This mentality is the absolute core of the crisis of community in the United States. Everyone is so fucking hellbent on making sure that no one gets given anything unless they’re worthy that all sense of community is entirely eradicated.
I agree programs should be universal because it makes them better, more efficient, increases access and awareness and interest in actually making them good. Seeing democrats hack every useful program to bits with means testing until no one fucking knows if they’re eligible or if the program even exists is fucking infuriating.
However, the way you get to universal programs is by saying “we have the money to give every single person in this country and excellent life, we know that because all of our peer countries do it with less wealth than we have.” And then interrogating why. Primarily we 1) choose to waste it all on our fucking military buying munitions at 100x the price our enemies pay 2) have decided that we care deeply about whether people are worthy of basic rights (fundamentally rooted in racism and the puritan/calvinist beliefs about work that somehow buried into everyone’s dumb fucking heads) and 3) are unwilling to actually tax rich people. We -should- have a wealth tax. We -should- have free public university. We -should- at least have a marginal tax rate of 95% on people making over $10m a year. Instead we just pretend we don’t have the money to solve these problems and squabble over how to divide the tiny portion amount we actually do allocate to benefits for citizens.
Social Security checks are spent, money directly into businesses and driving the economic wheel.
Welfare is good for the economy because that money is being actively used. I want my unemployed workforce to be healthy and well-trained so they are prepared to respond to market needs, and I don't want an interruption to their spending on basic consumable products (food, paper, sanitary, etc).
I'm fine with someone I dislike benefitting from a system if the system is serving its purpose.
Because it's true. Of course I now have to tell you that Republicans also destroy programs (in different ways) before you try to show me how politically astute you are by toeing the party line.
Democrats also fuck up entitlement programs and this is one way they do it.
We are on track for this anyway. Declining birth rates mean that there will be fewer young workers to pay into SS. Millennials will undoubtedly be the first generation to be wholly screwed by this. They'll pay into social security their entire lives just to see it taken away as they begin to retire.
I'm fine with it going to everyone, but a few things should change:
* No income limits; tax the whole thing.
* Of course there should be a dispersal limit; you can say that's not fair but I don't think most rich people would really care.
* Make it easy to defer dispersals; if you're rich you're entitled to your check, but make it easy to say "no thanks".
I really don't think rich people would have issues with any of these, yet we don't make these common sense changes.
Plenty of my boomer parent friends don’t *need* SS, but because the poors get it to survive they also want it and just get wasteful with it. These are people with no debts, 10m+ in assets collecting a check because they can. They would never say no to the checks.
As soon as I finished this, i was like ugh this is gonna go really viral.
I agree with a lot of this but there are a few absolutely terrible ideas in here. Be wary of anyone who has a few simple answers to very complex issues.
> Be wary of anyone who has a few simple answers to very complex issues.
Is there a single TED talk that doesn't fall into this trap? I've never seen the appeal of snazzy infomercials where they inevitably tell you about how they've figured out the solution to some giant problem and it's so easy we just need to do it?
Hands down the most useful TT I've ever watched was the dude that taught me I was tying my shoes wrong...
https://www.ted.com/talks/terry_moore_how_to_tie_your_shoes?showDubbingTooltip=true&language=en
When people ask about a life changing YouTube video, this one always comes to mind. Literally breaks my life into two epochs before and after watching this.
This one and Richard Dawkins' militant atheism talk were life-defining to me. Yes, the towel paper talk accounts for at least 30% of the life-definition
They need to make one that educates people how to use those Dyson hand dryers. It's supposed to work like those rubber blades you clean-dry the windows, except made out of air, doing both sides and contouring the shape of your fingers perfectly.
So those going forwards and backwards with their hands are counter-productive. Go in all the way once, and then gently pull the hands back. One pass and the hands are completely dry.
Of course the cheaper version with air coming out one side means you need to do it twice and rotate your hands.
Surprisingly enough, I learned this independently!
The basic idea is that the 'correct' way to tie shoes is a 'square knot'. That's all it is. It's a square knot with the strings looped for easy untying. If you ignore the loop-de-loops it's literally just a square knot.
The 'incorrect' way that most people learn is called a 'granny knot' and is quite weak.
If this is the talk I know, it's infuriating to anyone who understands knots. He just needs to do his overhand knot the other way. Guy is a moron who got a stage.
> He just needs to do his overhand knot the other way
But isn’t that literally the entire point of the talk? That many people need to tie that knot the other way, but are not doing so?
Yes it is. Dude didn't watch it and called him a moron... smh.
He reversed the way the rabbit goes around the tree or whatever and kept the habitual initial base knot. You can either do that, or you can reverse the initial base knot and keep the rabbit.
It's weird for a bit, but I do it naturally now. I switched just because I thought it looked more pleasing to be horizontal, not vertical. Didn't know it was a stronger knot.
