity

from what they call our soul most human

reality

is not just empirical claims about the

external world you [ __ ] dumbass

okay so what claims what claims

are not divorced or sorry what

uh what what what are examples of claims

that you think

cannot my my correspondence theory of

truth can't account for

i'll tell you one okay

when an enemy invades your country

in it let's say in a classical greek

literary setting just so we can keep it

vague enough

not only are you engaging in virtue by

defending your homeland

it's not only you're doing something

virtuous you are confirming

something that is true something that is

fundamentally true

about being as a whole oh what would

that thing be

that you're confirming about being i

would have to

draw up by some kind of mythical or

poetic

means to describe its form to you in any

given content

but that for human beings is truth

well okay so then i guess the problem is

that you think like a robot so you don't

get what i'm saying

right you're basically the type of

person where if your girl goes and [ __ ]

other guys you're just wrong well i can

calculate there's that problem

but a man goes truth means this doesn't

happen

did you actually there is something true

there is something true about defending

my pride and my dignity

not as virtuous but there is something

true

there is something true about it okay

but i just i don't know what you're

talking about i know you don't because

you're a mechanical robotic person who

has completely estranged

from the world of human reality so how

could i ever make it how could i ever

make it apparent to you

human beings have spent

thousands and thousands and thousands of

years describing it

through religion through poetry through

art

and philosophy everyone seems to be on

the same page about this except

people like you okay so but i i mean

okay so so when you're saying that

there's some concept

that applies in a broader context like

when we say water is h2o

we have this more mechanical empirical

claims divorced from uh

fundamental human reality is strange

from fundamentally important

h2o is necessarily true

but it's still a discoverable truth but

i just i don't know

it's true i take truth to be a product

of propositions

not a product of me of like emotion yeah

because you don't distinguish

truth from certainty that's the issue

heidegger literally pointed out

in his one sentence reply to the idiot

carnage

yeah he did point it out you're

mistaking truth for certainty

truth is not the same thing as certainty

wait why am why do you think i'm

mistaking truth for certainty

because propositional truth is axiomatic

systemic way of proving consistency

formal consistency and that's a ma

that's a method

for determining whether you can be

certain about the consistency of any

given form

but but just like how you are just like

how you are a uh what is it called

you are a uh good looking correspondence

you have a correspondence theory of

truth just like how you have a

correspondence theory of truth

for you truth just means the consistency

of form

truth for you has nothing to do with the

actual dialectic between

content and form there is no content

beyond form for you

content is form form is form a is a

okay so i mean

if if you're like what what thing are

you saying is true

in the case of the person who's like

angry about their wife

cheating on them like what i mean i i

just

because because listen well like no it's

just because you vulgarized what i'm

trying to say

you vulgarize what i'm trying to say

stop talking over me

when you talk over me it pisses me off

because i can tell in real life you

wouldn't talk over me

right so don't talk over me little boy

well okay

so but i just want you to answer the

question which is what proposition

would you be saying is true with

the the rage that you would experience

someone and

having when have i made essential the

rage when have i made rage essential

what about what about the choice to

reject it what about the decision you

draw to reject this

for example and why are you focusing on

the example the bizarre

why because you want to make fun of me

and make me look like a ridiculous

[ __ ] person

i was being hyperbolic so my dumbass

[ __ ] chat can understand

but to make it clear my example for

drawing up arms for war is a better

example

okay so in the drawing up arms for war

case what

what is being said that's true

do you think truth only has to take the

form of propositions

yes but you haven't justified that so

why are you asking me that because i

don't believe that

i don't think truth only has to take the

form of propositions

then what what things can be true i

think actions can be true

actions can be true i think i think

there can be

actions actions that bear witness

to a grasp of a deeper truth yes

okay so you would say an action is true

no it's not just that the action is true

your robot brain doesn't allow you to

understand this

and action and action no i said an

action

can evince the person acting as bearing

witness to a

perceiving having some kind of insight

into a more fundamental truth

yeah actions i agree with you that

actions can indicate that we're grasping

a deeper truth

but i mean do you so actions events a

deep a relation to truth actions events

and insight into truth but that deeper

truth would have a truth value

no it wouldn't because it's not a

[ __ ] computer so no it wouldn't

well wait okay so what so what it cannot

have a so-called truth value

outside of the action itself for example

so no you can't do it you can't just

scalp

the truth oh how do i see look this is

the anglo box you want to just take

everything

and put it in a little [ __ ] box so

you can poke it and prod it

as an outside external abs a cartesian

cogito observer

but a human being is fundamentally

suspended in reality

and cannot separate themselves from an

object

uh in a [ __ ] little lab cage like

you're trying to do with something so

fundamental

to human experience in human life as

truth

okay so i don't i don't

i mean okay so back to the the question

which is just so so

if i like in ancient greece if a person

like

