Kind: captions
Language: en
Since 2008, the US has recklessly
quadrupled the money supply. And the
result is not just inflation. It's an
entire generation getting battered by
the financial system. Today's guest,
Hassan [ __ ] is one of the biggest
voices on the American left. He believes
capitalism has failed young people, that
greedy corporations and corrupt
politicians are strangling their
opportunities, and that government
intervention is the only way to fix it.
I see the root cause and thus the
solution set very differently and that's
exactly why I wanted this conversation.
In this episode, we go head-to-head on
the real mechanics behind wealth
inequality, why housing has become the
makeorb breakak asset for the middle
class, and whether socialism can
actually deliver positive change in the
messy reality of modern economics.
Without further ado, I bring you Hassan
[ __ ]
Why do you think so many young people
are turning towards socialism?
[Applause]
>> That's the first question you got for
gay, man.
>> Yeah. I mean, I think it's pretty
obvious is because capitalism is failing
them. It's it's failing everybody, not
you and me. It's not failing either of
us. We've done quite well for ourselves,
but uh it has been a spectacular failure
for the average person. And therefore,
people are understandably looking for
alternatives. young people in particular
uh especially those who are just coming
out of college or those just going into
college uh they look at the the
opportunities that they have or rather
they don't have and they realize that
the future is grim. So they look for an
alternative uh that that at the very
least chooses to identify the problem
and also solve it. uh material
inequalities, uh cost of living crisis,
not being able to ever own a home. These
are very real problems facing younger
generations and of course they look to
an alternative organization of the
economy as as one that is probably the
best way to go forward.
>> So I'm always trying to map things in
terms of where do I want to end up and
then what are the mechanistic steps that
can lead you there. So if you were to
say what is the way from uh the
mechanisms that capitalism has failed
people what are the features of the
machine that makes it a sort of by
nature flawed system
>> at its base at its core uh it is this uh
inherent contradiction right if you are
someone who's working uh someone who's a
wage laborer and I'm sure you've worked
uh a regular job in your in your past as
well most people want to work the least
amount of time for the most amount of
pay Right? And that doesn't mean like
they're greedy or anything. It's just
human nature. You want to work as little
as you possibly can and get paid as much
as you can for that job. Um, on the
other side, you have your your uh people
that own the businesses that want to
obviously pay you the least amount that
they can possibly pay you for the most
amount of time to get you to work. So,
these these two things when broken down,
Karl Marx says, is the inherent
contradiction of class. You have the
wage laborers on the one side and you
have the bosses on the other side or
those who work for your capital owners
on the other side. And that is the
reason why there is so much tremendous
wealth inequality at least according to
Carl Marx. Um I happen to agree with the
that I would get why. So you set that up
as uh one side wants to work as little
as possible, get paid as much as
possible. The other side wants to pay as
little as possible and get as much work
as possible. But that doesn't me explain
the inequality cuz I think you and I are
going to agree that wealth inequality is
at a level that is literally tragic and
I'll use the word dangerous.
>> Do you see an insufficiency in
explaining why we have inequality and we
need to push deeper or do you really
think that that mere human tendency for
those positions to be the way they are
explains wealth inequality? The very
fact that because the one side that
wants to make sure that you work the
most amount of hours for the least
amount of pay is the side that gets to
basically take home uh what we know as
profits, which is what Marsh describes
as the uh the the uh surplus labor, your
additional output, like what you do and
how much money you generate for the
company versus how much money the
company pays you back in return. um that
that creates a system of wealth
inequality that is normalized. It's
understandable. It's like we call it
profit. We're like this is my business.
I started it. I got lucky or I worked
really hard and I get to reap the
rewards of it. You don't. You're the
worker. It makes sense. A lot of people
buy into it. A lot of people like this
system. But I think over time that
system fundamentally creates this uh
this this inefficiency as a matter of
fact where um every industry wants to
inevitably monopolize. Every industry
wants horizontal and vertical expansion.
So they can be the the doineering force
in the market. Set prices and and uh
just like we see with Amazon for example
start engaging in the process of of uh
increasing the the uh prices that they
initially had set so low and that is how
they justified uh basically eating up so
many different competitors in the same
sector. And I think we're at that point.
This corporate consolidation that has
taken place has created a system where
there's only a couple companies. They
get to dictate prices through not price
fixing, which is illegal, but through
price leadership, right, which is very
legal. Someone does this and then
everybody else follows suit. That
becomes much easier with the corporate
consolidation that we're seeing. uh and
and that is precisely I think the reason
why the system is like collapsing right
now in a way that even someone like
yourself who in other circumstances I I
feel would be very defensive of these
structures is recognizing it. Um, I have
a couple friends who uh used to work for
a libertarian think tank called Reason
magazine and uh I remember having
conversations with them where they would
do these fundraisers and apparently the
rich people that funded the Reason uh
libertarian think tank would call
welfare riot tax. So they even
understood that there was a
>> there was a we pay to avoid riots. There
is a there's a level of like uh giving
back that people need to do in order to
make sure that people aren't so uh so
hungry that uh they recognize that
they're being starved.