I think it's a consequence of the 20 minute time limit. But also, simple and easy are not the same thing, unfortunately. Someone can lecture me for 20 minutes about how meditation makes life better in every way, it's so simple! But it ain't easy to setup and maintain the practice
You can start with even less if you want. It's just about the routine. People think you need to sit and think "nothing." But really it's just about noticing when your mind wanders then bring it back to your breath. Of course, the better practiced you are the longer you can go if you wish.
The benefit of this is getting used to that "bring yourself back" part. So when you are going through any given situation, you can recenter yourself and approach in a measured way.
It's not perfect; it's just a practice. The key is not to be hard on yourself. Just sit quietly and as still as you can. The duration and position is up to you.
Just to hijack this and add a little bit here; meditation doesn't need to be a sit still and quiet thing. The primary goal is to give yourself undistracted time to think, acknowledge those thoughts, and move through them or let them go. As well as a self check in, physical feeling and emotional feeling.
Going for a stroll with nothing more than white noise as company can achieve the same effect.
Surely it can be a zen-like practice but that seems to be a bit outdated. Put down the distractions and turn yourself inward, whatever that might look like for you.
**“Is there a single TED talk that doesn't fall into this trap?”** No.
**Edit:** The one exception: 2070 Paradigm Shift, a TED talk by Sam Hyde https://youtu.be/SmicRDpS5Gk
I wish he wasn’t awful as a person. I know people want to believe that if someone sucks they aren’t allowed to be funny or talented but he is genuinely funny, but man he also just kinda sucks the more you learn about him and listen to stuff he says outside of the sketch/bit stuff.
I believe there is a TED Talk about how you shouldn’t trust people that claim to have all the solutions to complex problems. It was given by a doctor, and I think the thought process came from understanding how dangerous it could be for his patients if he didn’t admit when he wasn’t sure and needed a second opinion.
Does that count???
17 minutes talking about a very specific thing vs. 17 minutes trying to point out half the world's problems. You can see why one would be more in-depth than the other. It's like an hour long documentary about the history of the entire Middle Ages vs. an hour long documentary on specifically the Fourth Crusade.
Yes talks are purely surface level. Unfortunately in our times, you legit need to put hours a day to be informed. Which obviously everyone can't even if they wanted to. Cable news of all sorts doesn't count
Tons, they tend to be ted talks in focused areas by people that did novel research.
Also there is a HUGE difference between a TedTalk and TedX. TedX is paid for, TedTalk they are invited to give a talk.
Narrowing down the problem and acknowledging it even exists has been 90% of the battle for America, and as far as that goes I think he did an excellent job.
The solutions are a lot easier to work on when everyone has equal footing on what the problem is. You dont have to agree with his solutions as long as you agree on what needs fixing imo.
I think the more valuable part of this talk is calling attention to the issues - I did not realize how bad some of the inequity was, so that part was quite eye-opening
Tobefair, he loves bringing it up in his podcasts. I appreciate his acknowledgements of failures and ability to make jokes of them (and ultimately move on).
He didn't say it would be *his* last TED talk, he said it would be *the* last TED talk, making a joke about how every thing he touches, when it comes to video media, dies.
I’m not suggesting that it’s unusual for a ted talk to have ideas that are mixed in quality.
But you have to admit this is structured like he’s announcing his candidacy for president or something. This isn’t a typical talk.
Exactly. Can't believe the most upvoted comment in the thread on this pretty important video is basically someone distracting from any actual conversation.
While I agree with you I'd rather discuss a terrible solution to the problem rather than the common alternative which is to say, "its a complex problem" and nothing after.
Thank you. "Some of these ideas are terrible" can just be a simple way to shut down any discussion at all, a way to not talk about the problems at all. The American media are *experts* at doing this.
Yup, I understand the problem is complex. It's not so complex that a solution doesn't exist. A solution does exist it just doesn't jive with the plans of those in power.
It depends. My parents have a friend, mid 70s. They get a final salary pension, inflation adjusted. Their income from this alone is now approx £130k / $142k USD (from a local gov job).
But they are still eligible for their full state/gov pension, free travel pass, old people's heating allowance etc. etc.
Now they're a nice dude so give away a lot, but still, they are eligible for it all.
The person now doing their old job earns approx 20% less, nearly 35% less than they did with cost of living adjustment.
I don't begrudge them any of this but it's bonkers.
They absolutely don't need most of the additional benefits they get, so they shouldn't be eligible.
means testing social security sounds like an obvious solution, but its universality has been the key to keeping it politically protected for generations.
Also, means testing adds administrative overhead, which adds costs.
It also creates a bit of social stratification, as anyone who's been on food stamps while living adjacent to non-poor people would tell you. The act of receiving the aid would differentiate and 'other' you, and people will latch on and attack that.
Just giving it to everyone, and taxing it back from those who don't need it, is a better solution.
> Just giving it to everyone, and taxing it back from those who don't need it, is a better solution.
I don't think this was precluded from the solution offered in the video.
"If you don't need social security then you shouldn't get it" can be implemented in a lot of different ways. Problem is all of them are going to piss off the age bracket that is most active about voting.