you know goes out and fights so would

that be would that be

you are so uncultured but this is my

issue

you're such a nerd and discord

philosopher and you're so

uncultured when i talk about these

ancient greek

literature and stuff you're saying well

if i went on

the magic school bus into ancient greece

literally went to ancient greece

i only mentioned ancient greece because

ancient greek

myth and literature bears witness to

this

i was engaging with your example no

you're not let's not go to ancient

greece dumbass

okay so where do you want to go no we're

not going anywhere you didn't get the

[ __ ] point you still are taking

everything

literally you're literally you're

actually taking this

literally because you are actually a

stem

rotted nerd who has no appreciation

of the human soul okay well i'm okay

can you describe me a form of art can

you poetically describe to me

something that would be the ground in

which truth

or something can be suspended i can

describe a form of art i don't know what

it would mean for

truth to be suspended in something else

um do you know how european philosophers

used to

describe what art was

um art is the phenomenal realization of

the metaphysical absolute

so yes art and truth are related well

i'm an aesthetic

like i don't think that there are truths

to be known about

about art and whether something yes

because you don't actually have a

conception of truth only certainty you

conflate straight with certainty

there are things i absolutely conflate

truth with certainty we know

you've demonstrated no so okay so i

don't conflate truth and certainty

there are things that i think are true

but which i don't know with certainty

so for example i'm a moral realist i

think that morality is a thing that

exists

i think that that your economic system

would be worse

that's not a thing that i know with

certainty but now you want to bounce

back to the talk about economics after

you wanted to pivot to this [ __ ]

conversation that's way out of your

depth you're the one who pivoted but

no i didn't i i mentioned la con once i

could have mentioned mickey mouse

and anyone else to illustrate the same

example but just because the nate the

guy's name was jacques lecon

you decided to make this as a discussion

about the difference between

continental thinking and uh analytic

brain rotted [ __ ]

i mean you okay you're the you

initially said that i was about like

you know continental philosophy right

and no i did because because you kept

pressing

because i mentioned you refused to

shut your [ __ ] mouth shut up

you cut me off i don't care i'm in

charge idiot

okay so i would be happy to go back to

the calculation problem

okay but we're here we're here just so

we're clear we got here

because just because i mentioned jacques

lacon

the real abra get in my [ __ ] shoku

the real albert get in my [ __ ] shoku

you [ __ ] [ __ ]

you want to talk [ __ ] in my chat get in

my show cue and if you don't mods make

sure to ban them

second of all wait sorry were you

talking shut up nothing to do with you

second of all we got to this point

because i mentioned la khan's name

because i so much as mentioned his name

you refused to engage with what i was

actually trying to say

because you're that dogmatic okay you

refuse to accept the meaningfulness of

what i said

okay so back to the calculation problem

yeah

the non-problem the calculation

non-problem

it is a problem no it's not a problem

for decades and even marxists admit that

it's a problem that they try to work

absolutely i don't care so you're gonna

find a marxist who admits it's a problem

i don't care

the only problem the only problem so how

do we make it so there's an

incentive for so that there's an

incentive for

um playing on the word

conserving scarce resources if we don't

allow the price to go up

so that you can actually reproduce the

given conditions of societies means of

production

and subsistence so that was not an

answer to the question

oh i didn't answer your right because

you're the you're the anglo-box and you

qualify

whether something's an actual answer or

not right you are that you are the judge

who decides whether a certain string of

words

is completely meaningless or maybe some

kind

of some trying to make some kind of

point like should i like defer

to some third party for determining if

what you're saying is like

a substantive answer to what i'm saying

listen [ __ ]

if i tell you something don't [ __ ]

dare come and tell me that is not an

answer

why don't you just respond to why you

disagree well

because i did answer you i gave you an

answer at least in my head it's an

answer

so engage with what i just said so i

asked you to give a mechanism

by which your solution no you asked for

an incentive you [ __ ] idiot

what right okay chat please give me the

clip where he said incentive

we're gonna do this just like last night

watch my stream i'm gonna show you where

you said incentive

okay so chad give me the clip where he

said incentive

okay so i don't think that how does your

system make it so that people

will no did i answer you or not

you you did not i did not so what did

you ask me

okay so i asked you said what is the

incentive isn't that what you asked me

yeah so i told you the incentive is to

ensure that society can actually

reproduce itself

and satisfy the needs of what the people

want and you said that's not

an answer please explain to me

methodically why that's not an answer to

the question of what the incentive would

be

well okay so my question was not what

like why why like society has a broad

interest so why is that my problem you

told me what is the incentive for

preserving scarce

you literally [ __ ] asked me what is

the incentive

for preserving scarce resources

[Music]

um you literally asked me what is the

incentive for preserving scarce

resources

yes so i was talking about it in the

context of the people okay you didn't

make it clear

you didn't make it clear did you you

didn't make it clear so when you're a

little disrespectful little [ __ ]

wait shut up nerd shut your [ __ ]

mouth nerd shut your [ __ ]

dumb [ __ ] i gotta mute this dumb [ __ ]