>> Okay. So
>> that's falling apart is what I'm saying.
>> Yeah. Um it's interesting. So I have a
uh very different take on the
fundamental flaw in the system that's
creating the problem, but it's not
capitalism per se. It's banking. And so
when you start looking at so you
mentioned earlier yeah the thing is like
I really it'll be interesting to see it
play out in this conversation but I
really feel like uh anybody who's
looking at the mechanistic reasons why
we are where we are will just have a
hard time saying oh yeah yeah we we
agree on all of that and so it just then
becomes as we build out I think people
break into camp one of uh I'm going to
speak to the way that people feel and
I'm going to give them policy
prescriptions that are going to feel
right and then other people or maybe
I'll just put myself in it just to not
speak for other people. For myself, I'm
just like, what are the physics of the
economy and how do we make sure that we
get out of this? Uh you you say it's
called a riot tax. I'll say I don't want
my head separated from my body uh French
Revolution style. And that is absolutely
what ends up happening. And moderate
elites die first. And as a moderate
elite, I'm not super excited about that.
Uh, also as somebody who's spent more
time without money than I have with
money, it's still all very familiar to
me exactly what that feels like. So I
look at the setup and I trigger off of
something that you said earlier, which
is people can afford houses. And so my
whole philosophy is very simple. In
1913, the Federal Reserve system created
a situation where bailing out banks
became the goal. And so now you have a
financial system where they're trying to
socialize losses and privatize gains. So
basically bankers from the act in 1913
got put in a position where heads they
win and tails we all lose.
>> And the way that they pull that off as
money printing and so because they can
print money and money printing is a tax.
It's the easiest way to think about it
although I will often refer to it as
theft. But they can money print and
create a tax that hits everybody. And so
that way they can fund all the deficit
spending, all the wars that they want.
They can just fund fund fund. But
>> you have like a reverse MMT uh
opinion on this where you're like money
is fake. It's printed. That's how you
control um that's how the American
government controls the money supply,
which is understandable. Uh and then
taxing is just like taking uh the
existing money supply out of the uh out
of the circulation at the end of the
year, right?
>> Well, I would say this is modern
monetary theory. Like this is the goal.
So uh so if you're saying it's anti in
terms of I'm just staunchly against it,
it would get you close but not quite. So
I think every system has a trade-off.
Modern monetary theory allows for really
high velocity of money. Once you get
into high velocity of money, hey, like
when I say you need to look at the world
that you have and the system that you
have. So the modern monetary theory
gives us this world. It's a pretty great
world. It has problems and it's going
increasingly in the wrong direction. But
it has created some incredible stuff.
And so we have to figure out where
exactly it breaks and I think it breaks
where you said which is housing. Once
housing becomes unaffordable, the reason
you have a problem is housing is the
only asset that the average person
understands intuitively, the vast
majority of humans are never going to
map how the economy actually works. So
they just know, I want to live in a
house. I want to buy a house. And when
they can buy a house, then this all
works out fine because even though we're
in a high inflation environment where
the government can print as much money
as they want, the price of your house
goes up with inflation. And the second
that you can't afford that house, now
the only asset that you understand
intuitively goes out of reach and then
all that's left is the stock market. And
the vast majority of humans don't
understand the stock market.
>> You brought up some interesting points
and I think I I uh broadly agree at
least with the outlines. I would say
that um as far as like uh banking
insurance goes, I obviously don't have a
problem with that. But what I do have a
problem with
>> You're talking about FDIC?
>> Yeah, I'm talking about FDIC. So I what
I have a problem with is is actually how
consistently this government rewards
failure or as a matter of fact it's not
even a rewarding of a failure system.
It's more so that the expectation is
that yeah, these guys, like you said,
are going to be playing with your money,
right? Your taxes, your money. They know
it. They they demand it and if they
don't get it, they get mad, right? They
expect it. Um I think we see it uh
consistently like with bailouts or or
things that happen with like uh during
CO for example where companies get
bailed out. It's understandable
especially if they're like profoundly
important to the logistics, the supply
chain like uh the commercial airliners,
right? But then you have this this uh
structure where and I thought this is
what you meant when you said I I have an
issue with banking because I do as well.
Um we have a structure where like
everything is turned into a bank where
uh the the once incredibly important
institutions that that developed like
the best new technology like Boeing for
example, right? Are now just a bank. And
what I mean by that is uh they are way
more predisposed with with uh crunching
numbers and ensuring that there is some
corner cutting but like ensuring that
the sharehold shareholder value is going
up at all costs and I think that
actually yields uh worse and worse
products year-over-year. You start
seeing these uh these these issues with
Boeing uh products in general where you
know doors are flying off or whatever.