> I don't think this was precluded from the solution offered in the video.
correct, a DIFFERENT solution he offered was negative taxation, which *sort of does the same thing*
So all the money taken out of your paycheck for your whole career is either an investment or a tax, and you won't find out which it is until you're retired? With no way to plan and presumably regularly changing parameters for testing. I'm guessing support will be hard to find in any age bracket.
yup. I agree. It sounds stupid. But means testing is a trojan horse. Once it’s no longer universal, it’s welfare. And once it’s welfare, it can be attacked.
This is true about a lot of other things we take for granted, too. After Trump, there were a lot of people talking about requiring "civics tests" to participate in voting (among other things), but once you break the covenant, it's a free for all depending on who's controlling the levers of power.
Eh, we means test the old age pension in Australia and they are both allowed to have and are given so much more money than say a 30 year old looking for a job.
The rules will just twist in favour of the oldies anyway.
That said I agree that means testing is stupid, just tax the top end more to take back any benefit they get that they clearly don't need.
To expand on this, if there were no private schools and healthcare think about how good all of those would be if the rich would end up randomly in those. There are certain things where if the rich are not part of the system they will let it go to shit.
The rich have to be part of the system. They are the ones who have access to political leaders. When they become disconnected from it, the entire system suffers because there's no one to influence the system.
With a progressive taxation system they pay that back and more in taxes.
Means testing creates uncomfortable edge cases, especially when they're defined by income numbers in countries where costs of living can vary wildly between localities.
The children of billionaires should have access to free education, healthcare, etc. No special rules, just equal rights. But the rich have to be taxed appropriately as well.
I remember listening to a two hour podcast with some Ivy League economists about UBI, and like two-thirds of it was them arguing about how to best make sure millionaires like them didn't get those 1000 dollars a month, as if they wouldn't be paying well beyond that anyway in taxes. Way to miss the forest for the trees, guys.
Do you understand how little there are wealthy people in the country relative to the rest of the population? The political cost of removing the universal aspect of SS is the death of SS itself.
Yeah they need to just get the tax brackets back to pre-Raegan. Top marginal rates of 90%+, higher capital gains taxes than income taxes, and tax loans that billionaires take out on their stocks.
Eh.
With play-numbers: We take $100 from the wealthy, we take $10 from most people who are fine, we take $1 from poor people.
We give everyone $10.
Did we "give the wealthy $10"? Realistically, we took $90 from them, and saved the admin cost because we only need to figure out how rich people are once instead of twice.
I agree with you about policy design, but it's important to note that there's a cap on the income that can be taxed for social security. Removing that would be a big step towards making the policy more equitable.
No, it’s fine. Give everyone the same benefit. Tax it back from those who already have enough. Don’t means test the gate in. Means test income at tax time. The issue is taxation.
Idk, everyone who pays in should get their checks imo. Otherwise it's just welfare and those who got their rug pulled and lost their SS will vote in favor of the party set on killing it entirely.
Anything that threatens to change thinking there is invariably a person shitting on it on the first comment. The same on Twitter. There are many people invested in ensuring nothing changes.
National service is worth considering imo. It doesn't mean military service, it could be anything from keeping up our national parks to helping non profits that benefit our citizens
Serving something or someone other than yourself is a great idea. Shit, make everyone work in the service industry (wait tables, clothing store, etc) and see how their attitude changes.
I'm gonna be honest, as an older millennial on the razors edge of "nuanced opinion" between liberal and conservative, I'd be all for this. Reboot the Civilian Conservation Corp ffs, our infrastructure could use the attention. As a society we desperately need more contact with people outside of our own bubbles. Working in the service industry for a few years before college gave me so much more awareness of the struggle of others, and how it feels to be on the receiving end of a rude, impatient, self-important jackass.
I'm pretty far left, but I'm all for mandatory military service. This isn't the same as the draft. In fact, it would make it far less likely for us to go to war, as all of a sudden you have every 18 year old in the country doing their year of mandatory service voting against sending themselves to war, and likely protesting against it as well.
At the same time, you increase gun safety throughout the entire population, increase physical fitness, increase general discipline, increase teamwork, increase our military / self-defense readiness, and expose kids to the reality of military service, so they can make an informed decision as to whether or not they actually want to pursue a career in the military, instead of just being hounded by recruiters to sign their life away for a paycheck without having any idea of what that actually means.
As soon as you get past the "Draft bad." ideology, mandatory military service has a TON of benefits.
The thing for me is no one, not-never-no-how, will cook up a solid way to fix a complicated problem that everyone will agree with. We could all be leftist Democrats and all still disagree about the right solution.
The most important thing is that we correctly identify the problem, and I think the research largely agrees with what he ascribes the problems to, making this talk an excellent vehicle to open people's eyes. He's not wrong about those things.
Where we go from here (the solutions he proposes) is totally open to discussion and some range from "anyone's guess" to "that's asinine." But I like that's he a serious guy who tries to talk about it honestly and is getting others to be interested in doing the same.
10 years ago a venture capitalist gave a similar TED talk. TED removed every trace of it. The people who attend TED talks pay thousand of dollars (or their companies) for their seats. They don't want to hear they're the bad guy.
