Hi Penn fans. Penn Says videos have been discontinued, so you won't be seeing any new content on here. You can check out our Profile on our Channel Page for more info. We'll still be checking in, so hope to keep chatting with you all! Thanks!
Gah, YouTubers are dumb. Some views DO have one side, or at least one reasonable side (care to argue for the views of NAMBLA, anyone?). It's not moronic to back the right pony, and in fact it's moronic to accept all viewpoints as valid. Some people are just tapped and some ideas are just stupid.
@JoeDeceiver Technically true, but far too many people, especially on the left, use it as an excuse not to seriously consider their opponents' arguments.
When it comes to the bailouts, I don't really know where to fall. On the side against them, there is the question of "How are we going to pay for all of this?" and what ramifications will arise if they fail. But on the other end, I've seen financial analysts who think that Obama still hasn't spent enough. I can't call them counter intuitive though because, really, the only way we can kick start the economy again is to pump money back into it, and no one but the government seems willing to do so.
It's gets realy easy when you accept that the government cannot control the economy. All it can do is set the stage for the economy to success. Reduce inefficient regulation, reduce taxes, introduce smart regulation and remove "bad" players from the mix.
Investing some into research... infrastructure, etc... makes sense. However.. borrowing huge percentages of our GDP can only lead to huge inflation (and/or) high taxation (and/or) default in the long run.
it's only simple because your thinking simple. adding public health care will add more choice not limit it. private health insurance companies will still exist.... they will still have the same bank accounts and the same customers for at least unless a better choice comes along.
the public option is a foot in the door to shutdown all private insurance.
typical employer provided gold plated health insurance costs ~10K per employee, the most recent bills had provisions to penalize employers 4K per employee for not providing health insurance.
it doesn't take a genius to figure out in this economic climate that employers can drop their insurance plan and force their employees into the public option and employees can do nothing. that was the goal from the begining.
Problems with humans: they tell themselves stories about the world, and then they think that the story they´ve told will have an effect on reality, and so they work toward that goal. Intuition goes out the window.
And yes, a charismatic leader makes people blind, but you have a safety in that your former president weren´t. It makes you weary and more alert.
lol anyone behind a podium wearing a suit & using near-perfect grammar is somebody I automatically question.
Ppl don't realize that government & the general public are two separate societies with different languages. In this reality, sadly, one society controls the other.
Counter intuitive is subjective. When driving a car that is skidding left hand yaw around a left hand turn, wouldn't it be intuitive to do the opposite to counteract the effect and steer right? Guess it depends on experience. Or, in my case, genius.
Nice use of yaw. Pilot? So I was in an accident on the expressway. My front wheel drive car corrected when I steered in the direction I wanted to go. It was counter-counter-intuitive since I grew up driving go-carts and steering counter-intuitively was intuitive before I could count.
I love discussions of the "intuitive". I love it when people do what their principles dictate they should do, but unintended consequences steer results a completely different way. So, traditionally, the means don't justify the ends, but the means can just as easily be invalidated by the ends.
But at least their principles were applied and they felt good about it...
It's actually not all that counterintuitive that you can spend your way out of a recession if you also *tax* (the very rich).
The problem is, Obama can't say that because the super-rich have bought so much government influence that they could really sabotage him if they caught on.
Heck, that's why they made those astroturf tea parties happen...
If it's proven by science. Correlation does not necessarily mean causation...
We do not believe that the market magically divies up goods. It does through a well understood process of emergent systems where simple processes and elements give rise to order. It's kind of like evolution. I'm not saying that the market is perfect. I just think that the decision about where money should go should be made by the person who worked for it...
To all you free market fundamentalists, if the economy does rebound in a couple years, will you acknowledge that government intervention into the economy is sometimes useful?
Probably not. Because you cling religiously to your free-market ideals, and will say "oh no, it would have recovered even faster without that intervention!"
Or even "it wasn't that bad to begin with."
You'll lie to yourself about the great-depression-like conditions we had. It'll be a crock of horse shit.
But with that being said government regulation is sometimes necessary. Please though, don't draw similarities between free market proponents and religious fanatics, they are totally different.
"don't draw similarities between free market proponents and religious fanatics"
Fundamentalism is not restricted to religion...
Market fundamentalists worship the market the way religious worship god. They claim that we shouldn't touch the free market with any restrictions, and magically the free market will use resources optimally and divvy up the goods according to who deserves it.
In other words, they deny market failures, and the majority of economists who support mixed economies.
The connection goes deeper. Religious fundemantalists deny science even on the side that *might* go against their religion -- for example, the church fought the heliocentric model because the Earth was supposed to be the fixed center of the universe. Modern day, they still fight evolution because God was supposed to have made all life as-is in a week, and the Earth should be only ~6k years old.
The right\left nature of politics is not an accident, it reveals the psychological nature of how we thinking about government.
The state is a supernatural parental figure. For the left a nurturing but consuming Mother figure, for the right a stern and authoritative Father figure.
The belief that we need a state in order to make all the "bad children" in society behave is an emotional, not a rational, assertion.
More realistically, nature shows us that order is fundamental to the world.
"The belief that we need a state in order to make all the "bad children" in society behave is an emotional, not a rational, assertion."
I disagree. All power vacuums get filled. Look at Afghanistan for horrible examples of that -- during its anarchy days, warlords roamed gobbling up power and horribly oppressing people.
Same with all culture's pasts. China, Japan, Europe -- all warring warlords.
Kee-rect, order comes out of chaos. Of course using a failed state to defame Anarchy is like claiming a banana disproves evolution.
A state is a flawed social order, it is based on the threat of violence. It is coercive rather than voluntary, thus it cannot evolve with society.
Your final statement is unsupported so I will ignore it. Anarchic Iceland, Ireland, and the American pioneer west were all peaceful Anarchic societies.
OK, I'm up for it, let's all pile in the Hummer and head out to capital-A Anarchic Iceland. Just one question, though, since I don't think I'd want to eat fish all the time. Do they have McDonalds in Anarchic Iceland? If not, I guess I'll take my shot here with President Obama.
Are you comparing the standard of living in a medieval society to a modern one? That doesn't make sense to me.
We might see an improvement in quality of life within Anarchy because so much resource would be freed up, also services provided by the free-market have an existential impetus to best serve the public.
It is technology, science, that is the basis of a high standard of living, not politics.
No, jcolinsol, I was making fun of the idiotic notion that life would be more peaceful without nations.
The technology you so love doesn't develop without an authority to enforce intellectual property rights. How would you suggest the patent office work in your ideal political system?
Please don't insult my intelligence. Anarchy is synonymous with evolution, if you have a problem with the emergent nature of reality take it up with God, if you can find him.
Agriculture developed without intellectual property rights enforcement. People develop technology in order to alleviate toil, not necessarily because they want to profit.
I am not advocating for an ideal, I am simply acknowledging that nature abhors homogeny, and that the state uses violence to destroy diversity.
Ignoring the arguments instead of engaging in healthy debate is ultimately only self-destructive. You are depriving yourself of an accurate model of reality.
There's no argument or understanding there, just slogans, one after another.
Affluence at the scale possible in a modern economy requires collective investment, including industrial scale research. That doesn't happen without the protection of property, intellectual and otherwise. I've been involved in countless decisions allocating research funds. We regularly rejected toil-saving projects for which we did not think we would have adequate patent protection. My experience was not unique.
What slogans? It's insulting to dismiss my statements thus.
You are operating in specific interventionist economic model based on the systematic exploitation of labor and resources based on the use of state violence.
There are professionals who innovate for the sake of innovation, and recognize that open source development hastens progress of technological development.
I'll take your statements into consideration and conceive of free-market means of addressing those questions. Thank you.
I meant it to be insulting when I "dismissed your statements thus."
If you can't see that "Anarchy is synonymous with evolution" or "nature abhors homogeny" or "take it up with God, if you can find him" are slogans (and irrelevancies, too boot), you're really not debating further. So go ahead, you can have the last word. You can even take this exchange with you to your next Ron Paul cult meeting as proof that the "systematic exploiters" of the "statist violence movement" are out to get you.
Whose slogans are they? And why are they irrelevant?
You are you behaving wish so much hostility towards me?
I'm not a dogmatist, I'm only interested in progressive debate. You made a good point in your last reply, and I've been considering it.
You haven't refuted my argument about state violence (how can you defend such a thing?). You haven't refuted my argument that society orders itself emergently just like nature does.
All you've done is insult me, that's not exactly conducive to debate.