That's because they've like they have
outsourced big parts of their
manufacturing to lowcost alternatives
and in the process they're actually uh
they're actually taking away some of the
most important parts of of the uh
airline industry which is to ensure that
there's always redundancies like
numerous points of failure. The big
problem here is that Boeing has went
from being a company that develops
things, makes planes or even space
shuttles and satellites and whatnot to a
company that is just a bank. It's become
a a bank that can point to the some of
the stuff that they make to I guess uh
have uh some some kind of assets, have
some kind of leverage, but ultimately
they're just playing with money.
>> It's interesting. So you're pointing out
a flaw that I would say is actually more
of a cultural flaw. And I think that
calling them a bank is probably going to
diffuse the animosity that should be
aimed at actual banks. Uh but to address
the point directly and then I'll get
back to what I see as the mechanistic
side. So if you see a flaw in my
thinking, we can parse through that. But
um the cultural change that's happened
is we have taken this idea of a
fiduciary responsibility to like some
absurd extreme where we're no longer
being sensible about okay what are the
impacts for instance of the safety of a
plane. We know that some of these
industries they are so hard to get into.
There's such a barrier to entry
>> that starting up your own plane company
is basically not going to happen. And so
there's going to be a very limited
number of people. And so there's the
level of innovation has declined,
declined, declined. And so when you look
at innovation in aerospace, it was like
uh 66 years between the Wright brothers
realizing that we could fly and then
landing on the moon. And now uh until
Elon Musk comes along, there's basically
no innovation whatsoever. It's pretty
wild. So that uh that's one problem. So
culturally we could get people behind
the idea of we want there to be more
competition there. What do we have to do
to facilitate that? that within the
company that you know that there's just
certain things that you don't do and you
predicate your company on safety or
innovation or whatever, but you
certainly don't predicate it to your
point of just like optimizing every
single penny. Uh but going back to the
banks, I think this is such a
catastrophic problem and the beef that I
have with people that are turning
towards socialism and the reason that I
think that that is going to be
absolutely disastrous for assuming that
we want to get to the same place um is
that mechanistically
it doesn't yield the economic outcomes
that people want where people actually
can thrive. They can buy a home. they
can uh if they can outperform, if they
can build something that the world
wants, that they can change their
station. Um that we have economic
mobility and that comes down to the way
that the the banking system and money
printing is structured such that the
banks can't lose. They can make every
ridiculous loan they want to. There's no
discipline forced upon them. And so it
ends up creating a situation where you
make a home impossible to purchase
really through two things. One, the
banking that we've talked about so far
and then globalization by making it
impossible for laborers to actually have
a voice.
>> Yeah. I mean, like I said, I don't
disagree with you. I just expand further
on it uh and and and describe the system
that we're existing under as like uh or
banking as a as a profoundly important
aspect of this. Again, Markx did write
extensively about the financialization
of the economy or the the global
financial uh market structure and what
uh and how different that was uh as
opposed to uh a a a new way to approach
the inequities within the system. a a
different way to approach uh the the
built-in inequalities within the system
because these are like at the end of the
day is it's like a uh this is not my
term for it but it's like it's like a
faceless lifeless bourgeoa class that
never actually ends up going to the
factory floor, right? Like they have no
um they have they have no say. They have
all to say in how the product gets made
or or corner cutting and and things of
that nature, but like they have no
understanding of the of uh the way that
these uh these things are being
produced, right? They can just own
things and they make money through
owning things. So, I think that's like
uh the fundamental problem that he
>> uh identifies. You're saying that when
you're the owning class and you are
disconnected from the hands-on building.
>> Yeah.
>> Uh that that breaks something in the um
certainly your relationship to the
labor. I'm putting words in your mouth
now, so please definitely tell me if I'm
reading this wrong, but
>> it would break your understanding of
them as like humans that deserve
dignity. And so making sure that they're
paid well and they're treated well, but
it also makes you optimize the actual
product in a way that's nonsensical.
>> Yeah. because optimization
um I was listening to uh how Toyota was
able to like restructure uh at a time
when they were at the on the verge of
bankruptcy is post World War II.
uh they have this like industrial base.
They're using it to for car
manufacturing. And a certain point like
I think uh there was these two guys,
one's last name is Toyota, I forget the
other one's last name, but they like
come to America, they look at the Ford
assembly line and they're like shocked
by how well it works. But then they go
to this like grocery store I guess and
then they find out that uh in that
process there's like um there's there is
so much input that you could rely on for
from every point of the assembly
process. So in the Toyota factories they
decide
um to to put this like yellow line where
any person any human being on the
assembly line can actually stop the
process at any point because human
beings are are much easier especially
doing this route task where they're like
constantly doing the same thing over and
over again. they're they're much more
tuned in to minor changes or minor
issues so that uh they don't have to
rely on like uh the the assembly line
continuing no matter what with like uh a
a failed buildout that they figure out
later down the line and then they have
to uh suffer uh financial consequences
and and do like a recall. You don't have
to do recall or whatever. Um, and I
think that that kind of impact uh or
that kind of feedback is is profoundly
important because the person that is
that is their hands on the product is
always going to be more knowledgeable
than the person that's making decisions
by simply crunching numbers or simply
looking at uh how to maximize the
efficiency. We'll be back to the show in
a second, but first let's talk about a
big mistake I see aspiring entrepreneurs
make all the time. Most people never get
their business off the ground because
they get overwhelmed by the legal maze.