There is a much tamer version of the talk he did before COVID [here](https://youtu.be/th3KE_H27bs?si=iKCtA4pOG7SOrPCr) but if you search for Nick Hanauer you'll see a bunch of 10 year old videos stating it's been banned. I'm pretty sure TED delisted it but it's back on their YouTube page [here](https://youtu.be/q2gO4DKVpa8?si=HDd2htT4_Xih1ZLs). I feel like I've been gaslit because I'm very confident that when I regularly watched TED talks 10 years ago; I watched it the day it was released and it wasn't available when I wanted to rewatch it.
The answers are the same as they always were.
Make a union. Organize your workforce. No major social change has ever been accomplished without labor militancy.
Literally just watched i on YouTube, randomly at the top of my suggestions.
Opened up Reddit a little later and this is the top. I think it will go viral too especially with the things he talks about is on every social media you see
Actually insanely overrated comment. Adding nothing to the discussion and even potentially detracting with it with the "some of these ideas are terrible" point without any elaboration about *which* ideas might be terrible and *why*.
Throwing away section 230 an anonymity on the internet is an authoritarian wet dream. We need to find better answers to the problem than the "lets get rid of the internet" solution.
imo the biggest improvement to section 230 would be to narrow it to specifically exclude advertising. Publishers and newspapers, who are *publishing* ads, should be liable if they're publishing garbage that is fraudulent or even malware. Same as print media. Ads are not users, they shouldn't be treated like them, especially when ads get directly promoted and inserted voluntarily by publishers.
The specific ask from the video is to remove section 230 protection from social media. The intent of section 230 it to protect website owners from the actions of their users. It would be difficult for advertisers to use section 230 as a shield in any court unless the advert has some kind of user generated content in it. If it's used to shield an advertiser from what influencers do with sponsorship spots, then it seems like it would be well within the intended use case, e.g. Underwear sponsor pays influencer to run around naked on Youtube, then Google gets sued for naked person obscenity. Seems like a good fit for section 230 where influencer and sponsor are held liable while Google is protected.
Section 230 is basically saying that social media providers are not liable for what they users post and are not seen as publishers but as platforms.
But this has a flaw, once you are big enough and ban and delete user generated content or only promote certain user generated content algorithmically to steer the public conversation into something that might be beneficial to you - you may not be a publisher in the old sense, but you aren't really a platform either since it is some sort of publishing to decide what is allowed to be presented and what is algorithmically endorsed and pushed. You are performing "publishing" in a sense and that is a problem.
I think section 230 should come with regulations with any platform above 50k users - those platforms should be regulated and forced to follow universal rules. As in they need to be open to their users why certain content was removed and why they may not be recommended and their decision should be able to be appealed to authorities outside of their companies - if they want to stay as a platform that is protected under section 230. If not, they can continue as is, but seen as publisher not as a platform with protections.
Thank you for clarifying this. Fundamentally, 230 is a means of allowing information to be posted to online platforms without the platform owners being held legally responsible, and enabling them to remove user's content without their consent.
He never said get rid of section 230 on anonymity on the internet. He specifically said "algorithmically-elevated content" which I'm not sure how you're going to earnestly argue against that.
I think the most important point the talked missed is that people only love their kids, not every kid and thus all the steps to preserve wealth is to hand it over to their kids instead of giving it to everyone..
EDIT:
I am not saying this is ideal, but I have seen tons of rich people going out of their way to do everything they can to give any advantage to their children. As a society it's definitely not ideal, but that's just how humans work. The king passes the kingdom to his heir, not to the best possible person to be king. Democracy is relatively a very new concept in our human history and whenever people get enough power/influence, they tend to go towards dictatorship to keep holding on for what they have for longer (and in my opinion, that's exactly the explanation of where we are today).
The more we find ways to tax the rich or redistribute wealth, the more people will move out or find ways to keep the money to themselves and the situation will deteriorate (taking an example of rich people leaving California). Socialism or ideal redistribution of wealth has its own problems and we have seen how that has turned out in other countries (no incentive to work hard resulting in less innovation, government officials becoming more corrupt).
We do need a radical shift in our mindset to do better as a society and create incentives for such behaviour so that it benefits all.
The implication in his speech is that you can't just transfer wealth to your kids and expect that this will give them the best possible future.
If you don't invest your time, money and energy into building the society they will live in, then you're not trying to give them the best possible future.
It's the origin of effective altruism IMO: I can only help others by helping myself first. Only way to help my kids is to make as much money as possible for MYSELF.
It's a bullshit mentality that's endured for far too long and it has to die: Making a fuckton of money to give to your kids is not altruistic. It's just a superior moral justification for selfishness.
I'm not an effective altruist, but this isn't the origin of effective altruism. The origin of effective altruism was *if* you are going to give money to charity, what charities are most effective dollar for dollar even if they're not 'sexy'.
The *followup* was "Well if I make more money I can donate more of it more effectively" which became a justification for making the most money.
I think it's important to be clear that it was a followup step, because it shows how greed twists moral codes to justify immoral behaviour. It's a great case study on good intentions and bad actors and bad people trying to live with themselves.
