I personally don't believe that the existence of billionaires is some indictment of capitalism.
1. There's no pure capitalism. Rich people get grants, tax breaks, and investment from people who want to hitch their cart to that person.
2. People are different. Some are born with talent/ambition/opportunity to do nothing except make money (ie. serial entrepreneurs), and not out of a desire for the money per se, its only used as a gauge/status marker of how well they're doing.
3. These people are abnormally obsessive and will find insane ways to squeeze every last drop of personal productivity per hour of breathing that normal people (including me) have no interest
in doing. Over time, these people will peel away from the pack of normies and become obscenely rich.
Aside from that: I'm all for progressive taxation, altho I would probably consider a 40+% tax rate to be legalized theft. I simply don't trust government to handle people's wealth effectively.
On economists, my roommate was taking economics in university and I had a look through some of his texts at the time ( I was taking an undergraduate degree in Geophysics ). I was not reassured about economics as a real science then. In 2008 when the markets crashed, economists really didn't see it coming. Economists may be very good at rationalizing things that have already happened but maybe not so good at predictions.
Ross, I absolutely understand your reluctance to view economics as a "real science."
I would respond that [and I am inferring a lot into your comments here] you look at a "science" as something that can absolutely be proven, such as through mathematical certainty. To that perspective I have a great deal of sympathy.
However .....
I recall that when I was in university about a thousand years ago, I encountered many folks taking sociology, psychology and similar "sciences" and I concluded that the general description of those disciplines as "soft sciences" was absolutely spot on.
I further concluded that the "hard sciences" involved things that could absolutely be proven - debated, analyzed, pondered, but ultimately proven - whereas the "soft sciences" did not involve actual proof but absolutely involved debate (VAST amounts of debate, all colored by one's own perspective), (some / pseudo) analysis and pondering but no absolute proof. In other words, the soft sciences allowed absolute conclusions that were subject to change based on interpretation from time to time so that the absolute "accuracy" of a conclusion today could be turned upside down tomorrow.
I have always viewed economics in the same fashion as the other "soft sciences," albeit with somewhat more precision. But only somewhat.
Later additional comment: I therefore argue that the "soft sciences" should be considered arts, not sciences in the same way that one considers "hard sciences" as mathematics, physics, engineering, medicine, etc. Do not mistake my point and think that I do not value the "arts" of psychology, sociology, economics, etc. but also do not think of them as "hard sciences" that offer absolute proofs.
How does Putin personally survive if we somehow assist Ukraine to the point where it can reconquer Crimea and Donbass? And if he can't, what's his downside to using nukes to prevent it?
I do enjoy your weekly spoken sessions but, as with some of your other subscribers, I absolutely value the written format.
A couple of further comments about my physical disability and how it does / does not allow me to enjoy your commentary. I am an old dog (emphasis on both old and dog) who has trouble hearing. When it comes to your video / audio - which I value - I have trouble hearing and I use headphones and repeatedly have to stop and replay portions. I find that every person has different speech cadences (Jen, for example, speaks much more quickly than Matt - neither alternative is better than the other, they are just different) and I always have to listen for a while to each person to get those cadences down so that I can understand the conversation. Then the conversation is over and next week it is de ja vu all over again.
I would add that I absolutely do not read lips but I get a lot out of facial expressions so the videos are much easier for me to follow. I therefore find the video format is a better one for me. [That is why this two year mask thingy was so difficult for me!]
I much prefer a written article as I can read it much faster than it will take to listen to your comments. If you are going to this format only, I will stop subscribing. Thanks
I don't know how to stop Putin, so I guess I shouldn't post any comments. But it's hard not to.
IMO there's no point giving him the Donbass as he won't stop there. And as many of us now know, since Ukraine became legally independent of Russia in 1991, Russia has been trigger happy in other countries and Ukraine. When Putin took over Crimea in 2014 and then laid his eyes on Donbas and Luhansk, the west did nothing to stop him until now.
Boris Kagarlitsk is a Russian Marxist theoretician and sociologist who has been a political dissident in the Soviet Union and in post-Soviet Russia. He continues to speak out against Putin. I don't know where he is currently living. Interestingly, he supports Crimea being part of Russia given the outcome of the (disputed) 2014 referendum that was held in Crimea.
My biggest concern is that the west will stop providing Ukraine with a steady supply of relevant military equipment, or the Ukrainian soldiers will become too exhausted to fight. Russia may now have some advantages. Eastern Ukraine land is flatter and less populated, which Russia is said to be better at fighting in. And worse, Putin doesn't care how many Russian soldiers (or Ukrainian people) die in this conflict. They are all fodder for his cause/ego.
Are we going to watch those 1,000 children and adults at the Mariupol steel plant die from lack of water and starvation?? Are we really going to let those innocent children there (and elsewhere in Ukraine) die?
Just wanted to thank both of the authors for their continued thought-provoking and informative writing and now podcasts as well.
I personally don't believe that the existence of billionaires is some indictment of capitalism.
1. There's no pure capitalism. Rich people get grants, tax breaks, and investment from people who want to hitch their cart to that person.