When we were founding Impact Theory, I
wanted to reach through the phone and go
berserk on the people on the other end
because the legal stuff is so painful.
I'm talking about LLC paperwork,
business licenses, tax structures,
invoicing systems. You're ready to
build, but you are drowning in legal
requirements you don't understand.
Taylor Brands eliminates the roadblock.
You can register your LLC in minutes,
not weeks. They handle every legal
document, license, and permit
automatically. You get invoicing and
bookkeeping built in so you can collect
payments from day one. Plus, their
coaching program guides you through your
first 100 days, step by step. I'm going
to hook you guys up with a 35% discount.
Just go right now to
tailors.com/mpodcast
35. Do not be a statistic. Set your
business up right from day one. All
right, let's get back to the show.
I I would agree with that in the
abstract, but I know I I'm presuming
that people that lean socialist hate
Elon Musk and Elon Musk sleeps on the
floor of his facilities, understands the
engineering of the facilities probably
better than anybody on the floor because
he's done it at all of his different
companies. If I had to make a bet on who
would be the best person to build any
manufacturing facility it would and I
mean in the world uh I would bank on
Elon Musk just given the number of
industries that he's done this across.
Now it's possible that he's just uh
spinning PR but Samsung has invited him
to come and walk the floor because
they're going to be making chips for
Tesla and they want him to help improve
their output. So it it but I know that
that doesn't solve a lot of the problems
that people are rightly angry about in
terms of the wealth inequality. I I
teach entrepreneurship and I will often
tell entrepreneurs one of the biggest
problems you're up against is emotions
are going to make dots feel like they
connect that don't actually connect. And
as soon as you try to turn that into
policy prescriptive like go do this, it
won't work because it's not actually
rooted at the level of physics. And so
when you look at like what's breaking
down with wealth inequality, that to me
again, we're just right back at money
printing. So once people understand
there's a difference between income and
wealth inequality. Wealth are assets.
It's potential income, but it's not real
income. And so right now the top 10%
Americans own 95% of the assets. I mean,
it's just absolutely staggering. So
you've got people, they understand the
game of assets. They're scooping them
all up. And then you've got a basically
everybody else that the only asset they
understand intuitively is a home. And
from money printing, we've made that
impossible. But the the value of a
company, which are the assets, the
stocks, they go up with two things.
Innovation, so people care about it in
the marketplace.
>> So Tesla's doing something different and
better. And so people are like, I expect
that to be worth more in the future.
That's the bet they're placing.
>> No, I know. I I think
>> and then hold on really fast. And then
the second thing is money printing
because money printing creates the
illusion as you devalue the dollar. It
creates the illusion that the stock is
going up in price.
>> I would agree uh that innovation is
supposed to be like uh the the primary
way that your your stock is valued and
your stock goes up like the valuation of
your stock goes up. But I feel like um
that's not I don't think that that is
necessarily the case any longer. I feel
like the market is so reliant on uh
constant
uh being in a constant state of of uh
bullishness that uh even when you see
>> drives that because I agree but I think
we're going to for different reasons. I
think it's partially because money is
fake and we've just decided like oh it
doesn't matter if Donald Trump decides
to slap 150% tariffs on like all
incoming goods. You'll have a week of
instability and then ultimately he'll
turn around and say actually the tariffs
are gone and then the market will rally
again uh and we'll inevitably recover
back to the point that it was at and
then he will turn around and say tariffs
again. And at after the, you know, 10th
time he's done this after months and
months and months, um, you start
noticing that these companies are like,
okay, maybe it's not that significant.
Um, maybe it's not that impactful. Maybe
we can actually eat some of these, uh,
costs. And that's the reason why you
haven't seen the hyperinflation that was
uh slated to come if companies were
supposed to uh respond in uh the way
that the the market is normally supposed
to respond to immediate tariffs like
this, like broad universal tariffs like
this. So I've uh and as far as like
innovation goes, as far as Elon goes, um
I'm not a fan of Elon. He's not a fan of
mine. He's uh he's cursed me out on his
on his platform in the past. But uh I
will say uh the you brought up
innovation in the first 66 years going
from the Wright brothers all the way to
landing on the moon right um and you
said before Elon we had no innovation uh
in the space uh traveling sector and
there's some truth to that but I think
that's uh an that is an inefficiency of
the government because the first 66
years big leaps were made by the
government by publicly funded research
by NASA and it was always in a state of
disrepair because it turned into
political football. The only reason why
we even went to the moon was because we
wanted to flex on the USSR who had
actually beaten us to space, right? Um
and and therefore there was funding in
the program. But as uh the cold war took
a turn and uh we decided that this was
no longer as important, NASA funding was
always on the docket for to be cut,
right? Uh instead of something that we
focused on for the sake of advancing
mankind and my point always has been we
shouldn't rely on on we shouldn't wait
for private industry to make up for uh
these issues. We should have uh
especially when especially fields that
require innovation and requires failure,
requires big technological leaps like
you know figuring out the internet like
inventing the internet or inventing
space travel things of that nature like
that should be still heavily funded by
the government, heavily subsidized by
the government and even uh controlled by
the government. I have no issue with
this. A lot of people especially in
America get worried when they when they
hear me say this kind of stuff. Same
with housing. you can do uh major public
housing initiatives and just completely
explode the housing market uh in its
entirety. And by that I mean
>> yeah, sorry.