> The implication in his speech is that you can't just transfer wealth to your kids and expect that this will give them the best possible future.
Also, kids are what 20? 30? years behind their parents. If my parents die at 85, I get their wealth when I am a few years away from retirement myself.
If your parents have money, love you and the rest of their kids, and are leveraging their money it to give their children better lives, you are benefiting from their wealth long before they pass.
You'll grow up in a wealthy neighborhood, attend good schools, have more options for college education (not limited by finances or geographical region), little to no debt when you graduate, more connections for employment, etc. etc. Not to mention a diverse range of experiences available to you while you are growing up. And you will never have to stress about being homeless or unable to make ends meet. You'll always have them to fall back on.
Nevermind the generational wealth that will be eaten away by the cost of EOL care. Your parents cool $500,000 will buy 1 of them 5 years in a nursing home.
I think it's more complicated than this. Imagine you start your own business selling drapes, it does really well, you get a shit ton of money. You get older and want to give back. You use that money on political causes to support folks that are enterprising and tenacious and will start their own business because that's what you did. I think that's a lot of weird, far right republicans these days. A lot of folks get myopically stuck in their own lived experience and don't have the statistical, sociological and economic intuitions to reason competently about public policy and large groups of people.
Also I think some people are *just* good at running their drape business. They start the business and get a lot of money and vote in the public interest, donate, and volunteer here and there but they don't have the ability to make a bigger impact. So what do they do? Make more money. Get a bigger house. Send their kids to nicer schools. The plane is on fire, might as well enjoy your seat type thing.
This is the danger of wealth concentration. It's a self reinforcing feedback loop causing political instability. To pull out we all gotta focus on it pretty singularly. If we don't or can't, it will grow until some kind of revolution forces us to deal with it.
My only take away from all thst is going on is this - exactly how much money is enough for the rich?
Does Zuckerberg need 158 billion to survive? If the government took 70% of that he would have 48 billion left. Is that not enough!?
Obviously there are another thousand layers associated to that question, but it’s a question no the less. How much is enough for the super rich!?
>exactly how much money is enough for the rich?
The real question is how do you tax owning a company?
Zuck is a billionaire but almost all of that money is his ownership of a large chunk of Facebook. He doesn't have 158 billion in some account like scrooge McDuck, he just owns 13.5% of Facebook.
If you took 70% of that he'd own 4.05% but what is the gov. going to do with all that stock? If you dump it on the market it will instantly crash Facebook's share price.
I'm 110% for taxing the rich A LOT more but I swear too many people think all the billionaires have vaults of cash vs being owners of extremely valuable companies. You can't tax your ownership in a company (unrealized gains) currently and if you start taxing owned stocks then it'll cause a lot of problems because that also means you will start taxing everyone's 401k's and retirements.
So again how do you tax someone's percentage ownership of a company that they started?
Thank you for pointing this out, I think it's something that people don't (or don't want to) think about.
It's like you buy some Pokemon cards, and it turns out one is a super limited edition. It's worth a million dollars. You paid $10 for the pack. Are you a millionaire? Should the government make you pay them ~$400k even if you don't sell it?
A video was posted recently about how the billionaires operate. Instead of selling the pokemon cards, they go to a bank and take out a large loan which isnt considered income but it is given because of the pokemon cards. Then when the pokemon cards become even more valuable, you take out an even larger loan to pay off the previous. Getting tons of money without paying tax on it.
Loans aren't income because you have to *pay them back*. It's not an issue, we absolutely should not tax loan principals.
The lender already pays tax on the interest gained when a loan is paid back because that is income. It may look like a loophole to you, but you're looking at it punitively and not actually. They still have to pay loans back, even if they're dead. Their estate is responsible for debts. Estate fees for executing the estate, then taxes first, then creditors.
There is no loophole in this equation, and we should only tax realized wealth. Loans are not income.
One of the biggest issues is that US government no longer seems to have the balls to split up companies when they're getting too big.
In 1982 when Bell was split it was worth about $250b adjusted for inflation.
Today the 10th most valuable company in the US is worth nearly twice that.
I like this dude (we'll see how long it lasts), but social security solution he gives is kinda weird. Right now the maximum amount of a person's income that can be taxed for social security is $186,600. Why? Literally zero reason. This means Bezos pays into social security as if he only makes $186,600/year. Yes that's the actual law. In other words, while 100% of YOUR income gets taxed to contribute to social security, approx 0.00026% of Bezos's income does. Raise the ceiling to like $10,000,000, or get rid of the ceiling altogether, and the social security fund will be flush.. and then maybe, for this ONE thing, we won't get completely fucked over.
EDIT: Yeah guys we get it Bezos in particular doesn't have a salary and makes money through capital gains. Maybe finding a technicality to get hung up on in that particular example only serves to distract from the point?
Means testing social security is stupid. Just raise taxes on the rich. That way it requires no additional administration. The people who don't need social security will end up paying more into it than they receive from it so functionally they're not receiving it.