2. People are different. Some are born with talent/ambition/opportunity to do nothing except make money (ie. serial entrepreneurs), and not out of a desire for the money per se, its only used as a gauge/status marker of how well they're doing.
3. These people are abnormally obsessive and will find insane ways to squeeze every last drop of personal productivity per hour of breathing that normal people (including me) have no interest
in doing. Over time, these people will peel away from the pack of normies and become obscenely rich.
Aside from that: I'm all for progressive taxation, altho I would probably consider a 40+% tax rate to be legalized theft. I simply don't trust government to handle people's wealth effectively.
On economists, my roommate was taking economics in university and I had a look through some of his texts at the time ( I was taking an undergraduate degree in Geophysics ). I was not reassured about economics as a real science then. In 2008 when the markets crashed, economists really didn't see it coming. Economists may be very good at rationalizing things that have already happened but maybe not so good at predictions.
Ross, I absolutely understand your reluctance to view economics as a "real science."
I would respond that [and I am inferring a lot into your comments here] you look at a "science" as something that can absolutely be proven, such as through mathematical certainty. To that perspective I have a great deal of sympathy.
However .....
I recall that when I was in university about a thousand years ago, I encountered many folks taking sociology, psychology and similar "sciences" and I concluded that the general description of those disciplines as "soft sciences" was absolutely spot on.
I further concluded that the "hard sciences" involved things that could absolutely be proven - debated, analyzed, pondered, but ultimately proven - whereas the "soft sciences" did not involve actual proof but absolutely involved debate (VAST amounts of debate, all colored by one's own perspective), (some / pseudo) analysis and pondering but no absolute proof. In other words, the soft sciences allowed absolute conclusions that were subject to change based on interpretation from time to time so that the absolute "accuracy" of a conclusion today could be turned upside down tomorrow.
I have always viewed economics in the same fashion as the other "soft sciences," albeit with somewhat more precision. But only somewhat.
Later additional comment: I therefore argue that the "soft sciences" should be considered arts, not sciences in the same way that one considers "hard sciences" as mathematics, physics, engineering, medicine, etc. Do not mistake my point and think that I do not value the "arts" of psychology, sociology, economics, etc. but also do not think of them as "hard sciences" that offer absolute proofs.
OK, maybe I'm a bit hard on them...
Just wanted to thank both of the authors for their continued thought-provoking and informative writing and now podcasts as well.
How does Putin personally survive if we somehow assist Ukraine to the point where it can reconquer Crimea and Donbass? And if he can't, what's his downside to using nukes to prevent it?
RSS Feed link works a charm with my Podcast app. It is nice to be mobile with the line.
History is complicated. Thank you Jen.
Matt / Jen:
I do enjoy your weekly spoken sessions but, as with some of your other subscribers, I absolutely value the written format.
A couple of further comments about my physical disability and how it does / does not allow me to enjoy your commentary. I am an old dog (emphasis on both old and dog) who has trouble hearing. When it comes to your video / audio - which I value - I have trouble hearing and I use headphones and repeatedly have to stop and replay portions. I find that every person has different speech cadences (Jen, for example, speaks much more quickly than Matt - neither alternative is better than the other, they are just different) and I always have to listen for a while to each person to get those cadences down so that I can understand the conversation. Then the conversation is over and next week it is de ja vu all over again.
I would add that I absolutely do not read lips but I get a lot out of facial expressions so the videos are much easier for me to follow. I therefore find the video format is a better one for me. [That is why this two year mask thingy was so difficult for me!]
Where did you get the numbers $199,999.99 as the high end of a middle class salary for an individual in Canada? I have only found $156K. Thx.
It’s how the Ontario NDP is defining it for the election that officially launches this week.
I much prefer a written article as I can read it much faster than it will take to listen to your comments. If you are going to this format only, I will stop subscribing. Thanks
We definitely are not abandoning the written format. The written version went online yesterday.
Thanks. Much appreciated. Read yesterday’s. Very thought provoking. Keep up the good work.
I don't know how to stop Putin, so I guess I shouldn't post any comments. But it's hard not to.
IMO there's no point giving him the Donbass as he won't stop there. And as many of us now know, since Ukraine became legally independent of Russia in 1991, Russia has been trigger happy in other countries and Ukraine. When Putin took over Crimea in 2014 and then laid his eyes on Donbas and Luhansk, the west did nothing to stop him until now.
Boris Kagarlitsk is a Russian Marxist theoretician and sociologist who has been a political dissident in the Soviet Union and in post-Soviet Russia. He continues to speak out against Putin. I don't know where he is currently living. Interestingly, he supports Crimea being part of Russia given the outcome of the (disputed) 2014 referendum that was held in Crimea.
My biggest concern is that the west will stop providing Ukraine with a steady supply of relevant military equipment, or the Ukrainian soldiers will become too exhausted to fight. Russia may now have some advantages. Eastern Ukraine land is flatter and less populated, which Russia is said to be better at fighting in. And worse, Putin doesn't care how many Russian soldiers (or Ukrainian people) die in this conflict. They are all fodder for his cause/ego.
Are we going to watch those 1,000 children and adults at the Mariupol steel plant die from lack of water and starvation?? Are we really going to let those innocent children there (and elsewhere in Ukraine) die?