he doesn't listen

let me tell you something you dumb

[ __ ] nerd no one can hear you by the

way

i'm the chad here you're the nerd i'm

the jock you're the swirly you

understand i put you in a swirly

don't [ __ ] talk to me disrespecting

me saying i didn't answer you

when i [ __ ] answered you i answered

you loud and clear

if you meant something different

than what a reasonable person would have

expected by your question of what an

incentive would be

that's different from me not answering i

did [ __ ] answer you

you just weren't clear enough in your

[ __ ] question about what you actually

intended to mean

if you intended to mean something else

you should have worded yourself

differently chat

if someone and and by the way go watch

my stream

because i'm gonna show you what you

asked me chat look what this guy asked

me he said i didn't answer him

this is what he asked me watch this chat

watch this

care the only problem the only problem

so how do we make it so there's an

incentive

for so that there's an incentive for um

for for playing on the word conserving

scarce resources if we don't allow the

price to go up

ad verbatim how do we

ensure that there is an incentive

for preserving scarce resources

something about the prize go up and i

answered him

and this disrespectful little [ __ ]

said i didn't answer him and when i

pressed him on why didn't i answer him

he said oh i just meant something

different

don't [ __ ] say i didn't answer you

then

now i'll unmute him

[ __ ] btfo okay so

um uh okay so when i was asking about

the incentive

in the context that i was asking about i

was asking about what is the

the incentive for the people who are

consuming the resource to conserve the

scarce resource so why

like let's say that i'm i'm a i'm a

what what incentive do i have to not use

too much of a resource

you don't have access to the

mechanisms of the planning that would

make it decisive as a just an individual

consumer

grabbing something off a shelf is not

going to be

give you the same level of [ __ ]

control over

how the resources are expended as

compared if you were some kind of uh

specialist planner okay so does the do

top-down central planners get to decide

how much of everything

people are allowed to have no

it can be work two ways there can be

some kind of uh

feedback feedback loop between them both

that doesn't mean that an individual

consumer

represents all of society in terms of

their individual consumption habits and

that all of society is going to be

staying

at stake just in that obviously people

would have to in this hypothetical

scenario

make sacrifices uh not of their own

choice even that

okay they're obviously not going to have

you know this unconstrained

obviously there are going to be definite

constraints to consumption that are

going to be felt by people

okay yeah so so

who did so like if central planners are

not deciding

how much of stuff to make and are not

like

deciding what stuff people get how else

are people able to get stuff under your

system

they're not allowed to have a system of

commodities did i didn't i literally

just tell you that it could work both

ways that central planners can

acquire um programming or whatever the

[ __ ] the computers will respond

to the outputs of production on the

basis of both constraints

of resources uh costs of production

labor and energy

in relationship to consumer

patterns of uh whatever well okay

no but i mean that that doesn't explain

how a consumer gets stuff that we're not

in the central planner's

budget so to speak they would not mean

like they wouldn't

potential how would a consumer get

things that are not being produced

is that your question yeah yeah they

wouldn't

just like now if you want something

that's not being produced you don't get

it

okay but right now there's a system

under which

there's no system what it's not a system

well right now there if a lot of people

want something

then a if a person opens up a business

selling that

they'll get a lot of people buying their

[ __ ] okay they'll get a bunch of money

okay so so there's other ways to measure

demand

so as a result there's an incentive for

businesses to open up

i get it you don't even have to finish

the sentence i understand what you're

trying to [ __ ] say

you're just not getting what you're not

getting how i'm trying to respond

so how do central planners figure out

please that's the same question

i literally get your point you didn't

have to say the point

i'm literally responding to you they

would measure demand through consumer

inputs and you know what consumer input

means it means

they're measuring demand based on people

what people want

if they want more of something then you

produce more of it

with the cost of production and whatever

whatever else constraints to resources

in mind

okay so but that would be based on what

stuff people are already using how do we

put it that's how it works now

that's how it works now you just [ __ ]