Got it. Sorry, I thought you were just trolling by adopting the anarchist party line (I never really understood how anarchists could have a party line, but they do). To be serious, I am not a big fan of government intrusion into my personal life. I don't, however, resent taxation or a military or a police force. They can be and are used for things that I don't like, but they are also necessary for a stable polity that can live at the level of consumption that I desire.
For examples of government growth in the wild west, look up the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Land Office, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the Forest Service. Not to mention the federal troops needed to clear out native Americans and keep the peace....
That's your sterling example of anarchy? Growing government that steals land?
The UN steals land through conservancies and then sells it to developers ten years later. Stop looking for an institutional savior there isn't one. Do it yourself.
It's all emotion, all sides of it. I'll say it again: The fact that you want intervention instead of prosecution proves just how blind you are by nanny state fantasies.
Similarly, market fundies similarly deny science that might lead to regulation. Penn, for example, denied second hand smoke science just because it supported second hand smoke regulation. To his credit recanted just a couple years later, which is more than most fundies can do, but he didn't learn anything. No correction on the vids.
And he still says global warming is bullshit, again despite the scientific consensus.
watch?v=8S2_-ksnmjg
There are many similarities among fundamentalists.
I believe that second hand smoke can be dangerous, just like any smoke. I don't agree with laws banning smoking in bars though. A restaurant, maybe.
I guess you are right in that anyone can convince themselves of something so much that they will ignore all facts that say otherwise. The thing about politics though is that it is much less linear than science.
Scientific support for anthropogenic global warming is overwhelming.
"the world is not one giant blob and warming and cooling are occuring"
Yes, local variations clearly occur alongside an overall global warming trend... indeed, this is why they call it "climate change" -- with warming, local climates *change*. Estimates are 10% crop loss per degree.
How much crop loss from sterilized seeds from Monsanto?
It's a question of pluralism. Many climates, many environments, many effects. The simplistic new agey 'global' one outcome 'warming' is not science it's propaganda for simpletons 101.
I care if summer is too long, fall is too short, winter is too long, and spring is too short. That will cause a shitstorm. But simpletons only want to talk about either the dynamics or the mechanics but never both.
If it gets worse over the next couple years with no clear upward trend and a clear downward trend, that would be pretty tough for a economic liberal like me to swallow. I'll admit: I'd have to re-evaluate my belief in government intervention, probably moving towards the free-market side.
Again, I try to be *scientific* about this. From a values only perspective, I sympathize more with the free-market side: nobody likes endless red tape and taxes.
But it's no wonder you would blunder into "it's counter-intuitive, thus probably wrong, even though some counter-intuitive things are right... this just feels wrong!"
Your feeling led you to believe second hand smoke was safe.
And global warming is bullshit.
Remember, in your own words: "[your] credentials are... nonexistent"
Why should Penn take advice from a punk socialist 23-year old about not being qualified? I'm pretty sure anyone is well qualified to spend their own money. The left is so disillusioned that they have created their own reality for this socialist state to survive.
In other words, THE FREE MARKET CAN FAIL. IT'S NOT PERFECT.
So, WE SHOULD REGULATE IT.
The extent and details are of course up for debate, but market fundamentalists argue against any and all intervention on PRINCIPLE. THEY are the ones who are BLACK AND WHITE: regulation = bad, free market = good.
Most economist advocate MIXED economies: a somewhat free market WITH regulation.
A free market is just a name given to an economic activity between me and you where there are no barriers to entry. So if either of us makes a mistake you learn from it and move on.
You seem to be treating the Government as omniscient being because you think the state can prevent market failures from happening. You're the fundamentalist.
what's wrong with failure? should every failure be met with a corresponding regulation, albeit after the fact? if your objective is a failure-less state, then eliminate economic activity altogether. regulation is legal failure. regulation is failure that is unseen.
if you want regulation, then want people to regulate themselves.
i'm for regulation in the form of the constitution.
by the way, it's not a free market when the fed controls interest rates and money supply.
1. principle underlies all arguments - even yours.
2. principles are not wrong, they are necessary. fundamentalists are not necessarily wrong.
3. most economists want to appear sophistocated, get tenure, have books to write. hence, then tend to like complexity and the appearance of deliberation. why would i want an economist to tell the government to take my money and restrict my freedom?
Failure suggests some inherent value being aspired to. There is no inherent value, their is no universal public good, no "rightness".
Naturally in an environment of scarcity, like ours for instance, their will be individuals who fail. And if your personal value is that no one should suffer for failing, good on you, work to make that possible.
But do not appeal to the state to promote your personal values. Not only will it fail to, but you will have participated in violent coercion.
Exactly, the state is an attempt to enforce an arbitrary set of values on a diverse and complex society.
In reality no state is necessary at all. Just as no "God" is necessary for evolution to occur, no "State" is necessary for society to evolve.
You are strongly asserting specific values in your response to me. You are not recognizing that there is no universal morality. Morality is a man-made fantasy.
Lynchings occurred in the East too, and the crime rate in the pioneer west was much lower, because the social order was voluntary, and enforced by free action, not state death threats.
If a state is necessary for peaceful, productive order to occur, why has every state in history based it's structure on existing common law?
Please stop co-opting a veneer of empiricism while you berate people with your subjective, emotionally driven, nonsense.
Funny story, the Norwegians who settled there BROUGHT SLAVES.
Yeah, another STERLING "ANARCHIST" SOCIETY.
It wasn't an Anarchy, anyway. There were ruling chiefs... I wonder what happened if you ran off with one of their daughters, hmm?
"Ireland: 650-1650"
Another tribal/clan system. Yes people could "freely" move from clan to clan, but that didn't stop clans from fighting with each other to try and grow their influence.
Ah, to top it they actually had a lawbook, but it wasn´t written, it was sung. When something was disputed, the man in charge of keeping them would turn against a set of rocks and sing it with a loud voice, and it would ring out and all would hear it. Oral tradition in it´s finest? Perhaps. :)
Changed my mind, want to attempt to refute some of these, if possible.
America had institutionalized slavery enforced by the state. Obviously stuff like slavery and rape, and murder and theft all happen even with states. Why? It's human behavior, and laws don't change human behavior.
Anarchism simply means "without rulers" I don't define it as being synonymous with chaos.
I agree, warfare is egregious, and who funds all modern wars? The state. So the state as implemented does not create peace
Well you could have free-market courts, rather than state courts (I believe this was what the Irish system used) which could establish precedents and stuff.
But really, the most basic necessary laws are the ones that emerge out of the necessity for social stability. Do not steal, do not rape, do not murder.
As I define it a state is a monopoly on the generation of policy over a specific geographic region.
Remove the compulsory part (the monopoly) and you have Anarchy as I define it.
Address real issues, like why PEACE CAME THROUGH UNIFICATION!!
You know all those tribal systems you love to praise? The ones under constant warfare?
Why does peace only seem to come when all the various clans are unified by a king? So it has always been, in every culture. The US was born long after, on the eve of democracy (to be fair, we inspired a lot). When the people revolted, they didn't revert to tribes; giant nations stayed largely intact.
I'm not praising an system, you asked for citations. I provided them.
Our state system participates in constant warfare. Warfare is a psychological activity, not a rational one, that's why a state won't change it
Social services are useful, not states. You could establish a "Panarchic" state system based on a mutual contractual obligation, and it would satisfy my definition of Anarchy, and (theoretically) provide social services.
Instituting any social system by force just seems wrong to me.
I know you love to twist any ambiguity into nonsense, so let me be clear: monarchy is not preferable to tribalism, in that both are unjust governments. Representative governments are clearly preferred.
The point is that LARGE governments are NECESSARY, to deal with LARGE issues and PRESERVE PEACE.
"or perhaps large decentralization is necessary to prevent large problems from being contagious"
In this instance, that's like saying you should avoid medicine to prevent an infection from spreading.
It's ass-backwards. A *LACK* of regulation caused the recent financial crises, and (centrally) *TARGETED* controls are necessary to fix the system. We had such controls in the wake of the great depression, but started dismantling them in the 80s. Glass-Steagall was removed in 99. And voila...
You have proven through your deluge of emotionally charged non-sense statements that you really are not interested in empiricism.
I don't feel the need to respond to your beligerent closed minded non-sense.
Any state system that is based on a death threat is illegitimate in my view. You are welcome to believe otherwise, but please spare me the liberty not to participate in a system which I find both un-effective and morally indefensible.
"Any state system that is based on a death threat is illegitimate in my view."
1) I'm against the death penalty.