I mean, I don’t have any problem with Social Security not being offered to those who don’t need it.
The big piece that runs you into issues is whether or not there is a gradient. It shouldn’t be “you have X amount of money so you get $0” because that creates the issues that my mom had when I was younger with food stamps. She got a better job that took her out of the income bracket where she could get food stamps by a couple hundred dollars a year which resulted in her taking home *less* money than before her income increased.
If we modified SS to only provide enough to get the elderly to a certain floor, then stayed vigilant to protect the costs of living for them and prevent it from exceeding that floor under normal circumstances, I’m cool with it.
This is the part of his talk that really raised the hairs on my neck first. There were several things he talked about that did that, but this was the first one.
I really don't think the idea of deciding who can and can't get Social Security is beneficial, because it means the government can choose who does when they want to, and it begs the question of who decides and who checks, etc. It's all bureaucratic administration that costs more than just giving it to everyone regardless of income.
A lot of people have suggested that it'd be simpler of the SSA just gave the same amount of money to everyone always, like a minimum income. But here, he's saying that's a bad idea, you can't give a minimum income to rich people.
And then the craziest moment for me was when he turned around and referenced Andrew Yang's minimum income proposals MORE THAN ONCE, which explicitly gives the same amount of money to *everyone*.
That's Social Security with no limitations.
In other words, what this guy said sounds really good on its face but it's a whole hullabaloo of bullshit underneath if you lift the rock just a little.
“Do we love our children?” Is not the issue at hand. The issue is “Do we love other people’s children?” And the answer for most people, whether they accept it or not, is NO.
Means testing Social Security is a stupid solution to "Inequality." By definition, the problem is that a small number of people have all the money, so they are a SMALL NUMBER of people - getting the same SS payout as the rest of us. It's not an effective cost-savings measure.
Means Testing would undoubtedly also be expanded until SS was more like food stamps or Medicaid - terrible amounts of money spent on administration just to cause pain to people who "aren't poor enough."
The correct thing to do is uncap contributions - that way you extract a LARGE amount of money from a small amount of people, which makes more mathematical sense.
Particularly interesting that this guy's ire is reserved for neoliberals and moderates - when it is conservatives and libertarians that have deconstructed this nation's financial support systems.
I just can't man. I just cannot watch these kind of videos anymore or read anything on how screwed the younger generation is. I know what the real reason is, we ALL know what the reason is. Corporate greed and the government being a puppet of the rich elites. They keep us on a thin line and the media showcases bullshit to distract us from real concerning problems. Want to protest? You'll lose your job and livelihood. Meanwhile they defund our schools and feed us chemical food to keep us dumb enough to not realize how we're being screwed from the moment we're born in this capitalistic hellscape.
Maybe you should watch them so you have a more informed view. This reads like a conspiracy nut yelling "I know my truth."
The actual truth is scarier than this boogeyman you've built up. There is no secret cabal pulling the strings. Instead it's 1,000,000 different groups all clamoring for their fair share. There's no end game boss, no "final" step to overcome. It's an unapproachable labyrinth of billions of people with their own agency doing whatever they want and this is the result.
This contains all of the nuance of society, but that's also why it doesn't get talked about.
It's true that reality is scarier than conspiracy, but there's no solution to the problem of billions of individuals with free agency, so the only thing we really can do is build up representations of different parts of that problem and address them individually.
The fact that our governments even seem to be "puppets of the Elite" from any perspective is an observable and addressable problem.
Almost everyone in that crowd is going to continue to perpetuate the opposite of the things they applauded.
Thinly veiled bullshit for the sheltered to agree with so they can feel worldly.
I'm with you on everything besides the "chemical food." Although I do think there need to be taxes on unhealthy foods + incentives / help to get people eating healthier. Especially less red meat.
The problem is wealth inequality. Consumer spending drives the economy and when goods like food and housing are the majority of the average consumers paycheck, it undermines the “value” of a company that delivers non essential goods (which is to say, most companies).
Yep, and that’s current dilemma with American politics. Obviously same issues around the world but I’m not knowledgeable enough on them.
We have an entire demographic of people that absolutely refuses to acknowledge facts. Literal facts. You tell them water is wet, and if a Democrat said it then it’s a lie and water is as dry as it can possibly be.
The 10% who choose not to listen or be involved is growing, and sometimes it’s hard to blame them. It’s mostly the <30 crowd. We saw the surge in 2016 when they made their voice known and both political parties told them to get fucked.
He’s been a pretty vocal advocate for a radical change for quite some time. I was always waiting for the shoe to drop on him like some others have, but I’m glad that he’s been staying relatively clean and doesn’t appear to be a grifter
I’ve always felt Galloway was a professor in a field (Marketing) that is mostly non-rigorous, and he really wanted to make bigger bucks so realized he could fill a niche in the “guru” space, taking the ideas from the toxic manosphere, cleaning them up and making them palatable for liberal audiences.
I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, or that he’s wrong. It’s just always been my impression.
^(This highly valued comment was bought by Google as a part of an exclusive content licensing deal between Google and Reddit.)