explained how that's how it works now if

a business owns up and somebody goes and

wants their [ __ ] the business has more

incentive

it's only based on what exists now

that's how it works now

right now there's an incentive for a

business to open up if there's a

potentially prospering uh

area of like yeah that's why i told you

there's different levels to it and that

when it comes to excesses and surpluses

there's room for arbitrary

experimentation of

um experimenting about what people would

prefer and what people would want

using the excesses and surpluses of

production over the primary

sphere of ensuring the subsistence of

society and the

obviously the the things that are

necessary to survive

you didn't [ __ ] listen to what i had

to say you just skipped over me took an

olympic leap even though i

answered your question literally in the

beginning of the [ __ ] call

well okay i listened to what you said

but i

okay i don't think that that provides a

mechanism by which the

i'll explain how it does because there

are certain things

people need there are certain priorities

of production right

yeah there's not a lot of room for

opening up a new business or

experimentation when it comes to those

people need that [ __ ] there's not room

for experimentation it's what they need

this takes precedence in any kind of

central plan right

but because society is wealthy enough to

have

excesses and surpluses of production

those excesses and surpluses of

production can be put to work

in such a way that there's room for

experimentation experimental

consumer products that can measure

demand

and in which some products

will be shown to be less

needed and others will be shown to be

more needed

that's how it works i think you should

just read paul cockshot

because he [ __ ] describes it and you

know what the [ __ ] hilarious thing is

guys

and chat will literally attest to this

chat what are my views on paul cockshot

and i was just literally trying to show

this guy that there's other perspectives

beyond his own box

but what is my position on paul

cockshot's view of planning and his

view of the calculation problem chat

just read my chat

they'll tell the truth so you can't say

i'm uh i'm walking anything back

i i don't have your chat open right now

well have it open

i can't without discord disconnecting

it's very strange i don't know why

but whenever i like open up a discord

while i'm all

sorry open up twitch while i'm also in

discord disconnect but what like what

do you want to share with me what your

chat saying if not i

uh okay i'm actually not a fan of

cockshot

and i think he's he has his kind of

utopian simplification

that's the thing but but because you

wanted to press this so far

which you don't realize omni you wanted

to press this how would you

do how omni if you're saying there is a

calculation problem

right the burden of proof is actually

upon you

you to prove why it would be impossible

when you're asking oh then how would you

you're shifting the burden of proof the

burden of proof is upon you to

demonstrate that it is impossible

for a central planner to rationally

allocate goods

and you're and your argument is

basically well i'm just going to assert

this and then i'm going to say

under a market this is how goods are

allocated or whatever right this is how

they're distributed

so that's how i'm offering something how

would it work under your system

it's a complete circular form of

reasoning

i think we have historical examples that

they're not being successful solutions

we have a

content in communist countries there are

generally

communist countries which every

economist was able to show were able to

industrialize

at a faster rate than any market economy

um well i i i don't even know

why communist economies underwent crisis

do you even know anything about that

history

i'm not when did communist economies

start to go

undergoing problems in crisis that you

are pointing out

when was i think a lot of them did at a

lot of different times when when was it

wait for which country every communist

state

underwent phenomenal inhu super human

rates of growth

until a certain point wait okay

so i don't think that's true it is true

i mean

it's a fact of history yes it is true

wait wait okay which communist country

the soviet union okay what was their gdp

growth rate

like 10 a year or some [ __ ] okay

and by the way gdp isn't even a

measurement of [ __ ] but yeah like 10 to

12

there was not even a country on planet

earth that was growing as fast as they

were

not even america was

um okay

let's see

are we loading um well i'm just looking

at it okay

so um

the

you want to ch check the cia factbook

too because they literally admit it they

literally admit how [ __ ] scared they

were of the ussr's growth

discord can someone send him a pdf of

what the cia said about the ussr's

growth

okay so i i just pulled up an article

that yeah

that um the growth rate of the

ussr versus the usa

um and the usa had

its gdp grew a lot faster from 1885 to

1990

from 1885 to 1990 is not what we're

talking about we're talking about 1924

up to the stagnation in the ussr your

[ __ ] time frame is stupid

you literally took like 10 minutes to go

on google to find a single example that

backs you up why don't you click the

first [ __ ] page the stagnation what

year was this

was the stagnation because you do not

know about the

wait you're an expert on the soviet

economy you don't know the year

no i haven't i haven't claimed to be an

expert on the soviet economy

but you know enough about it to contest

what i was saying

that you don't think it's true well okay

i'm i have the graph

of gdp growth with the usa and the

soviet

can you please stop using gdp as an

indicator to measure a [ __ ]

indicate what should we use to indicate

it literally anything else

anything at well wait okay can you give

me something else

i can give him something else

so you do not accept the reality that

the soviet union grew at a faster rate

than any country at the time

in which it was growing no why not i

mean

well okay i i i don't think that that's

the

historical consensus why don't you think

that's the historical consensus

i mean based on the limited research

i've done yeah yeah give me an example

of why not

well okay i've looked at what historians

have said and based on the limited

research that i've done

what did they say can you give me a

[ __ ] example are you going to keep

[ __ ] give me truisms about the [ __ ]

okay

so so according to the economists um

goalless of guriev

2013 they say quote therefore our answer

to the was still unnecessary question

is a definite no even though we do not

consider the human tragedy of famine

repression terror

because on economic outcomes alone and

even when we make assumptions that are

biased in stalin's favor his economic

policy to underperform the

counterfactual

we believe stone's industrialization

should not be used to success story and

development economics

and should instead chat chat should i

interrupt him

or should i let him keep going that'd be

well it's one person and should instead

he studies an example of brutal

reallocation suddenly on lower

productivity and lower

social welfare okay hold on chat clap

five percent

i want everyone in the chat to clap

okay so i don't know if you uh went to

sleep and woke up not knowing

what debate you were having but i was

actually looking for an example of

i wasn't looking for some random [ __ ]