2) If you meant "force" instead, let me repeat: any government that can only rule through unanimous consent is no government at all; that's called "volunteering."
I am against the death penalty too. I am also again the prison system, it's an ineffective state institution that only promotes crime.
And voluntary order is what Anarchy ultimately is. I would even accept "Panarchic" contract based states because they are voluntary.
It is the involuntary nature of state rule that I am objecting to, because it keeps the state from evolving with the populace. A compulsory state is essentially a parasite, or more accurately a cancer.
"Exactly, the state is an attempt to enforce an arbitrary set of values on a diverse and complex society."
Exactly. Such as the arbitrary set of values that say "raping and killing your kid is wrong."
I would kill and die for such arbitrary values. If you don't have them, you aren't even human. You aren't even an animal.
Plants might not have morals, but that's because they don't even have a central nervous system. Every animal on Earth has rules of behavior. That's all morality is...
Yes, most humans have a moral sensibility, which is why a state is both unnecessary and unthinkable. Morality is subjective, relative to the individual, and cannot and does not need to be promoted by a state.
Not that rape and murder need to be enforced by a state, those codes of behavior come into being based on their relevance to the society regardless of the existence of a state. Wars on the other hand, are state creations, that's right the state institutionalizes murder.
"Morality is subjective, relative to the individual, and cannot and does not need to be promoted by a state."
So, you have the right to fuck your kid and kill them?
Hell no. I'll help the government fry you for it.
(actually, I'm against the death penalty, but I'd help them lock you up in a nice cush psych ward where you can replay your horrors for a good long time, but that kind of kills the mood...)
"Not that rape and murder need to be enforced by a state"
You don't have the "right" you have the "freedom". You also have the freedom to endure causation, and the societal retaliation for your actions.
The state does not stop those behaviors anyway, otherwise they would never occur.
Are you actually threatening to have me executed/incarcerated? I find that sentiment disturbing
I am not interested in incarcerating you because your views are contrary to mine. It's opposite, I want you to be completely free to promote your values on a voluntary basis
So, given that you prove counter-intuitive things with SCIENCE, not INTUITION -- and really, Penn, that should be overwhelmingly obvious -- comparing economic stimulus to psychic readings is RIDICULOUS.
1) Sound theory: loss of private demand can be met by increased public demand
2) Most modern economists agree with the need for stimulus in a recession to cut off the deadly spiral.
Compare to science DISPROVING psychic abilities... a la James Randi challenge... or brain physics...
@1:25 "smart people are so easy to fool with psychic stuff"
Mm, no... stupid people get fooled with that... ask any random bum off the street if he believes in psychic powers, ghosts, god, etc. -- they say yes.
As you work your way up the education and intellectual chain, belief in ALL supernatural phenomenon drops off.
Penn, as a skeptic yourself, you should know that...
You prove counter-intuitive things by research, not blind belief that "it's counter-intuitive, thus maybe it will work!"
A President using a bad economic situation to usurp power for himself? That's exactly what FDR did (and Wilson before him, although he used a war-- so did FDR, later), and our country is still suffering from it.
hundreds of economists and scientists, most notably the skeptics agree with us on this issue. So who's the pseudo-intellectual? Us or the individual who misquotes people on youtube?
i accidentally attributed a correct quote to the wrong person, and i apologized to you for it. you were never accused of being a pseudo-intellectual by anyone. my accusation was directed to diggyzazz, not you.
Smart people are easy to fool with psychic stuff? Penn, go out and find some real smart people.
"Friends and neighbors complain that taxes are indeed very heavy, and if those laid on by the government were the only ones we had to pay, we might the more easily discharge them; but we have many others, and much more grievous to some of us. We are taxed twice as much by our idleness, three times as much by our pride, and four times as much by our folly." ~Benjamin Franklin
Yeah, WTF was that about? Maybe he meant overconfident people. Or realists that believe only what they see because he can control what they "see". But it really made no sense the way he said it.
More advice from the man with chin pubes. Really, though, if you value the word of a guy who shaves the side of his face and then says, "Ah, screw it, that's good enough," you pretty much deserve what you get.
spending to get out of a recession is what got us out of the 20s. What Obama has done that is wrong is increase spending and then give the implication of raising taxes, raising taxes acts as an economic depressant which will undo the additional spending.
bobbsnobby- please clarify your argument and cite sources as needed.
Ichalz- you invested money into a solid business plan. You had a choice. If you had not made your money back, would you keep borrowing ?
I do not have a choice and furthermore, if I did I would not invest in such an unwise, unproven plan. That's the difference, my money is being taken away and I have no say where it goes or how it is spent.
Obama has said in practically every speech he's given since before he got elected that, essentially, he wouldn't be raising taxes on anyone who couldn't afford to pay higher taxes. For the rest - we get a break. The only people he's raising taxes on are the ones who have cash to spare - the disgusting 1% who don't spend, they only horde. I say tax the fuckers dry and get us sorted out.
I'll bet you $10.00 Penn's right and I'll will bet you $1,000 that when he is proven right, that you will blame it all on Bush. Bush was awful but here's the thing- nobody anywhere has ever spent themselves out of debt.
I know plenty of people who have done it. I'm doing it right now. I wanted to get out of personal debt, so I spend $600 on new tools (credit card purchase) so I could do more regular guitar repair. The new tools have already paid themselves off, and I've made another $1000 since then.
You must spend money to make money...basic principle of capitalism.
I disagree. The conservative media has given you no reason to believe they are wise with the stimulus money. Everything is so wrapped up in politics that, despite much of the money going to good use, certain individuals are spending all their time complaining about the small percentage that isn't going to good use.
If these people could get past the petty ideological semantic debates and mudslinging, the very large amount of positives would be more apparent than they currently are.
Ichalz, how can you say that "much of the money is going to good use"? The TARP program gave $700 billion to the banks, and today there is no accountability whatsoever as to where the money went. Even the banks don't know, or if they do, they're not saying.
The Stimulus package hasn't been disbursed yet. So where are the positives?
This guy is such a pseudo-intellectual poser. Thinks that knowing some magic tricks makes him a scientist, economist, etc. He says things like "without going into black holes and particle physics", as if he could if he wanted to.
Probably has an 8th grade education. Gimme a break.
This is a problem with farmland preservation - if the farmer's son doesn't want to farm, who has the money to buy farmland? In Delaware, an acre of land costs about $20k.
This is also a reason why the housing market went bust. Developers don't want to build affordable condos - the building costs are high, thus the profit per acre is low. They'd much rather go for the high profit McMansions. Unfortunately, now, few can afford a mortgage on one.
I knew a bullshitter who used to say counterintuitive things all the time, simply to seem smart. Like, he did it just to seem like he knew something, which he didn't. Most the things he said like that had no rhyme or reason and didn't hold up against reality.
It depends on your age, if you're under 18 then he's spending money that YOU will have to repay if you're older than 40 then he's spending money you're kids and grandkids will have to repay
Penn, that's Keynesian economy. It may seem counter intuitive, but that is how this very same country got out of the great depression (yeah, that thing called the "New Deal", yeah, that thing was conceived by John Maynard Keynes).
This form of monetary philosophy and practice has saved many countries from recessions and depressions. But there is always the possibility that it will all go wrong.
Buddy, the socialist policies instituted during the great depression didn't help to lessen it or relieve it. If you take even a slightly closer look at economic dynamics during that period, you'll find that just because the crisis eventually lessened, it wasn't a result of governmental interference.
A crisis is bound to, by nature, lessen eventually. We could have achieved greater recovery through a myriad of other approaches. Glorifying the leaders of the time for a given result is absurd.
it only works by digging deeper and putting off the inevitable for a few more years. In order for the Keynesian model to work, there must be perpetual inflation and devaluation of monetary units. This can only go so far before you reach Mugabe in Zimbabwe. Mugabe has used Keynes theories to its ultimate and logical end.
I'm not entirely certain people should be saying "Obama is doing this", as Congress, including many of the Republicans in Congress, are supporting these actions.
Besides the fact that most of the people getting the money are Republicans anyway. It would be like pinning everything that happened during Bush's presidency on Bush. It wasn't solely him. His cabinet and Congress, along with the American people as a whole, are just as responsible for letting it occur without outrage.
You're right. People shouldn't pin every dip and turn of events during the hard times on their leader.
Although...
That is exactly what the same people who glorify Obama did to G.W. Bush during his eight years in office. No mention of Clinton, Albright, Bush Sr., Reagan, Carter, Pinetta, or the gaggle of personalities involved in policy before him. He became the whipping boy for the angry left.