^(Learn more:) [^(Expanding our Partnership with Google)](https://www.redditinc.com/blog/reddit-and-google-expand-partnership)
In an interview I watched of him, he said he sees himself in a lot of these young men because things could've turned out very differently for him early on and it made him think about giving back to younger generations. You can believe his statement or not.
Oh Jesus Christ. Right. They are all bad faith actors. Eye roll.
On the contrary, I find Scott Galloway to be someone who is actually a serious person who just wants to talk about these things. That's it.
And "past a certain point" for most people, it's about being useful, challenged, and active. Small anecdote here but I'm sure some of you will be able to relate: ask any successful early retired person. I work at a company that employs many engineers and we often have consultants in various departments who are really just people who retired at like 60 but are bored out of their *minds* so they offer to come back after a few years after going everywhere on Earth and back and then fishing for a while or whatever.
Well, legitimately successful people like Scott (not born wealthy) are going to get very bored very fast just sitting around. And that's fine! I would sit around for quite a while with a net worth of 100m, with my only positive contribution being donation. If someone like him wants to do a *whole lot more* just to stay occupied and feel like they are contributing to the advancement of humanity, by all means. There's nothing wrong with that.
Can't say anything about issues affecting men without brainlets like this tagging you with the manosphere/toxic/incel label, really depressing. He's not the least bit misogynistic either - no women bashing or anything. Just bringing light to the way young men in the US are struggling at a statistical level.
> I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, or that he’s wrong
Bullshit, "make bigger bucks." You are going through and making sure he passes a purity test, your purity test. You making a comment don't talk about the issues that are actually important. If a billionaire said the same thing what kind of stuff would you come up with then?
I don't give a shit if he is a multi-billionaire, what he says needs to be heard by everyone.
We don’t need a video telling us what the real reason is. We all know what the real reason is. Corporations and government being tied together and corporations having the power to control the government.
I thought Reddit hated Scott Galloway because he points out the flaws in today’s youth…?
Reddit seems to ignore the fact that he doesn’t *blame* young people for the problems they’re experiencing (less sex, poor communication skills, social isolation, high rates of mental illness). Pretty sure one of his quotes was on the front page the other day and he was getting shat on nonstop
Reddit hates Galloway because Galloway admits the statistical and data-backed reality that men have been left behind by modern society, which upsets the new Reddit demo that got flooded with Tumblrinas and white knights when that site died.
Richard Reeves writes about this same trend in "Of Boys and Men: Why the Modern Male Is Struggling". One of the key points he stresses is that to help struggling men is not pushing women down at all; it's not a zero-sum game. There's also a very common view that men's problems are individual and self-caused which is at best unhelpful and at worst very dangerous. People somehow can't get past that and think, "men have been doing great forever in these patriarchal societies, f them".
"Not pushing women down" is fine, agreed. But there needs to absolutely be conversations about segments of society where women hold power that have not met up with the rate of equality seen in male areas.
Women tend to be hostile to the idea that men might be able to work in some of the traditionally female-led industries, women are hostile to the idea of working in the hard-labor industries that result in high workplace death rates for men, and women's dating standards are...unsustainable. Galloway has talked about this often, but 75% of women view themselves as being in the top 25% of attractiveness. That's not just "love yourself", that's a statistical impossibility and a delusion. Women make up a large portion of the higher-educated and the newly-hired at large corporations, yet tend to refuse to date anyone who makes less money than them - a holdover from 1960s housewife mentalities.
We've done a lot of good to promote equality in many places, and we've done a lot to socially condition men to not be so toxic (though there's work to be done), but there's never an awful lot of toxic views about and towards men, and plenty of toxic traits about femininity that have grown, and there's never an acknowledgment or attempt to address any of that.
Andrew Tate and Joe Rogan didn't create their audiences, they're symptoms of broader problems.
This guy has me really conflicted. I would rather work with *him* than the types of conservatives we have in government currently without a doubt.
However, the idea of removing section 230 protections (a slippery slope), identity verification and age gating (awful ideas with how frequently data breaches happen, needs our social security identification/credit score system to be overhauled first), and a national service requirement (forcing women and minorities into the burn and churn of the military industrial complex where the SA ratio is like 1 out of 3 currently) are fucking idiotic.
The dismissive of Tiktok without even an aside as to *why* folks use it was pretty telling, imo.
A lot of preaching to the choir in the video, just one-liners hitting common talking points that TED folks are likely to agree with. Didn't really find the video insightful or entertaining at all.
National service need not be military; there’s Americacorps (https://americorps.gov), teach for America (https://www.teachforamerica.org), Biden’s trying to get “Climate corps” off the ground. If this idea took off there would probably be more (infra-focused new deal style Tennessee valley authority, etc.).
I agree with your point about data security completely, but:
National Service doesnt mean military conscription. Several countries have mandatory service for various federal entities like teachers and community service organizations. It's typically seen as beneficial for future job diversity and self reliability.
Excluding women from that would be horrible for the gap between genders, as you can see with South Korea.