writing about a counterfactual in which

he

envisions that stalin's

industrialization was not going to be

shut up was not going to be necessary

for the ussr's growth

i was actually asking you whether you

acknowledged the soviet union had the

highest rate of growth of any country

on planet earth i mean i don't i don't

think

wait what what what data are you using

that finds it

i am willing i am literally willing to

literally google it i'm literally just

saying i googled it and thank you chad

can you give him the cia

cia [ __ ] intelligence on the soviet

union's economy wait okay

say this do you trust the cia um i

don't trust the cia very much why would

they be why are

they pro soviet union they're biased i

think

well no i i trust the cia i mean i would

probably just say

there but the fact that the cia was

scared beforehand that the soviets would

outperform the us

this the cia literally acknowledged that

the soviet's growth rate

was super human and and just not

it was just [ __ ] through the roof

do you want to dm me the link no i don't

because you can literally google it and

you're not googling it just to piss me

off

okay well so i've googled

like another indicator is there anyone

in chat

who's the guy in chat that deals with

this [ __ ] can you dm me something i can

give him

you guys are always [ __ ] throwing me

links well now's the time for a [ __ ]

link

okay just something to show okay here we

got some graphs some guy put it for some

reason here

okay can you watch my stream uh no i

can't sorry

okay well how can i send this to you i

have a graph here

just dm it just dm to me the link

you could you'll be able to see it yeah

okay

hold on

this one

do you have hold on

rate of growth

1970 to 1928

okay here's the us rush

u.s

this is this is meaningless from 89

okay here we go this is a little picture

doesn't include the us but nobody's

giving me [ __ ]

here you go if extraordinary rate of

growth

right there

um okay do you acknowledge that is an

extraordinary rate of growth

um wait this is gdp per head

yeah um

i think so maybe

wait okay so 18 wait so which period do

you want to

analyze

are you looking at it yeah but this is

from 1820 to 1990.

yeah the ussr is going to be measured at

1928 because the only measurement before

1928 is 1913

which is before the ussr existed okay

so um

so over the course of from 1928 to 1980

where are you on analyzing

can you just take the l and stop wasting

time oh it is that is that the time

period underweight

i mean like what is that what okay so

we're looking at the gdp

per capita right so what i mean what was

the growth rate in the gdp per capita

over that time period

10 10 to 12 percent 10 to 12

yeah something along that ballpark 14

some are saying 14 percent

okay and this is from cia data

can you google it okay i'll just google

it for you

ussr growth rate in gdp

per capita

you want the growth rate yeah

growth rate gdp per capita is not going

to tell us the general

growth rate okay here we go gd

ussr gdp growth let me see if i can get

a chart

i can't believe i have to [ __ ] do

this kind of [ __ ] debate lord

streamer has to do this [ __ ]

by themselves here we go soviet economy

great powers look at this

by the composite index of national okay

annual growth rates in the soviet union

okay um let's see

okay there's alan

not available

because i have a lazy [ __ ] chat

i'm [ __ ] going through this [ __ ] by

myself

yeah so okay i mean i have i have a

source there's an

an intel article that says that the

soviet union did not have fast gdp

that its rate of growth was slower than

that of the us

and it was lower than that of other

countries yeah well that's not true it

was recently industrialized

which which time period are you talking

about

um i mean the time period that you were

describing

can you can you give me the source yeah

mcconnell also discusses the soviet u.s

growth rate separately from the issue of

catching up

states that the annual rate of growth in

the soviet union is two to three times

as great

as about as that now united states

in 1966 soviet gnp has been expanding

at about six or seven percent

per year as compared to three to three

and a half percent for the united states

this is in 1990 this is in 1966.

mcconnell also said yeah but it was

higher before then

starting in 1963 since the annual rate

of growth in soviet union

is two to three times as great as now

actually in the united states yeah i

already got that one

okay so at right after industrialization

countries generally you tend to have

very high economic birth rates

okay but that's not answering my

question you know why we started talking

about this what i told you

that the soviet union had the highest

rate of growth of any [ __ ] country on

earth

it absolutely it did not there are other

countries that have had

way which ones right it's like there was

some i think in like 2014 iraq had like

a 20

grand so between around in 2014

what was the soviet union around in 2014

no no so in the period we're talking

about when the soviet union actually

existed

before the stagnation it had grown

faster than any [ __ ] country on earth

no it didn't grow faster than japan

japan did not start [ __ ] growing

until the 70s which was after the

stagnation

wait okay so you're only talking at the

rapid pace to the economic miracles or

whatever yeah it flew faster than japan

in the post-war period

before the stagnation yes it did

well okay there were other countries

that were growing faster

spain was growing fast no it wasn't

provide evidence

that's the nintendo article that i

linked to before okay we're going to

read it

spain was growing faster

spain was growing faster this is what

you're saying

so this is an article by the way guys he

had to find an article on nintel

no one's ever [ __ ] heard of that

website to find the one article that's

going to support his argument

right to debunk it right it was the

first google result

literally the first one okay sure

spain gdp what is gdp pc

um uh

gdp per capita okay

gdp per capita does not actually [ __ ]