We should take a lesson from that, but that doesn't mean giving a budding despot a free hand.
I'd recommend Chicago School (and positive economics in general) with it's emphasis on a rational and empirical approach to economics rather than adherence to infallible dogma handed down from authority.
I agree with everything you said. Obama means well but I think he is wrong. It scares me how willing people are to follow him without question. Obama will save us!! (my best imitation of your laugh) Good Day!!!
Hi Penn fans. Penn Says videos have been discontinued, so you won't be seeing any new content on here. You can check out our Profile on our Channel Page for more info. We'll still be checking in, so hope to keep chatting with you all! Thanks!
pennsays 1 year ago
Gah, YouTubers are dumb. Some views DO have one side, or at least one reasonable side (care to argue for the views of NAMBLA, anyone?). It's not moronic to back the right pony, and in fact it's moronic to accept all viewpoints as valid. Some people are just tapped and some ideas are just stupid.
JoeDeceiver 1 year ago
@JoeDeceiver Technically true, but far too many people, especially on the left, use it as an excuse not to seriously consider their opponents' arguments.
IoEstasCedonta 8 months ago
When it comes to the bailouts, I don't really know where to fall. On the side against them, there is the question of "How are we going to pay for all of this?" and what ramifications will arise if they fail. But on the other end, I've seen financial analysts who think that Obama still hasn't spent enough. I can't call them counter intuitive though because, really, the only way we can kick start the economy again is to pump money back into it, and no one but the government seems willing to do so.
BlueEyedDevil786 2 years ago
It's gets realy easy when you accept that the government cannot control the economy. All it can do is set the stage for the economy to success. Reduce inefficient regulation, reduce taxes, introduce smart regulation and remove "bad" players from the mix.
Investing some into research... infrastructure, etc... makes sense. However.. borrowing huge percentages of our GDP can only lead to huge inflation (and/or) high taxation (and/or) default in the long run.
JuryDutySummons 2 years ago
@JuryDutySummons Interesting user name. :-)
pennsays 2 years ago
Who said anything about Obama?
He is taking a one sided veiw which is something he says he doesn't do.
Simple as that.
colitisscope 2 years ago
it's only simple because your thinking simple. adding public health care will add more choice not limit it. private health insurance companies will still exist.... they will still have the same bank accounts and the same customers for at least unless a better choice comes along.
Bigbird5553 2 years ago
the public option is a foot in the door to shutdown all private insurance.
typical employer provided gold plated health insurance costs ~10K per employee, the most recent bills had provisions to penalize employers 4K per employee for not providing health insurance.
it doesn't take a genius to figure out in this economic climate that employers can drop their insurance plan and force their employees into the public option and employees can do nothing. that was the goal from the begining.
RabidDonkeyBoy 2 years ago
uhhh , i don't disagree with any of that.
I was talking about Pen being the moron taking the one sided view.
colitisscope 2 years ago
Penn for someone who is so up on being logical why do you get so full of bullshit on issues like this?
Like when you agreed to be in that dumb 'michael moore hates America' movie.
It's like putting a turd on a cheese cake.
You aren't taking your own advice.
colitisscope 2 years ago
You are stuuuuupid... "Let's just do whatever Obama says... He'll save us all!" Fuckin ignorant bitch.
JoelD311 2 years ago
Problems with humans: they tell themselves stories about the world, and then they think that the story they´ve told will have an effect on reality, and so they work toward that goal. Intuition goes out the window.
And yes, a charismatic leader makes people blind, but you have a safety in that your former president weren´t. It makes you weary and more alert.
Jentzi1 2 years ago
Thats true, a charismatic leader makes people blind.
Anonadouches 2 years ago
If you are intereseted in the gun control debate then watch my video
ACEOFSPADESSTUDIO 2 years ago
Mr Penn
a question about fire eating.. does it require salt or hot sauce as seasoning?
what exactly does pain taste like?
pwookie 2 years ago
not to be an idiot but i do not know.... why does penn have his left hand ring finger painted all the time?
direngreykyolove 2 years ago
Five stars, but, dude, please. You don't really think Obama is "honest," do you?
tsummerlee 2 years ago
lol anyone behind a podium wearing a suit & using near-perfect grammar is somebody I automatically question.
Ppl don't realize that government & the general public are two separate societies with different languages. In this reality, sadly, one society controls the other.
Efferts 2 years ago
Counter intuitive is subjective. When driving a car that is skidding left hand yaw around a left hand turn, wouldn't it be intuitive to do the opposite to counteract the effect and steer right? Guess it depends on experience. Or, in my case, genius.
stackinferno 2 years ago
Nice use of yaw. Pilot? So I was in an accident on the expressway. My front wheel drive car corrected when I steered in the direction I wanted to go. It was counter-counter-intuitive since I grew up driving go-carts and steering counter-intuitively was intuitive before I could count.
SaintAimless 2 years ago
I love discussions of the "intuitive". I love it when people do what their principles dictate they should do, but unintended consequences steer results a completely different way. So, traditionally, the means don't justify the ends, but the means can just as easily be invalidated by the ends.
But at least their principles were applied and they felt good about it...
edgeofblade 2 years ago
It's actually not all that counterintuitive that you can spend your way out of a recession if you also *tax* (the very rich).
The problem is, Obama can't say that because the super-rich have bought so much government influence that they could really sabotage him if they caught on.
Heck, that's why they made those astroturf tea parties happen...
OolTube02 2 years ago
Penn you are being way to soft on Obama
have ka-honeys to speak out whats really on your mind
disturbed119 2 years ago
i didnt know you were from massachusetts??
djskizmarkey 2 years ago
That was a nice talk.
mathproof 2 years ago
This is an ugly man.
mathproof 2 years ago
Penn is hot
Gillian708 2 years ago
put a bag over your head
speaker3600 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
☻/
/▌
/ \
This is Bob. Soon bob will take over youtube! spread this to 50 videos. It will soon be on the news. then you will know you helped spread Bob
hserfj 2 years ago
Hes from greenfield? awesome i live like 30 minutes from there.
sillysp8 2 years ago
He talks about himself too much.
What an ego!
peachdenise 2 years ago
If it's proven by science. Correlation does not necessarily mean causation...
We do not believe that the market magically divies up goods. It does through a well understood process of emergent systems where simple processes and elements give rise to order. It's kind of like evolution. I'm not saying that the market is perfect. I just think that the decision about where money should go should be made by the person who worked for it...
ColemanMulkerin 2 years ago
To all you free market fundamentalists, if the economy does rebound in a couple years, will you acknowledge that government intervention into the economy is sometimes useful?
Probably not. Because you cling religiously to your free-market ideals, and will say "oh no, it would have recovered even faster without that intervention!"
Or even "it wasn't that bad to begin with."
You'll lie to yourself about the great-depression-like conditions we had. It'll be a crock of horse shit.
directedchaos 2 years ago
what if were still not out of it?
I really don't know what is going to happen.
K2Tanner 2 years ago
But with that being said government regulation is sometimes necessary. Please though, don't draw similarities between free market proponents and religious fanatics, they are totally different.
K2Tanner 2 years ago
"don't draw similarities between free market proponents and religious fanatics"
Fundamentalism is not restricted to religion...
Market fundamentalists worship the market the way religious worship god. They claim that we shouldn't touch the free market with any restrictions, and magically the free market will use resources optimally and divvy up the goods according to who deserves it.
In other words, they deny market failures, and the majority of economists who support mixed economies.
directedchaos 2 years ago
The connection goes deeper. Religious fundemantalists deny science even on the side that *might* go against their religion -- for example, the church fought the heliocentric model because the Earth was supposed to be the fixed center of the universe. Modern day, they still fight evolution because God was supposed to have made all life as-is in a week, and the Earth should be only ~6k years old.
directedchaos 2 years ago
The right\left nature of politics is not an accident, it reveals the psychological nature of how we thinking about government.
The state is a supernatural parental figure. For the left a nurturing but consuming Mother figure, for the right a stern and authoritative Father figure.
The belief that we need a state in order to make all the "bad children" in society behave is an emotional, not a rational, assertion.
More realistically, nature shows us that order is fundamental to the world.
Jcolinsol 2 years ago
"The belief that we need a state in order to make all the "bad children" in society behave is an emotional, not a rational, assertion."
I disagree. All power vacuums get filled. Look at Afghanistan for horrible examples of that -- during its anarchy days, warlords roamed gobbling up power and horribly oppressing people.
Same with all culture's pasts. China, Japan, Europe -- all warring warlords.
