But unrelated, I just wanna point out, for anyone who doesn't think Joe is kind of an idiot, in this same single interview, within an hours time he....
First, praises UBI for giving people the freedom to focus on what matters in life and pushed back against Tim Pool who was describing people exploiting UBI to be lazy, and choosing not to work. then later Joe is ragging on comedians he paid their rent as a good will gesture so they could focus on their comedy, and they didn't push hard to try and succeed and he claims the only way you will be successful is if you are forced to survive, basically proving why UBI is garbage.
But he doesn't even notice how these 2 opinions contradict one another. He probably doesn't even view them as related. I guarantee if UBI comes up in another video he'll praise it again.
Devil's advocate: Joe's rationalization of UBI being a "moral/philosophical good" and the fact that people often do need a push in order to improve, are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
For example: It is still morally good to treat and heal a suicidial patient or a smoker.
True. Plus the tests that we've done here in Finland did not improve people's motivation to work, it just made people feel less stressed out.
There are some minor positive ramifications to improving people's perceived levels of anxiety and stress (like health), but it wasn't a sustainable model long-term.
I've also never heard one proposal that wasn't either more costly than the entire federal budget or wasn't just a straight wealth redistribution scheme.
Maybe they aren't mutually exclusive if he had different views on them. But his ideas on them are pretty much the same, just described from different starting points. If you take them to their logical conclusions, they contradict.
For example if he hates what his personal experiment did, making people lazy, undriven, sad potato sacks, why would he want an entire society to do that?
In his UBI argument, he argues back to Tim something along the lines of "But it's just enough to live, people will want more" His argument for UBI is that people will drive to succeed BEYOND their basic needs, and Tim's idea that people will choose not to work is preposterous.
But then he contradicts that with his own experiment of how people don't drive beyond the basic needs. The comedians he helped didn't put more effort into their comedy. They had all this extra time to focus on comedy instead of struggling to survive, and they didn't utilize it. They became lazy and undriven.
Why would he argue people won't become undriven lazy people, but then give his own example of why they do? Why would he say that benefits people, but then explain in his own example why it doesn't?
The way I understood Joe is that he is in favor of UBI because of the freedom that it gives people to pursue avenues and tasks that truly interest them, but he also points out that being given everything for free some people lose the drive that they need to better themselves and their craft.
It's like having a sailboat with a working rudder to go anywhere they like, but having no wind to push them. You have more freedom, but potentially less purpose and/or drive to act on it. So actually moving forward becomes even harder for some people and they are stuck in idle water.
I see what your saying about “drive” and “will” but I don’t see how that’s not a contradiction. His own experience shows that giving people money robs them of drive, so in essence UBI is directly the reason people are held back. Which he constantly complains about, he constantly says he wants society to get its shit together, and touts Jordan Peterson principals, but then touts a system in which that mentality will not thrive.
If he isn't stupid, he is at least on somebodys pay-roll and has handlers that tell him what he can and can't discuss. He sold out at some point. I was a fan but it became too obvious to me that he wasn't genuine and was pushing away and rejecting certain ideas and topics.
Nice shout-out for TD!
But unrelated, I just wanna point out, for anyone who doesn't think Joe is kind of an idiot, in this same single interview, within an hours time he....
First, praises UBI for giving people the freedom to focus on what matters in life and pushed back against Tim Pool who was describing people exploiting UBI to be lazy, and choosing not to work. then later Joe is ragging on comedians he paid their rent as a good will gesture so they could focus on their comedy, and they didn't push hard to try and succeed and he claims the only way you will be successful is if you are forced to survive, basically proving why UBI is garbage.
But he doesn't even notice how these 2 opinions contradict one another. He probably doesn't even view them as related. I guarantee if UBI comes up in another video he'll praise it again.
Joe is stupid.
Devil's advocate: Joe's rationalization of UBI being a "moral/philosophical good" and the fact that people often do need a push in order to improve, are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
For example: It is still morally good to treat and heal a suicidial patient or a smoker.
One can then counter the moral good angle by demonstrating that it doesn't work. UBI defies basic economic concepts like inflation.
True. Plus the tests that we've done here in Finland did not improve people's motivation to work, it just made people feel less stressed out.
There are some minor positive ramifications to improving people's perceived levels of anxiety and stress (like health), but it wasn't a sustainable model long-term.
I've also never heard one proposal that wasn't either more costly than the entire federal budget or wasn't just a straight wealth redistribution scheme.
Maybe they aren't mutually exclusive if he had different views on them. But his ideas on them are pretty much the same, just described from different starting points. If you take them to their logical conclusions, they contradict.
For example if he hates what his personal experiment did, making people lazy, undriven, sad potato sacks, why would he want an entire society to do that?
In his UBI argument, he argues back to Tim something along the lines of "But it's just enough to live, people will want more" His argument for UBI is that people will drive to succeed BEYOND their basic needs, and Tim's idea that people will choose not to work is preposterous.
But then he contradicts that with his own experiment of how people don't drive beyond the basic needs. The comedians he helped didn't put more effort into their comedy. They had all this extra time to focus on comedy instead of struggling to survive, and they didn't utilize it. They became lazy and undriven.
Why would he argue people won't become undriven lazy people, but then give his own example of why they do? Why would he say that benefits people, but then explain in his own example why it doesn't?
That's a direct contradiction.
The way I understood Joe is that he is in favor of UBI because of the freedom that it gives people to pursue avenues and tasks that truly interest them, but he also points out that being given everything for free some people lose the drive that they need to better themselves and their craft.
It's like having a sailboat with a working rudder to go anywhere they like, but having no wind to push them. You have more freedom, but potentially less purpose and/or drive to act on it. So actually moving forward becomes even harder for some people and they are stuck in idle water.
I see what your saying about “drive” and “will” but I don’t see how that’s not a contradiction. His own experience shows that giving people money robs them of drive, so in essence UBI is directly the reason people are held back. Which he constantly complains about, he constantly says he wants society to get its shit together, and touts Jordan Peterson principals, but then touts a system in which that mentality will not thrive.
Broprah.
If he isn't stupid, he is at least on somebodys pay-roll and has handlers that tell him what he can and can't discuss. He sold out at some point. I was a fan but it became too obvious to me that he wasn't genuine and was pushing away and rejecting certain ideas and topics.