measure the overall growth of an economy

as a whole you realize that right

well the growth rate in the gdp per

capita does

the growth rate the gdp growth

this doesn't actually tell us the rate

of growth

there's no rate of growth on this

[ __ ] chart

there is no there isn't there's no rate

of growth

okay so are you on the madison project

data

yeah okay that's literally measuring the

rate of grave

the title of the graph is gdp pc grid

gdp per capita growth yeah

the left bar what is that measuring

are those percentages no

wait no okay so the left bar is not

percentages

so leftward is looking at the amount of

money yes

i know i know the graph i know so the

graph when it goes from the smaller

number to the bigger number

tracks that it is growing

okay okay so this

that so we have that data um that finds

that other countries at a faster growth

rate

no country had a faster growth rate yeah

you

i mean you can keep saying that but

according to that according to the data

from

cherum mukhen golusov graev and zavinsky

they did

other countries did um

and the repeated claims of the soviet

union over

the u.s that was claimed time and time

again ended up being false every time

and how do you know how do i i mean not

even the soviets because the date when

they were allegedly going to take

uh overtake the us kept getting pushed

back and back

as david friedman has pointed out so how

does that debunk that they were lying

about their growth rates

well because they they claimed that they

were gonna overtake the u.s

every time they were wrong so that shows

that they were not correct

about what their growth rate in fact was

what can you repeat that i'm literally

googling [ __ ]

because this is a research stream now

and i have to [ __ ]

find the [ __ ] the ussr was the fastest

growing nation in the world since 1924

to the stagnation excluding world war ii

his examples are either during world war

ii or after stagnation

link me the source so i could just show

it on stream

i already linked you this not you link

me to short

hola soy la patata please link me the

source

okay i will have to go in like 10

minutes no no we're going to finish this

debate

you're not going to go in 10 minutes

we're finishing the debate

okay unless you concede unless you i get

you so

if you leave you concede in 10 minutes i

mean i'd be if i have to go

i'd be happy to continue it at some

other point no

we're gonna finish this

nobody can post links okay dm me dude

hold us dm me

this is the same one he gave me he gave

this is the same one he gave me where

does it say that

hola soy la patata where does it say

that

okay ussr is the square right here

this square wait also what's your

explanation then we find that okay

then we find this is the same source you

gave me

then we find that from 1928 to 1970

the ussr was the fastest growing economy

except for japan

except for japan it's right here

and even compared to the third world's

performance was remarkable

um okay that the soviet union was also

recently industrialized

okay you're walking it back now you're

[ __ ] walking it back

no they were slower than japan and in

the period that you

even if japan was the one exception and

and by the way this is too broad this is

too broad because the stag nation began

in what 68

so this is too broad but even if even if

even if japan was the one [ __ ]