Peaceful, equitable anarchy is a pipe dream.
directedchaos 2 years ago
Kee-rect, order comes out of chaos. Of course using a failed state to defame Anarchy is like claiming a banana disproves evolution.
A state is a flawed social order, it is based on the threat of violence. It is coercive rather than voluntary, thus it cannot evolve with society.
Your final statement is unsupported so I will ignore it. Anarchic Iceland, Ireland, and the American pioneer west were all peaceful Anarchic societies.
Jcolinsol 2 years ago
OK, I'm up for it, let's all pile in the Hummer and head out to capital-A Anarchic Iceland. Just one question, though, since I don't think I'd want to eat fish all the time. Do they have McDonalds in Anarchic Iceland? If not, I guess I'll take my shot here with President Obama.
acr08807 2 years ago
Are you comparing the standard of living in a medieval society to a modern one? That doesn't make sense to me.
We might see an improvement in quality of life within Anarchy because so much resource would be freed up, also services provided by the free-market have an existential impetus to best serve the public.
It is technology, science, that is the basis of a high standard of living, not politics.
Jcolinsol 2 years ago
No, jcolinsol, I was making fun of the idiotic notion that life would be more peaceful without nations.
The technology you so love doesn't develop without an authority to enforce intellectual property rights. How would you suggest the patent office work in your ideal political system?
acr08807 2 years ago
Please don't insult my intelligence. Anarchy is synonymous with evolution, if you have a problem with the emergent nature of reality take it up with God, if you can find him.
Agriculture developed without intellectual property rights enforcement. People develop technology in order to alleviate toil, not necessarily because they want to profit.
I am not advocating for an ideal, I am simply acknowledging that nature abhors homogeny, and that the state uses violence to destroy diversity.
Jcolinsol 2 years ago
How could I possibly insult the intelligence of someone who speaks only in slogans? There's nothing there to insult.
acr08807 2 years ago
Sigh...
Ignoring the arguments instead of engaging in healthy debate is ultimately only self-destructive. You are depriving yourself of an accurate model of reality.
Jcolinsol 2 years ago
There's no argument or understanding there, just slogans, one after another.
Affluence at the scale possible in a modern economy requires collective investment, including industrial scale research. That doesn't happen without the protection of property, intellectual and otherwise. I've been involved in countless decisions allocating research funds. We regularly rejected toil-saving projects for which we did not think we would have adequate patent protection. My experience was not unique.
acr08807 2 years ago
What slogans? It's insulting to dismiss my statements thus.
You are operating in specific interventionist economic model based on the systematic exploitation of labor and resources based on the use of state violence.
There are professionals who innovate for the sake of innovation, and recognize that open source development hastens progress of technological development.
I'll take your statements into consideration and conceive of free-market means of addressing those questions. Thank you.
Jcolinsol 2 years ago
I meant it to be insulting when I "dismissed your statements thus."
If you can't see that "Anarchy is synonymous with evolution" or "nature abhors homogeny" or "take it up with God, if you can find him" are slogans (and irrelevancies, too boot), you're really not debating further. So go ahead, you can have the last word. You can even take this exchange with you to your next Ron Paul cult meeting as proof that the "systematic exploiters" of the "statist violence movement" are out to get you.
acr08807 2 years ago
Whose slogans are they? And why are they irrelevant?
You are you behaving wish so much hostility towards me?
I'm not a dogmatist, I'm only interested in progressive debate. You made a good point in your last reply, and I've been considering it.
You haven't refuted my argument about state violence (how can you defend such a thing?). You haven't refuted my argument that society orders itself emergently just like nature does.
All you've done is insult me, that's not exactly conducive to debate.
Jcolinsol 2 years ago
Got it. Sorry, I thought you were just trolling by adopting the anarchist party line (I never really understood how anarchists could have a party line, but they do). To be serious, I am not a big fan of government intrusion into my personal life. I don't, however, resent taxation or a military or a police force. They can be and are used for things that I don't like, but they are also necessary for a stable polity that can live at the level of consumption that I desire.
acr08807 2 years ago
"Of course using a failed state to defame Anarchy is like claiming a banana disproves evolution."
No, it's like claiming human remains dating to 4 billion years ago disproves evolution. Clearly, such remains don't exist, but brutal anarchies do.
Examples of REAL anarchy, where there IS NO SINGULAR GOVERNMENT, are BRUTAL!
Your examples ARE NOT REAL ANARCHIES, they are LIMITED GOVERNMENTS. And they had problems, as mentioned, which resulted in GOVERNMENT GROWTH.
directedchaos 2 years ago
For examples of government growth in the wild west, look up the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Land Office, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the Forest Service. Not to mention the federal troops needed to clear out native Americans and keep the peace....
That's your sterling example of anarchy? Growing government that steals land?
directedchaos 2 years ago
The UN steals land through conservancies and then sells it to developers ten years later. Stop looking for an institutional savior there isn't one. Do it yourself.
ineptgod 2 years ago
It's all emotion, all sides of it. I'll say it again: The fact that you want intervention instead of prosecution proves just how blind you are by nanny state fantasies.
ineptgod 2 years ago
Similarly, market fundies similarly deny science that might lead to regulation. Penn, for example, denied second hand smoke science just because it supported second hand smoke regulation. To his credit recanted just a couple years later, which is more than most fundies can do, but he didn't learn anything. No correction on the vids.
And he still says global warming is bullshit, again despite the scientific consensus.
watch?v=8S2_-ksnmjg
There are many similarities among fundamentalists.
directedchaos 2 years ago
"Similarly, market fundies similarly"
This segment endorsed by the department of redundancy department.
directedchaos 2 years ago
lol.
I believe that second hand smoke can be dangerous, just like any smoke. I don't agree with laws banning smoking in bars though. A restaurant, maybe.
I guess you are right in that anyone can convince themselves of something so much that they will ignore all facts that say otherwise. The thing about politics though is that it is much less linear than science.
K2Tanner 2 years ago
There's no global warming because the world is not one giant blob and warming and cooling are occuring which is much more dangerous.
ineptgod 2 years ago
"There's no global warming"
Yes there is. Do some research.
Or see:
watch?v=Xn6--jIz4Go#t=46s
Scientific support for anthropogenic global warming is overwhelming.
"the world is not one giant blob and warming and cooling are occuring"
Yes, local variations clearly occur alongside an overall global warming trend... indeed, this is why they call it "climate change" -- with warming, local climates *change*. Estimates are 10% crop loss per degree.
directedchaos 2 years ago
"Estimates are 10% crop loss per degree. "
How much crop loss from sterilized seeds from Monsanto?
It's a question of pluralism. Many climates, many environments, many effects. The simplistic new agey 'global' one outcome 'warming' is not science it's propaganda for simpletons 101.
I care if summer is too long, fall is too short, winter is too long, and spring is too short. That will cause a shitstorm. But simpletons only want to talk about either the dynamics or the mechanics but never both.
ineptgod 2 years ago
"what if were still not out of it?"
If it gets worse over the next couple years with no clear upward trend and a clear downward trend, that would be pretty tough for a economic liberal like me to swallow. I'll admit: I'd have to re-evaluate my belief in government intervention, probably moving towards the free-market side.
Again, I try to be *scientific* about this. From a values only perspective, I sympathize more with the free-market side: nobody likes endless red tape and taxes.
directedchaos 2 years ago
We don't have a free market. Nuff said about that.
Govt is NOT intervening. They're doing squat. BECAUSE YOU'RE WAITING FOR THEM.
People stole the economy. And they convinced you to ask for intervention instead of prosecution. I'd be LMAO, if it weren't so pathetic.
Destroy the derivatives. There's your intervention. Seize the zombie banks. They have no assets.
This isn't a traffic violation. This grand theft economy. It's not 'sometimes useful', BECAUSE IT ISN'T ACTUALLY BEING DONE.
ineptgod 2 years ago
But it's no wonder you would blunder into "it's counter-intuitive, thus probably wrong, even though some counter-intuitive things are right... this just feels wrong!"
Your feeling led you to believe second hand smoke was safe.
And global warming is bullshit.
Remember, in your own words: "[your] credentials are... nonexistent"
watch?v=2QmktIMPaBA
Either:
1) Research what experts say
2) Become an expert
or
3) stfu
directedchaos 2 years ago
Why should Penn take advice from a punk socialist 23-year old about not being qualified? I'm pretty sure anyone is well qualified to spend their own money. The left is so disillusioned that they have created their own reality for this socialist state to survive.
dlix 2 years ago
"Why should Penn take advice from a punk socialist 23-year old about not being qualified?"