>> Explode the housing market as in like
build free or or uh incredibly
affordable price adjusted housing that
the government owns. Many countries and
many cities uh that have actually damn
near eradicated the issue of
homelessness have done so through public
ownership over the land. This is a scary
concept for a lot of Americans.
>> Where are you talking about?
>> Singapore is a great example as a
country. China is another great example.
>> Singapore specifically privatized.
>> No, no, but Singapore Singapore still
has like a government land lease program
that
>> Yeah. But if you like if you really
research Lie Kuan Yu, he was I use this
word um playfully, not literally, but he
was a gangster. Like he said literally,
I made sure the communists know I will
fight you to the death. Uh he went in
and told unions, "Fucking knock it off.
Get to work."
>> I But in terms of housing, in terms of
like the way that
>> his whole thing was, I wanted private
ownership. People had to know that they
were in on the economy because the only
way to build an economy on capitalistic
principles is to make sure that
everybody's in on it. Like Singapore is
an incredible model for people that want
a way out, but they often look at that
and don't realize that this guy was like
captain capitalism. It's
>> Yeah. I'm not saying this guy was a Oh,
no. My I never said that any of these
countries well I guess China with the
exception of China are like uh even
abiding by uh the the principles of
socialism or communism. That's not my
advocacy at all. The other example I was
going to use is is Austria uh which
again was led by uh obviously Red Vienna
was led like uh led by uh people who are
from that background Marxist socialist
communist and whatever but like Austria
as a country is not a communist country
and not it's not a socialist country and
yet Vienna has uh I think 65% uh public
housing and these are fantastic houses
like it's just owned by the government
and then they're uh they have uh these
lease programs. Uh every country has a
different way of doing it, but I think
ultimately government intervention of
that sort is not something that I
disagree with. I don't really care. They
don't have to be like communists or
socialists or whatever. I just I want to
fix the problem. And I think one of the
best ways to do that or at least one of
the most efficient ways that people have
done that is through this kind of
intervention or uh direct control to a
certain degree.
>> This kind of intervention is
governmentowned. uh government-owned
intervention like the land ownership
uh the land ownership concept goes back
to the hands of the government and you
can get like like in China you can get a
100red-year lease right and the
government will always restore your
lease there's no uh you know there's no
problem there but for this very reason
um there is a lot more control over uh
focusing on building inventory for uh
future demand
rather than holding inventory in the
hands of people that want to keep that
inventory limited so that their prices
are constantly going up. So there
because like you said, the only way that
the their their net worth goes up is is
if this finite supply housing if you're
lucky enough to be able to purchase it
um or lucky enough to get a mortgage to
purchase it. Uh the finite supply of
housing stays limited so that it's
constantly going up and therefore your
leverage is more uh valuable. your your
nest egg is more valuable and you
understandably have this like perverse
interest in maintaining the housing
supply as low as possible. In the
inverse of that, if you if you were to
blow up the already limited housing
supply and you were to actually explode
and build so much housing, specifically
government uh through government
intervention,
>> why specifically through government
intervention? because I don't think that
there is uh ever going to be uh an
unleashing of the markets that will be
able to overcome the interests of like
real estate developers or even like any
anyone who owns uh this kind of
inventory
>> and Austin have both shown that you can
do it privately.
>> So that's actually a great example of
this as well. Uh Austin and Houston,
Texas went in and built a lot of uh
built a lot of housing, but now there's
tremendous complications. Obviously
Houston in itself is literally on a
flood plane. And so it's they're they're
cooked irregardless.
>> They might be dumb. But so the
fundamental debate is going to be okay,
you and I, shockingly, we agree on a lot
of the problem,
>> but where like we haven't even gotten
into the DSA yet.
>> Uh which I have like wild uh reactions
to, which we'll get to, but um I'm like
like you, I sincerely want a solution.
And so then I'm like, okay, well, as an
entrepreneur, when you're faced with I'm
either going to be able to make payroll
or I'm not, you get pretty realistic
really fast. It's not ideological. It's
just like, Jesus, how am I going to make
sure that everybody's family can go eat?