exception that's still phenomenal growth

rate and

using industrialization it doesn't

listen

you initially began the argument by

saying

that communist states are an example of

the calculation problem

that's how this started and i told you

that communist states

even if it's true that the ussr did not

have

phenomenal growth rates which it did as

your own [ __ ] source confirms

no my source confirms that in that

period japan was growing faster and in

later years

the ussr did not grow very fast in

comparison yeah

you're conflating different [ __ ] uh

time and place of the argument dumbass

we're not talking about after the

stagnation because we literally don't

understand the stagnation and why that

even [ __ ] happened

hey why did the stagnation happen tell

me

you really want to know yeah tell me why

the stagnation happened

well first we have to we have to

eliminate what couldn't have been the

reason which was

the calculation problem because if the

calculation problem is real it would

have always been the problem

but the stagnation didn't start

happening until the 70s or the late 60s

so we eliminate by process we have to

eliminate

the calculation problem as the problem

no no

yes yes we do wait we can we can argue

about whether the calculation problem

how could the soviet union how is the

soviet union able to

industrialize its economy modernize its

economy

um create a primary sphere of industrial

modern

industrial production without by the way

without global investment

while being the enemy of the west an

enemy of the

countries that had the highest

concentration of capital without being

able to

take advantage of the capital

differentials that china now took

advantage of because they

they became smart and knew how to do it

because the soviet union

was re-industrialized and had just

listen listen listen listen how is it

able to industrialize

then how is it able to industrialize why

didn't the calculation problem prevent

its industrialization

calculation problem doesn't prevent

industrialization it doesn't so the

calculation problem doesn't prevent

economies from being able to work it

well no it does it just does but the

economy did work

because the soviet union the soviet

union's economy did work

it worked very well it didn't work well

yes it did there was stagnation

after 15 or 58 or 16. what

there was stagnation yes there was the

stagnation

explaining at a specific historical

period why was there a stagnation

you really want me to explain why yeah

after the task of actually modernizing

the economy was satisfied and completed

by the communist states which they did

phenomenally well

modernizing their people giving them

health care giving them

education giving them shelter giving

them food

giving them a more or less modern

well-rounded a cultured life

giving them those basics of modernity

after that was exhausted a new era

and also a generational shift had

occurred in the world

this is what we broadly some people call

the neoliberal era some people call it

the information revolution

the rise of computers whatever they want

to call and also the uh

what do you call it the consumer society

where light industries started to take a

precedent role in relationship to

economies of scale the previous

paradigm of socialism was unable to

adapt

to this how should they have adapted

i literally just told you about a guy

named paul cockshot and according to him

you're not a fan of paul cox i know but

i'm giving you an example of why

what you're describing is was not the

issue cockshot

believed that the use of computers

so it was actually a proposal within the

soviet union that was discarded it was

called ogas

and they were going to start using

computers to

to create plans of production it was a

cybernetics program yeah

their cybernetics program to create a

kind of internet

to create this okay so

so so there was there was other there

was at least at the very least there was

other

reasons and other possibilities so why

did that only

start kicking in in 68 the stagnation

yeah and why because because the source

of the soviet union's growth which was

modernizing the economy was fulfilled

they they fulfilled the goal were other

countries able to adapt

other countries that were not

we're under the us bretton woods

marshall plan

and could take advantage of the capital

differentials

allowed through the use of shut up

through the use of international

okay so the how do you learn

through the use of exploiting the

capital differentials

that allow you to concentrate

investments from global financial

capital the us i didn't have that

so it's a non-starter okay

don't talk about how other countries

other countries were literally pegged

to the us global economic system so they

did it for the same reason the u.s

the us is the one who pioneered this new

information age in the [ __ ] first

place

and why why if the us's model was so

failed why was the us

able to be effective the us's model has

failed relative to what when did i say

the us model failed

at at that time the us model was not so

it didn't even there wasn't even a model

there was no models to speak of that to

fail or not to fill

no one denies the bretton woods model

that's not a model it was a global

system

of international finance do you not know

about it

i i know about the bretton woods yeah

about no you don't know [ __ ] every time

you use that tone of voice i know i

don't know

[ __ ] absolutely i abs just like you

absolutely know about truth right you

don't know [ __ ]

i i know i know a lot of [ __ ] about

truth you know nothing

about any of the topics and subject

matters we've spoken of

nothing you literally know nothing you

literally know [ __ ] nothing

i know nothing i think you literally

know nothing about me

you think i know nothing about truth yes

i don't think you know anything about

truth okay so that

so that's a pivot right that's a pivot

back to the other point no you just

asked why did you ask me the question of

truth

i you don't know anything about you just

wait sorry so you said that i don't know

thing

because you used the same tone of voice

when you said i know

everything about i know a lot about

bretton woods you don't know anything

about bretton woods

okay well i i would i know a lot about

bretton woods

do we want to take a brenton woods quiz

a bretton woods kids

yeah what was brentwood's okay so bret

the bretton wood system was a system of

international

alliances and of trading partnerships

between the us and other countries in

europe

yeah i'm not asking you i'm not asking

you for the google definition i'm asking

actually what specifically

i did not i did not google it and i can

share my screen and

what's what specifically was the brand

what were the details of the bretton

woods system

like that allowed countries to take

damage um what were the details of the

bretton woods system

the [ __ ]

did he just [ __ ] [ __ ] out

the [ __ ] okay here he's still here

yeah what was the details of the bretton

wood system go ahead

you know a lot about it right yeah the

details of the bretton wood system what

was it

the what about the retinoid system the

details

what details do you want what was this

system

well i i mean i just told you no you

gave me a bunch of vague [ __ ]