1) Penn himself admitted he wasn't qualified.
2) Most people are more qualified than him -- clown college ain't hard to beat yo.
3) He's been HORRIFICALLY wrong, about OBVIOUS things like the dangers of second hand smoke.
watch?v=8S2_-ksnmjg
The right is so pissed off they lost they have created their own reality for their free-market god to survive.
Look up "market failure" and "market fundamentalism"
directedchaos 2 years ago
I realize he said he's not qualified, but I think everyone is qualified to run their own lives.
Keep living in your left vs. right paradigm. The free market isn't a god.
dlix 2 years ago
"The free market isn't a god."
Ding ding ding, we have a winner!
In other words, THE FREE MARKET CAN FAIL. IT'S NOT PERFECT.
So, WE SHOULD REGULATE IT.
The extent and details are of course up for debate, but market fundamentalists argue against any and all intervention on PRINCIPLE. THEY are the ones who are BLACK AND WHITE: regulation = bad, free market = good.
Most economist advocate MIXED economies: a somewhat free market WITH regulation.
directedchaos 2 years ago
A free market is just a name given to an economic activity between me and you where there are no barriers to entry. So if either of us makes a mistake you learn from it and move on.
You seem to be treating the Government as omniscient being because you think the state can prevent market failures from happening. You're the fundamentalist.
dlix 2 years ago
exactly. the fundamentalists are the ones who want proscribed interventionism of one sort or another, but almost always from the government.
the "free market" crowd wants economic freedom which, by definition, is not fundamentalism.
RakeRocter 2 years ago
what's wrong with failure? should every failure be met with a corresponding regulation, albeit after the fact? if your objective is a failure-less state, then eliminate economic activity altogether. regulation is legal failure. regulation is failure that is unseen.
if you want regulation, then want people to regulate themselves.
i'm for regulation in the form of the constitution.
by the way, it's not a free market when the fed controls interest rates and money supply.
RakeRocter 2 years ago
1. principle underlies all arguments - even yours.
2. principles are not wrong, they are necessary. fundamentalists are not necessarily wrong.
3. most economists want to appear sophistocated, get tenure, have books to write. hence, then tend to like complexity and the appearance of deliberation. why would i want an economist to tell the government to take my money and restrict my freedom?
RakeRocter 2 years ago
Failure suggests some inherent value being aspired to. There is no inherent value, their is no universal public good, no "rightness".
Naturally in an environment of scarcity, like ours for instance, their will be individuals who fail. And if your personal value is that no one should suffer for failing, good on you, work to make that possible.
But do not appeal to the state to promote your personal values. Not only will it fail to, but you will have participated in violent coercion.
Jcolinsol 2 years ago
"do not appeal to the state to promote your personal values."
WTF is the state for if not values? What if I want to murder, you don't have a right to promote your personal values that murder is illegal!
Or maybe I want to rape my kids. Heck, that happens now in religious convents in Texas. 14 year olds getting married to 30 year olds.. sick.
Government's role is ALL ABOUT VALUES.
directedchaos 2 years ago
Exactly, the state is an attempt to enforce an arbitrary set of values on a diverse and complex society.
In reality no state is necessary at all. Just as no "God" is necessary for evolution to occur, no "State" is necessary for society to evolve.
You are strongly asserting specific values in your response to me. You are not recognizing that there is no universal morality. Morality is a man-made fantasy.
Jcolinsol 2 years ago
"In reality no state is necessary at all."
Ok, name one "capital-A Anarchic" society.
"Anarchic Iceland"
When was Iceland an anarchy?
"Ireland"
Ditto.
"American pioneer west"
Aha, a timeframe.
Did hangings not occur? Roaming bandits actually was a primary reason for the advancement of transregional police forces -- the GROWTH of government.
Try to argue with the sheriffs that it was an anarchy, and they had no right to hang you, just because you raped and killed a baby.
directedchaos 2 years ago
Iceland: 874-930
Ireland: 650-1650
Lynchings occurred in the East too, and the crime rate in the pioneer west was much lower, because the social order was voluntary, and enforced by free action, not state death threats.
If a state is necessary for peaceful, productive order to occur, why has every state in history based it's structure on existing common law?
Please stop co-opting a veneer of empiricism while you berate people with your subjective, emotionally driven, nonsense.
Jcolinsol 2 years ago
"Iceland: 874-930"
Funny story, the Norwegians who settled there BROUGHT SLAVES.
Yeah, another STERLING "ANARCHIST" SOCIETY.
It wasn't an Anarchy, anyway. There were ruling chiefs... I wonder what happened if you ran off with one of their daughters, hmm?
"Ireland: 650-1650"
Another tribal/clan system. Yes people could "freely" move from clan to clan, but that didn't stop clans from fighting with each other to try and grow their influence.
Warfare, another sterling anarchist example...
directedchaos 2 years ago
Ah, to top it they actually had a lawbook, but it wasn´t written, it was sung. When something was disputed, the man in charge of keeping them would turn against a set of rocks and sing it with a loud voice, and it would ring out and all would hear it. Oral tradition in it´s finest? Perhaps. :)
Jentzi1 2 years ago
Nice.
I prefer fight to the death -- clearly, the better way to determine who's right.
Because, you know, God will choose the winner.
"may the best man win"
directedchaos 2 years ago
Thats the most beautiful comment in the world
angelf1 2 years ago
Changed my mind, want to attempt to refute some of these, if possible.
America had institutionalized slavery enforced by the state. Obviously stuff like slavery and rape, and murder and theft all happen even with states. Why? It's human behavior, and laws don't change human behavior.
Anarchism simply means "without rulers" I don't define it as being synonymous with chaos.
I agree, warfare is egregious, and who funds all modern wars? The state. So the state as implemented does not create peace
Jcolinsol 2 years ago 2
"If a state is necessary for peaceful, productive order to occur, why has every state in history based it's structure on existing common law?"
Why do you claim common law is somehow SEPARATE from the state?
Common law DATES FROM THE ROMAN ERA. There is a path! Follow it!
Your tribal societies you like citing so much -- THOSE ARE STATES TOO! States that WENT TO WAR WITH EACH OTHER.
"veneer"
Stop jacking it right there dumbass, though I know you want to cover facts with talking head jizm.
directedchaos 2 years ago
Well you could have free-market courts, rather than state courts (I believe this was what the Irish system used) which could establish precedents and stuff.
But really, the most basic necessary laws are the ones that emerge out of the necessity for social stability. Do not steal, do not rape, do not murder.
As I define it a state is a monopoly on the generation of policy over a specific geographic region.
Remove the compulsory part (the monopoly) and you have Anarchy as I define it.
Jcolinsol 2 years ago
"nonsense"
Address real issues, like why PEACE CAME THROUGH UNIFICATION!!
You know all those tribal systems you love to praise? The ones under constant warfare?
Why does peace only seem to come when all the various clans are unified by a king? So it has always been, in every culture. The US was born long after, on the eve of democracy (to be fair, we inspired a lot). When the people revolted, they didn't revert to tribes; giant nations stayed largely intact.
States are useful.
directedchaos 2 years ago
I'm not praising an system, you asked for citations. I provided them.
Our state system participates in constant warfare. Warfare is a psychological activity, not a rational one, that's why a state won't change it
Social services are useful, not states. You could establish a "Panarchic" state system based on a mutual contractual obligation, and it would satisfy my definition of Anarchy, and (theoretically) provide social services.
Instituting any social system by force just seems wrong to me.
Jcolinsol 2 years ago
I know you love to twist any ambiguity into nonsense, so let me be clear: monarchy is not preferable to tribalism, in that both are unjust governments. Representative governments are clearly preferred.
The point is that LARGE governments are NECESSARY, to deal with LARGE issues and PRESERVE PEACE.
directedchaos 2 years ago
Large governments deal with large problems in the same way that gasoline deals with fire or a waterhose deals with a person who is drowning.
Learn about the iron cage of bureaucracy.
leereyno 2 years ago 2
or perhaps large decentralization is necessary to prevent large problems from being contagious
ineptgod 2 years ago
"or perhaps large decentralization is necessary to prevent large problems from being contagious"
In this instance, that's like saying you should avoid medicine to prevent an infection from spreading.