Uh, so I take a similar approach to
this. So when you look at all the
different countries that have tried
socialistic programs including the rent
controls that we did in the Bronx in the
60s and 70s which absolutely decimated
the Bronx and the way that you build
back of course is to release the
regulatory requirements not keep adding
them. So it becomes a question of
mechanistically what works government
control or regulation because when
capitalism is left unchecked you get the
guilded age. Not good.
>> Yeah.
>> A total atrocity. Dangerous levels of
inequality
>> when you overregulate. Yeah. But for a
different reason. And this is the thing
like I'm always trying to get people to
understand. When you try to map what's
happening now onto the guilded age,
you're going to miss that they're
happening for very different reasons.
And so if you try to rerun the playbook
of how we dealt with the guilded age, it
won't work here. Because here you have
one very simple problem. And that
problem is you are money printing. And
when you money print, you're stealing
from everybody and you're only giving to
the wealthy. And so it's like, bro, you
just you can't keep doing that. And so
if you're in a situation where you're
just going to embrace modern monetary
theory, because if I could snap my
fingers and get rid of the Fed, that's
probably a better place. But as Drew, my
producer, keeps assuring me, that's
never going to happen. So I'm like,
fine. But if you're within that system
and you know that you have a high
inflationary environment, then you have
to act as if you're in a high
inflationary environment. And the only
way to deal with that is to make sure
that people can get into assets. If you
do not make it possible for them to get
into assets, you're toast. So then we
go, okay, well, if we agree that the
house is the one asset that everybody
understands intuitively, and the stock
market's become this big terrifying
gambling machine, then it's like, how do
we get people into housing? Is it going
to be governmental control? I would say
we've tried that. Other countries have
tried that. Always a disaster. And they
end up even in the Nordic countries,
they end up reverting to privatization
just because of the the price signals
alone. And so zooming in on Houston and
Austin because they ran these what we'll
call natural experiments, it it has
shown us exactly like how you can win at
this problem. Now, there's always going
to be uh moments where okay, this is
rough. Like the prices over COVID in
Austin doubled or tripled in like six
months. wild. And so now people were
like, "Oh my god, like how am I ever
going to afford a home?" But then the
over the next couple years the prices
normalized because builders were allowed
to build. They were fasttracking. They
were changing regulations so they could
fasttrack building. So everything
normalized. Houston already had that. So
in Houston, you can basically build if
you want to build and so housing prices
don't go up much and you keep an
available supply for people, flood plane
or not. And you can argue that this is
dumb. They shouldn't build there. But at
least the mechanism by which they allow
people to build ensures that people have
access to reasonably priced homes.
>> Florida is another example of that as
well where like they let builders build
and the city is exploded, right? And the
time frame that I lived there, I lived
in Florida for the first year of my life
in America in 2009. It was like Bickl
was non-existent virtually. It was just
being built at that point. and now it's
like so expansive and and um I see the
advantage of that certainly I don't mind
the the explosion of the housing supply.
I want that to happen regardless whether
it's private or public. Um my my
assessment always is well the reason why
the the um Texas housing market is like
re not rebounding necessarily but like
kind of uh uh I mean it's going down in
terms of uh prices is because like
people are leaving Texas or at least
people are leaving Austin and uh and
Dallas and Houston like these places
that they initially moved to during co I
feel like that's a big part of that um
or at least maybe this is anecdotal
because I see a lot of like people who
are uh rich in my immediate group of
friends uh who are streamers who moved
to Texas in that time frame and are now
like going, I don't know what to do with
this house that I bought. Like I want to
leave. I want to sell it. Uh and they're
having a harder time doing so. Um but
but ultimately, you know, there's
there's more than one way to skin a cat.
And for me, I just don't care about and
I'm a homeowner myself. I got cancelled
for buying a house. People were very mad
at me. They're like, "Socialism means
you can't have an expensive house. What
are you talking about?" Um, I I don't
mind if the if the property value goes
down. I don't think that uh homes are a
speculative asset. I think they should
be treated as shelter, something that is
necessary for survival. And um and that
is the fundamental disagreement that I
have with many other people. Uh and I
think that the fact that this is
associated with perhaps the only way
that people can have some kind of uh
asset, some kind of capital, uh homes or
the only way that people can have like
some kind of upward social mobility is
part of the reason why uh the housing
market never changes in the direction
where people can afford homes or people
can buy homes. And it goes back to what
you said earlier. Uh we privatize the
gains and we socialize the losses.
homes are uh they were not intended as a
speculative asset. The GI Bill and all
of these numerous other protections that
people have implemented uh in in terms
of home ownership or even the banners
that we placed against home ownership uh
or or mortgages for example for black
people in the form of redlinining have
always been uh have always been used by
the the bankers to uh safeguard their
investment. Which is why a lot of people
both look at homes as an investment but
also a shelter and take advantage of the
safeguards that exist that were put in
place so that people don't lose their
homes, but they use that to like beef up
their inventory and and gamble with
other people's money basically to never
lose. It's almost like uh if we're
looking at investments as a form of
gambling, a little bit smarter than
gambling obviously there's fundamentals
associated with it. Um home ownership,
>> what's up?