tell me what it actually was so it was a

system

of trading partners what was the system

of trading partners

and international alliances what was

that what was the architecture

it was it was organized on the like

on the lines the westphalian system is

generally between the united states and

countries in europe no the brett no

because

countries in asia were also part of

bretton woods can you please admit you

don't know anything about it

well i know some things about it you

don't know [ __ ] about it

i do you don't know about the fact that

for example

it entailed that the u.s dollar would

become the world's foremost

reserve currency did you know that

um did you know that it entailed

that it was first and foremost a global

monetary order

to make sure that currency differentials

don't lead to conflicts like the world

wars before

did you know that um the i that was

certainly a part of it

no that was the [ __ ] main point of it

the architects of the bretton wood

system literally said this is why we

need this system

to make sure the world wars don't happen

again

okay

wait so what what point were we on

the point that we were on is that the

fact that other countries were able to

adapt to this new era

in no way proves that there is a

calculation problem

well wait okay so why why was the soviet

union able to be

successful like what if if the u.s

assistant was able to weather the storm

as a result of being part of the

bretton wood system why did the soviet

system

fail so much if your system is truly

better

your system which is modeled on the

soviet system

there's like about five things that you

just said that make you sound like the

biggest dumbass that's ever come in my

vc

did you know that

let's go through every prong of why

you're a [ __ ] idiot the first problem

when did i say the soviet union what

precedent establishes that the soviet

union is

my system and my model for what every

country should have

ed you said that your version of

communism

would be modeled on past successes of

communism like the soviet union which is

why

when did i say oh no when did i even say

that why which is sore

why why why why why when did i say that

when did i say that which is why when

did i say that in the first place

i'm touching you weasel and i'm asking

you

when i said that which is why earlier

no not which is why the premise is false

don't ask

why it is not i'm muting his dumb

[ __ ] [ __ ] ass

do not [ __ ] establish it as a bridge

to say which is why because i never said

it in the first place

[ __ ] idiot what i actually said was

that

you said that the communist states such

as the soviet union are examples of why

the calculation problem is real

i rebuked that by saying that the soviet

union underwent phenomenal rates of

growth that's what we were talking about

he's still talking after he was muted

unbelievable no one could hear you by

the way not even me

well okay so uh

so you brought it up you brought up this

why did i bring it up again

as an example of success and pointed to

their alleged i brought it up as an

example of success why

well in response to my argument that the

empirical record

backs up the calculation problem exactly

so how do you get from a me using the

soviet union as an example of a

successful country that should have been

victim to the calculation problem but

clearly wasn't

to be that it is my so-called model and

that i said

i'm using states like this yes you did

say it was my [ __ ] motto you [ __ ]

liar

literally chad get the twitch clip

someone click click i didn't i

so i didn't say that your model was

identical but i said your model was

modeled

off the soviet union and where did you

get that from i mean like i've seen

other debates that you've had where

you've talked

what if there was literally evidence on

the record that says the contrary is

true where i literally said the soviet

model cannot be replicated and i've said

that many times okay

oh okay well all right sure i'll concede

as wrong good concede

good concede that's what you that's what

you need to start doing in order to save

what little face you have left

okay so i was wrong about your views

okay

the second prong of why you're a [ __ ]

dumbass

okay is that there was no yeah there's

many prongs to why you were stupid we're

gonna get you all of them you know i'm

not

you're you're running away from me the

second i'm not running away from [ __ ]

we're going through the prongs the

second time

you're running you're running away from

the calculate so

what is your mechanism of allocating

scarce resources shut your [ __ ] [ __ ]

ass

up i'm [ __ ] running away when you

just [ __ ] made an argument

and you're trying to interrupt me and

i'll respond

okay so the second prong of why you're a

[ __ ] idiot

is that there was no one either in the

soviet government

or a communist admirer of the soviet

union

who didn't recognize that the soviet

union was behind not only america

but the entire western world it started

out behind from them and its goal was to

catch up

so there's no comparison shut the [ __ ]

up

shut the [ __ ] up okay

why do you interrupt me why well you

tell me why you interrupt me in the

middle of what i might when my [ __ ]

sentence

interrupted me but i run the show and my

voice dominates over overuse

why do you interrupt me well look my my

i am sick of your [ __ ] nerd voice

interrupting me when i speak i am sick

of your nerd

pencil neck puck voice interrupting me

when i speak

i'm sick of your beta male uh [ __ ]

pencil neck voice interrupting me when i

say you have a girlfriend

you have a girlfriend do i what do you

have a girlfriend

yeah okay we're gonna see who she thinks

the beta male is and who's not

introduce me to her yeah so i'm i'm

obviously not gonna do that

okay because you're a [ __ ] and you're

not gonna back up a single [ __ ] thing

you say

you keep trying to interrupt me because

you know my arguments will destroy you

they will destroy you dude you're the

one who's interrupting me

more than i'm interrupting you you

interrupt me literally when i said there

was not a single communist

in the soviet government or an admirer

of the soviet union

who didn't understand that the soviet

union was behind

not only america but the entire western

world and that it had to catch up and

that therefore and this is where you

interrupted me

you cannot actually compare the soviet

union as a model compared to the united

states

unless you can say that soviet

government should have adopted american

policies within the soviet union

and that would have been uh that would

have allowed the soviet union to be

identical to america and its rate of

growth but as we can see

countries which adopted america's

policies outside of america

have never actually [ __ ] hold on mods

where the [ __ ] are you

have never actually [ __ ] been able to

replicate

america's success despite adopting

america's political policies

even countries like japan and all these

other countries had to adopt

heavy-handed illiberal state planning

policies

in order to achieve the rates of growth

that they could no country has copied

america's policies

look how he still interrupts me look how

the [ __ ] still interrupts me

you are muted you dumb [ __ ] you dumb

[ __ ]

no one is hearing a word you say

if you want to compare as a system the

soviet union to america

you have to say that the soviets should

have adopted america's policies and they

would have achieved america's record of

growth

in the 1990s he left because he's a

[ __ ] [ __ ]

because he lost that's what it looks

like to lose a [ __ ] debate

in the 1990s the soviet union adopted

the shock therapy policies

the soviet union adopted america's

neoliberal inspired

shock therapy policies in the 1990s

american economists and think tanks

led the so the soviets russia said fine

will be america

and it led to a collapse of their

economy

so devastating that the mortality rate

was comparable to wartime mortality

rates

so that will show you and that will

attest to comparing

both systems