It's ass-backwards. A *LACK* of regulation caused the recent financial crises, and (centrally) *TARGETED* controls are necessary to fix the system. We had such controls in the wake of the great depression, but started dismantling them in the 80s. Glass-Steagall was removed in 99. And voila...
directedchaos 2 years ago
decentralization not deregulation
get a hold of that trigger-happy reaction
decentralization means spreading responsibility to all who can act, take responsibility away from corrupt institutions
Glass-Steagall ain't the half of it. Derivatives were outlawed for nearly 50 years until 1982. It started way back.
ineptgod 2 years ago
"Derivatives were outlawed for nearly 50 years until 1982. It started way back."
Yes, we started dismantling in the 80s. By the by, those 50 years were the smoothest economically EVER.
"Govt is NOT intervening."
Because we toasted said out the regulations... see your last comment...
"you want intervention instead of prosecution"
No. I want BOTH!
"Stop looking for an institutional savior there isn't one. Do it yourself."
What, with a shotgun? Institutions are all we have.
directedchaos 2 years ago
You have proven through your deluge of emotionally charged non-sense statements that you really are not interested in empiricism.
I don't feel the need to respond to your beligerent closed minded non-sense.
Any state system that is based on a death threat is illegitimate in my view. You are welcome to believe otherwise, but please spare me the liberty not to participate in a system which I find both un-effective and morally indefensible.
Peace,
Jcolinsol 2 years ago
"Any state system that is based on a death threat is illegitimate in my view."
1) I'm against the death penalty.
2) If you meant "force" instead, let me repeat: any government that can only rule through unanimous consent is no government at all; that's called "volunteering."
directedchaos 2 years ago
I am against the death penalty too. I am also again the prison system, it's an ineffective state institution that only promotes crime.
And voluntary order is what Anarchy ultimately is. I would even accept "Panarchic" contract based states because they are voluntary.
It is the involuntary nature of state rule that I am objecting to, because it keeps the state from evolving with the populace. A compulsory state is essentially a parasite, or more accurately a cancer.
Jcolinsol 2 years ago
By the way, thank you for your calm response to my statement. It lends credence to your argument.
I appreciate that.
Jcolinsol 2 years ago
"Exactly, the state is an attempt to enforce an arbitrary set of values on a diverse and complex society."
Exactly. Such as the arbitrary set of values that say "raping and killing your kid is wrong."
I would kill and die for such arbitrary values. If you don't have them, you aren't even human. You aren't even an animal.
Plants might not have morals, but that's because they don't even have a central nervous system. Every animal on Earth has rules of behavior. That's all morality is...
directedchaos 2 years ago
Yes, most humans have a moral sensibility, which is why a state is both unnecessary and unthinkable. Morality is subjective, relative to the individual, and cannot and does not need to be promoted by a state.
Not that rape and murder need to be enforced by a state, those codes of behavior come into being based on their relevance to the society regardless of the existence of a state. Wars on the other hand, are state creations, that's right the state institutionalizes murder.
Jcolinsol 2 years ago
"Morality is subjective, relative to the individual, and cannot and does not need to be promoted by a state."
So, you have the right to fuck your kid and kill them?
Hell no. I'll help the government fry you for it.
(actually, I'm against the death penalty, but I'd help them lock you up in a nice cush psych ward where you can replay your horrors for a good long time, but that kind of kills the mood...)
"Not that rape and murder need to be enforced by a state"
How else enforce them?
directedchaos 2 years ago
You expect the same government that looks the other way when 200,000 children are trafficked each year to fry somebody?
The system will not help you. It's put there for the rapists to use against you.
ineptgod 2 years ago 2
You don't have the "right" you have the "freedom". You also have the freedom to endure causation, and the societal retaliation for your actions.
The state does not stop those behaviors anyway, otherwise they would never occur.
Are you actually threatening to have me executed/incarcerated? I find that sentiment disturbing
I am not interested in incarcerating you because your views are contrary to mine. It's opposite, I want you to be completely free to promote your values on a voluntary basis
Jcolinsol 2 years ago
state regulation = good
federal regulation = bad
derivatives = illegitimate by nature
we don't have a free market
we have a market regukated by a private reserve kleptocracy
ineptgod 2 years ago
So, given that you prove counter-intuitive things with SCIENCE, not INTUITION -- and really, Penn, that should be overwhelmingly obvious -- comparing economic stimulus to psychic readings is RIDICULOUS.
1) Sound theory: loss of private demand can be met by increased public demand
2) Most modern economists agree with the need for stimulus in a recession to cut off the deadly spiral.
Compare to science DISPROVING psychic abilities... a la James Randi challenge... or brain physics...
directedchaos 2 years ago
the stimulus can't fix $1.5-$6 Quad (that's 15 zeroes) in derivatives.
ineptgod 2 years ago
@1:25 "smart people are so easy to fool with psychic stuff"
Mm, no... stupid people get fooled with that... ask any random bum off the street if he believes in psychic powers, ghosts, god, etc. -- they say yes.
As you work your way up the education and intellectual chain, belief in ALL supernatural phenomenon drops off.
Penn, as a skeptic yourself, you should know that...
You prove counter-intuitive things by research, not blind belief that "it's counter-intuitive, thus maybe it will work!"
directedchaos 2 years ago
So what do you think WILL work to dig out of the recession?
Sp666ky 2 years ago
poop on ya all
joeker420420 2 years ago
A President using a bad economic situation to usurp power for himself? That's exactly what FDR did (and Wilson before him, although he used a war-- so did FDR, later), and our country is still suffering from it.
kittyprydekissme 2 years ago
hundreds of economists and scientists, most notably the skeptics agree with us on this issue. So who's the pseudo-intellectual? Us or the individual who misquotes people on youtube?
hmmmmmm.
razorsharpwit 2 years ago
i accidentally attributed a correct quote to the wrong person, and i apologized to you for it. you were never accused of being a pseudo-intellectual by anyone. my accusation was directed to diggyzazz, not you.
don't get your feelings hurt. it's just youtube.
imwhatsfourdinner 2 years ago
U saved yet buddy?
Dawitness11 2 years ago
Smart people are easy to fool with psychic stuff? Penn, go out and find some real smart people.
"Friends and neighbors complain that taxes are indeed very heavy, and if those laid on by the government were the only ones we had to pay, we might the more easily discharge them; but we have many others, and much more grievous to some of us. We are taxed twice as much by our idleness, three times as much by our pride, and four times as much by our folly." ~Benjamin Franklin
crazymandan59 2 years ago
Yeah, WTF was that about? Maybe he meant overconfident people. Or realists that believe only what they see because he can control what they "see". But it really made no sense the way he said it.
DoctorMeh 2 years ago
Fat fuck, hes worthless.
mogul1265 2 years ago
More advice from the man with chin pubes. Really, though, if you value the word of a guy who shaves the side of his face and then says, "Ah, screw it, that's good enough," you pretty much deserve what you get.
CommentorX 2 years ago
did i tell you i dont care i dont care i dont care i dont care i dont care sorry still not caring
MetricStudios 2 years ago
spending to get out of a recession is what got us out of the 20s. What Obama has done that is wrong is increase spending and then give the implication of raising taxes, raising taxes acts as an economic depressant which will undo the additional spending.
bobbysnobby 2 years ago
bobbsnobby- please clarify your argument and cite sources as needed.
Ichalz- you invested money into a solid business plan. You had a choice. If you had not made your money back, would you keep borrowing ?
I do not have a choice and furthermore, if I did I would not invest in such an unwise, unproven plan. That's the difference, my money is being taken away and I have no say where it goes or how it is spent.
razorsharpwit 2 years ago
Obama has said in practically every speech he's given since before he got elected that, essentially, he wouldn't be raising taxes on anyone who couldn't afford to pay higher taxes. For the rest - we get a break. The only people he's raising taxes on are the ones who have cash to spare - the disgusting 1% who don't spend, they only horde. I say tax the fuckers dry and get us sorted out.
dynamiteruby 2 years ago
I'll bet you $10.00 Penn's right and I'll will bet you $1,000 that when he is proven right, that you will blame it all on Bush. Bush was awful but here's the thing- nobody anywhere has ever spent themselves out of debt.
razorsharpwit 2 years ago
I know plenty of people who have done it. I'm doing it right now. I wanted to get out of personal debt, so I spend $600 on new tools (credit card purchase) so I could do more regular guitar repair. The new tools have already paid themselves off, and I've made another $1000 since then.
You must spend money to make money...basic principle of capitalism.
ichalz 2 years ago
yes, but you used your incurred debt wisely, the government has given us no reason to believe they are wise with money.
using debt to make money requires a certain kind of mindset and determination that our government, sadly, does not possess.
imwhatsfourdinner 2 years ago
I disagree. The conservative media has given you no reason to believe they are wise with the stimulus money. Everything is so wrapped up in politics that, despite much of the money going to good use, certain individuals are spending all their time complaining about the small percentage that isn't going to good use.