>> Uh sort of. I get a lot of flack for my
take on that, but I get your point. It's
>> if people adhered to the fundamentals
different
>> there are fundamentals in the market for
sure. There's fundamentals in the stock,
but like there's still probability,
right? You never know something.
>> Yeah, but you can make money betting
against something and by betting against
it, you influence the market blah blah
blah. There's I don't want to derail
down that rabbit hole, but uh so one in
>> what I was saying is like buying a house
is almost like it's still a speculative
asset that you're technically investing
into. It has to be
>> uh and and it has to be. Sure.
>> A minute ago you said it shouldn't be
and I'm saying it has to be in in
>> No, but but my point is it's a
speculative asset that's also shelter.
So there's so many protections against
like losing it and that I think a lot of
people basically take advantage of that
uh that dual structure that exists for
housing. So they make it into a
speculative asset that is like
impossible for its price to go down
pretty much unless there are major
market uh uh major market incidents like
the 2008 housing market bubble.
>> Yes. But we have to like figure out why
is it that it's so hard for these to go
down in value. And the reason it's so
hard for them to go down in value is the
amount of money that's being printed
causes assets to go up. And then to your
point earlier, if you have nimiism and
people are not in my backyard, you're
not gonna build um highdensity housing.
And so the problem
>> high density housing
>> of course. And so it's like this is how
you're going to have to drive down the
cost of housing and make it affordable.
That that's just a reality. So it's what
I'm saying is people need to understand
why that's happening. It is not
happening because capitalism bad. It is
happening because of money printing bad.
Now money printing tradeoff is probably
the right way to say it. Money printing
comes with advantages and it comes with
wild disadvantages and people are not
they are not mapping cause and effect
well and so we're getting into a
situation where they don't realize that
money printing is the problem. So going
to the democratic socialist um of
America. Is that what DSA stands for?
>> That's what DSA stands for.
>> Going to the DSA it's like all of the
things that they want are going to
exacerbate those problems. And so this
is where I'm like, hey, even if we can
agree, I don't know that I agree with
the DSA and where they're trying to end
up. So it's probably worth me saying
where I want to end up and if you see
yourself as a member of that or not, if
you can help us understand what people
that want that organization to thrive,
what they're aimed at, that would be
very useful. Uh what I'm aimed at is
uh people can save money and it's not
stolen away from them through the hidden
tax of inflation. that people can afford
a home because it is an asset that they
understand intuitively. Uh that people
can make a living wage through market
dynamics. Um and that basically you're
not stuck in your class. So there's high
social mobility. You're your future
isn't determined by your zip code. I
round that to human flourishing. Um but
those are like the specific things that
I'm pointed at. Now, when I look at the
DSA, they seem literally at wild odds
with that. Wanting to abolish the
family, uh, capture the means of
production. Like, it gets pretty wild.
>> No, the first thing is funny. That's not
the abolishing the family is not a thing
that the DSA is predisposed with.
Everyone always says that, but they're
not.
>> That's cuz there's clips I've watched
with my own eyes where they say that.
They had a whole like meeting about it.
I think um I can't speak on the exact
clips that you've seen, but uh there are
people with uh uh wildly different
opinions on things of that.
>> You would say that's that's fringe even
for them.
>> I would I would go so far as to say that
like not only is it fringe, but it's
also uh not like a like a real
consequential uh policydriven focus of
the Democratic Socialist of America.
It's not a focus of the DSA at all.
>> Would you advise them against it? What?
Abolishing the family?
>> Yes.
>> I because it's not even like like a
legitimate uh point of contention. It's
it's not even worth discussing. I will
say it's usually I think in my
experience the way that these things uh
work is like people will have sometimes
even like academic conversations in
these sorts of settings about like what
it means to have a family or like what's
the traditional nuclear family or what
its impact has looked like in society or
whatever. And then someone will
basically film like a piece of that
conversation of someone being very
sincere but maybe being uh almost
hysterical, right? And then they'll be
like, "Look, this is so silly. The
entire organization is predisposed with
this." They're not. Um especially when
it comes to to cultural things like
there is no policy making about about
like family enforcement within the DSA
whatsoever.
>> Okay. So, walk me through then cuz I'm
looking at those clips and I am
admittedly going, "Yo, this is crazy."
And from a Marxist standpoint of wanting
to eliminate the family as an economic
unit, which they echo that language.
>> Uh it does make me go there there are
dots for them to connect and I see how
if they believe in a Marxist worldview
that they end up there. Uh you saw that
play out in China. Like people really do
enact these policies and it ends up
being from where I'm sitting absolutely.
Do you mean like the one child policy or
something?
>> No, no. I'm talking like Ma's China.
Ma's China was the state is going to
take care of you. All that matters is
the state. You're not there for mom and
dad. You are there for the state. And if
you got to turn on mom and dad so we can
beat them to death, then you better do
it. And they would literally beat them
to death. I don't think the cultural
revolution was uh uh good, per se, but I
also don't think that it was because
like they young people abolished the
family unit and decided to to beat on
their parents because they were
counterrevolutionary.
>> You're not going to get kids to turn in
their parents if you don't break that
unit.
>> So anyway, if I'm deranged on that, I
don't think that's what the DSA wants.
>> So map out for me. My initial question
is, hey, a lot of people are turning
towards socialism. M you're saying
that's self-evident and I'm saying these
are the things that I believe about the
socialist movement and you're saying no
no you're the family stuff is the family
stuff is utterly irrelevant and also
these guys uh there are there are so
many different uh variants of of uh how
to implement socialism uh that uh that
exists under one umbrella where they're
broadly I would say anti- capitalist but
even then there's still people who are
social democrats for example not even
democratic socialists that uh play a
role in this movement that just want
like some kind of uh regulation over uh
the the most insane aspects of of
endless greedbacked capitalism. Um but
things like abolishing the family is not
uh is not a real point of contention uh
or or even remotely relevant. And I
think they care more about like labor
union organizing uh implementing certain
policies like Medicare for all
>> labor. So let's take them one by one. So
labor union organization, what's their
end goal with that?
>> Um they want workers to have more power
to collectively bargain directly at
their place of business and uh and
therefore create like a network of push
back against uh capital owners when uh
when they implement certain policies.
Now, the data shows that union
organization is far less impactful on
somebody's um economic gain than
globalization. Globalization, where I,
as an entrepreneur, can be like, nah,
I'm just not going to do this in
Michigan. I'm going to go do this in
Tokyo or whatever,
>> uh, is the thing that erodess their um
power. So is the are people that are
headed towards socialism are they like
is that a big bone for them where it's
like listen what we care about are
worker wages and unions are maybe part
of it but the reality is as long as
we're importing cheap labor and we're
exporting jobs workers blue collar
workers for sure are not going to have
negotiating power.
>> Oh no I I think this is something that a
lot of people understand. There's um I
mean plenty of all labor unions are
pretty much trade protectionist. Like
that's part of the reason why even the
UAW
uh despite its uh anti-Trump position
was looking at uh the initial tariff
conversations and saying like hold on,
we're not going to immediately attack
Donald Trump for this because on
principle this is something that is uh
if done correctly could be very helpful
to the auto manufacturing uh uh
business, the automobile industry. But
of course, given the way that we've
designed the automobile industry,
especially with like some of the free
trade negotiations that we've built with
Canada and Mexico that Trump also
implemented, even though he came in as
an anti-NAFTA force initially, um they
there is uh no way to uh there's no way
to do trade protectionism that doesn't
actually uh eradicate certain sub uh
certain parts of the manufacturing base
in this country and still ultimately be
harmful to the UAW. Um but going back to
the DSA or labor unions, you're right.
Um outsourcing, displacing labor is the
primary function of capital. They want
to displace labor because that is
efficient. If you have technological
improvements that allow you to, for
example, do the work of 10 people now
with one person, then um what I would
say should be done is to make that never
fire the nine other employees, but
instead make all 10 of those employees
do
uh a tenth of the work that they have to
do, like a tenth of the direct out labor
that they have to do when their output
remains the same. um a boss looks at
that situation and goes, "Oh, that means
we can fire nine workers and make one
worker do the work of 10." And labor
labor is obviously the most malleable
aspect of of of commodity production.
And therefore, it's the one that uh
bosses are constantly looking to depress
the wages on or to outsource uh to the
global south where it's a much cheaper
alternative. Labor unions play a
formative role in ensuring that that
transition
does not uh harm the existing domestic
manufacturing base of labor to the best
of their ability. Uh they either create
better exit packages that take away from
you know CEO pay or whatever that will
allow these people to transition into
other sectors easier. they or they
retain pensions or ultimately in places
where they do exist where there is
continued output uh at the domestic
front according to the Bureau of Labor
Statistics uh they labor unions are
responsible for increasing uh people's
wages by 10%. in areas where they
unionize. And they even have a capacity
to uh increase wages for the non
unionized parts of the same sector in
the immediate vicinity because other
comp uh other companies look at that as
market competition and they have to
improve their wages and maybe even offer
additional benefits packages in an
effort to avoid unionization at their
workplaces. So it's it's profoundly
beneficial and I think like a lot of
people look back fondly at the uh the
'60s right where uh at a time when like
America was great when we had a job you
could do like a bluecollar job at a
factory and you could own a house and
you could raise two children right um
and and what they mistake is it was
actually the union power and the labor
power that people had back then that
allowed these uh these jobs to exist
with the benefits with the pension.
>> Okay, this is where we violently
disagree. So if you look at if you look
at the timeline, this is a money
printing problem. This is about debt and
money printing and people get so
confused about what caused the real
problem. So you have debt, money
printing, and globalization. That's it.
And if people just talk about those
things, then all of a sudden they're
going to be able to map to realit