If these people could get past the petty ideological semantic debates and mudslinging, the very large amount of positives would be more apparent than they currently are.
ichalz 2 years ago
Ichalz, how can you say that "much of the money is going to good use"? The TARP program gave $700 billion to the banks, and today there is no accountability whatsoever as to where the money went. Even the banks don't know, or if they do, they're not saying.
The Stimulus package hasn't been disbursed yet. So where are the positives?
CommentorX 2 years ago
This guy is such a pseudo-intellectual poser. Thinks that knowing some magic tricks makes him a scientist, economist, etc. He says things like "without going into black holes and particle physics", as if he could if he wanted to.
Probably has an 8th grade education. Gimme a break.
DiggyZazz 2 years ago
Ha ha! You said it! I bet he has a tiny, non-functioning penis too.
peeenisss 2 years ago
yes, that's why he is a millionaire, and you are watching him on youtube instead of the other way around.
where is your massive bank account and TV show and youtube channel?
if he did all that with an 8th grade education you should be fucking bill gates by now. where's your fame and fortune?
oh wait... you must be a pseudo-intellectual poser too! that explains everything.
if you don't like penn, why bother watching? he doesn't claim to be a genius, he's just giving his opinion, like you are.
imwhatsfourdinner 2 years ago
really? I'm an intellectual poser? You're the one making false claims about an 8th grade education-
razorsharpwit 2 years ago
YOU made the 8th grade claim, i just made fun of you for it.
read your original comment, "Probably has an 8th grade education." YOU SAID THAT, NOT ME.
who made that false claim? YOU.
you have effectively owned yourself. moron.
imwhatsfourdinner 2 years ago
I never said that- learn how to read, genius
razorsharpwit 2 years ago
my mistake, it was the post i responded to that claimed he had an 8th grade education.
however, i maintain that i'm not the one who made a claim about his education, DiggyZazz did and i made fun of him for it.
apologies to you, i thought i was responding to his dumb ass.
but you can take note of who made that ridiculous 8th grade claim, and it wasn't me.
also, i wonder why you got my reply to diggyzazz, i wasn't calling you anything, i was directing that entire comment to diggyzazz.
imwhatsfourdinner 2 years ago
I've watched Miss South Carolina try to speak and English sentence on YouTube too. That doesn't make her a genius.
If I thought everybody with a video on YouTube was a genius, I'd be pathetic, like you.
DiggyZazz 2 years ago
What are you talking about?
You actually sound like Miss South Carolina! LMAO!
If you're going to attempt to make fun of someone's intelligence, try using proper spelling and grammar.
imwhatsfourdinner 2 years ago
I made a typo and misspelled "an" as "and" and that's your test of IQ? You are so awesome to have caught that.
I guess if you only made it through 3rd grade you have to take your little triumphs where you can find them.
DiggyZazz 2 years ago
You're right, I'm fucking awesome!
And you are trying to talk your way out of looking like a moron. Nice try though.
imwhatsfourdinner 2 years ago
he makes so much sense!
if you lose your job, dont take a loan to go to medical school....why, that would be spending your way out of debt!
this dork needs to stick to his shitty "comedy"
TruBlueRepublicanSue 2 years ago
Sue, then how do we train more doctors?
This is a problem with farmland preservation - if the farmer's son doesn't want to farm, who has the money to buy farmland? In Delaware, an acre of land costs about $20k.
This is also a reason why the housing market went bust. Developers don't want to build affordable condos - the building costs are high, thus the profit per acre is low. They'd much rather go for the high profit McMansions. Unfortunately, now, few can afford a mortgage on one.
CommentorX 2 years ago
wheres teller lmao
crazyskateboarderkid 2 years ago
not that he'd have much to add :)
badkarma52 2 years ago
Ockham's razor, anyone?
morddas 2 years ago
I knew a bullshitter who used to say counterintuitive things all the time, simply to seem smart. Like, he did it just to seem like he knew something, which he didn't. Most the things he said like that had no rhyme or reason and didn't hold up against reality.
TheClassicalLiberal 2 years ago
Sounds like Karl Pilkington (Look him up on google or youtube for the experience of a lifetime!)
KevinSolway 2 years ago
Penn 2012
goppatriots 2 years ago
Yeah thats prolly when he will kick off form heart disease. Good call.
mogul1265 2 years ago
no what the prez does it aint gonna affect me =)
kazee123 2 years ago
It depends on your age, if you're under 18 then he's spending money that YOU will have to repay if you're older than 40 then he's spending money you're kids and grandkids will have to repay
gpshaw1987 2 years ago
Penn, that's Keynesian economy. It may seem counter intuitive, but that is how this very same country got out of the great depression (yeah, that thing called the "New Deal", yeah, that thing was conceived by John Maynard Keynes).
This form of monetary philosophy and practice has saved many countries from recessions and depressions. But there is always the possibility that it will all go wrong.
InfectedDaemon 2 years ago
Buddy, the socialist policies instituted during the great depression didn't help to lessen it or relieve it. If you take even a slightly closer look at economic dynamics during that period, you'll find that just because the crisis eventually lessened, it wasn't a result of governmental interference.
A crisis is bound to, by nature, lessen eventually. We could have achieved greater recovery through a myriad of other approaches. Glorifying the leaders of the time for a given result is absurd.
hijinx1980 2 years ago
The New Deal was a basic failure. It would have never worked if it weren't for WW2
Bobalithmiss1 2 years ago
it only works by digging deeper and putting off the inevitable for a few more years. In order for the Keynesian model to work, there must be perpetual inflation and devaluation of monetary units. This can only go so far before you reach Mugabe in Zimbabwe. Mugabe has used Keynes theories to its ultimate and logical end.
LeGioNoFZioN 2 years ago 2
I'm not entirely certain people should be saying "Obama is doing this", as Congress, including many of the Republicans in Congress, are supporting these actions.
Besides the fact that most of the people getting the money are Republicans anyway. It would be like pinning everything that happened during Bush's presidency on Bush. It wasn't solely him. His cabinet and Congress, along with the American people as a whole, are just as responsible for letting it occur without outrage.
Elitistb616 2 years ago
You're right. People shouldn't pin every dip and turn of events during the hard times on their leader.
Although...
That is exactly what the same people who glorify Obama did to G.W. Bush during his eight years in office. No mention of Clinton, Albright, Bush Sr., Reagan, Carter, Pinetta, or the gaggle of personalities involved in policy before him. He became the whipping boy for the angry left.
We should take a lesson from that, but that doesn't mean giving a budding despot a free hand.
hijinx1980 2 years ago
I agree. We definitely should have reigned in Bush Jr. But we didn't. Most people are keeping a closer eye on Obama.
Elitistb616 2 years ago
he-hey! I can watch in Canada again :D
toin9898 2 years ago
God bless! Is he still going on about that Larry King appearance? Penn! Get over it! It's water under the bridge!
ZachsMind 2 years ago
hmm,. not like my list of books to read is not bloated enught but can you recomend any books or articles?
(i love learning all things.)
ZerqTM 2 years ago
meltdown by tom woods is a good book
juananzar 2 years ago 2
Economics in One Lesson, by Henry Hazlitt
mrdowns 2 years ago 2
the idea of investing in infastructure sertinely cant be all tha bad as those investments will (hopefully at least) reap economic benefits later.
also investing in preventative health care can save hume sums on later treatments for avoidable deasase.
question is if its a good idea to keep throwing money on the big failing companies.. or just let them topel.....
ZerqTM 2 years ago
I am laging way begind on my studies of economics...
(as i am buissy with electronics and music theory long with software engeneering)
but there are many who argue agains keynesian economics...
myself i am inclined to belive in it though i really wanna read more about it.
it has proven to work i sertine instances sertinly.
the chicago school of economic seams a lot more destructive and socialy unacceptable in comparison.
ZerqTM 2 years ago
i would recommend austrian economics it makes more sense just a suggestion though
juananzar 2 years ago
I'd recommend Chicago School (and positive economics in general) with it's emphasis on a rational and empirical approach to economics rather than adherence to infallible dogma handed down from authority.
jsclary 2 years ago
I agree with everything you said. Obama means well but I think he is wrong. It scares me how willing people are to follow him without question. Obama will save us!! (my best imitation of your laugh) Good Day!!!
shananagans5 2 years ago
Apparently Penn hasn't studied Keynesian Economics.
PublicSecrecy 2 years ago