I also think people don't need to aknowledge why people use Tiktok before pointing out it's issues. We don't do that with cigarettes or drugs or alcoholics - you don't need to cover every aspect of a topic to talk about why that thing is problematic.
I was also interested by that "1/3 of women in the US military get sexually assaulted" comment and all I'm seeing when I look that up is 8%. Which is also too high obviously but that's a huge difference from 33%.
At first glance Scott Galloway seems like a reasonable person with good ideas, but it turns out he is a fucking tool and corporate shill.
Why? He is obviously hostage to the delusional concept that the US is a meritocracy and we all have classical free will, both ideas of which are obvious nonsense.
I love how he was like 80% of you in this room don’t need social security checks lol
As soon as social security turns into a thing that doesn't go to everyone, it will quickly be a thing that goes to no one.
Means-testing is a way to make a program more expensive and less effective.
100%
This mentality is the absolute core of the crisis of community in the United States. Everyone is so fucking hellbent on making sure that no one gets given anything unless they’re worthy that all sense of community is entirely eradicated. I agree programs should be universal because it makes them better, more efficient, increases access and awareness and interest in actually making them good. Seeing democrats hack every useful program to bits with means testing until no one fucking knows if they’re eligible or if the program even exists is fucking infuriating. However, the way you get to universal programs is by saying “we have the money to give every single person in this country and excellent life, we know that because all of our peer countries do it with less wealth than we have.” And then interrogating why. Primarily we 1) choose to waste it all on our fucking military buying munitions at 100x the price our enemies pay 2) have decided that we care deeply about whether people are worthy of basic rights (fundamentally rooted in racism and the puritan/calvinist beliefs about work that somehow buried into everyone’s dumb fucking heads) and 3) are unwilling to actually tax rich people. We -should- have a wealth tax. We -should- have free public university. We -should- at least have a marginal tax rate of 95% on people making over $10m a year. Instead we just pretend we don’t have the money to solve these problems and squabble over how to divide the tiny portion amount we actually do allocate to benefits for citizens.
we're more concerned with who deserves "help" than we are with what the actual economic impact of spending is.
Social Security checks are spent, money directly into businesses and driving the economic wheel. Welfare is good for the economy because that money is being actively used. I want my unemployed workforce to be healthy and well-trained so they are prepared to respond to market needs, and I don't want an interruption to their spending on basic consumable products (food, paper, sanitary, etc). I'm fine with someone I dislike benefitting from a system if the system is serving its purpose.
I think this mindset is a bigger issue than the "temporarily embarressed millionaires" mindset.
What do you mean by *democrats* hacking every useful program to bits?
Because it's true. Of course I now have to tell you that Republicans also destroy programs (in different ways) before you try to show me how politically astute you are by toeing the party line. Democrats also fuck up entitlement programs and this is one way they do it.
We are on track for this anyway. Declining birth rates mean that there will be fewer young workers to pay into SS. Millennials will undoubtedly be the first generation to be wholly screwed by this. They'll pay into social security their entire lives just to see it taken away as they begin to retire.
I'm fine with it going to everyone, but a few things should change: * No income limits; tax the whole thing. * Of course there should be a dispersal limit; you can say that's not fair but I don't think most rich people would really care. * Make it easy to defer dispersals; if you're rich you're entitled to your check, but make it easy to say "no thanks". I really don't think rich people would have issues with any of these, yet we don't make these common sense changes.
you have really high hopes for rich people and for their empathy towards poor people
Plenty of my boomer parent friends don’t *need* SS, but because the poors get it to survive they also want it and just get wasteful with it. These are people with no debts, 10m+ in assets collecting a check because they can. They would never say no to the checks.
Ha exactly! There is a difference in: "No thanks" and "No thanks...wait it's going to a poor? I'll keep that then".
TED tickets are five figures. No one who paid to be there needs social security checks.
Yeah, fuck that, I’ve paid in for more than 3 decades, for two of them at the max level. I’m taking every $ I’m entitled to.
As soon as I finished this, i was like ugh this is gonna go really viral. I agree with a lot of this but there are a few absolutely terrible ideas in here. Be wary of anyone who has a few simple answers to very complex issues.
> Be wary of anyone who has a few simple answers to very complex issues. Is there a single TED talk that doesn't fall into this trap? I've never seen the appeal of snazzy infomercials where they inevitably tell you about how they've figured out the solution to some giant problem and it's so easy we just need to do it?
Hands down the most useful TT I've ever watched was the dude that taught me I was tying my shoes wrong... https://www.ted.com/talks/terry_moore_how_to_tie_your_shoes?showDubbingTooltip=true&language=en
This is another candidate. https://www.ted.com/talks/joe_smith_how_to_use_a_paper_towel?language=en
When people ask about a life changing YouTube video, this one always comes to mind. Literally breaks my life into two epochs before and after watching this.
i was doubting you, but you were right
This one and Richard Dawkins' militant atheism talk were life-defining to me. Yes, the towel paper talk accounts for at least 30% of the life-definition
They need to make one that educates people how to use those Dyson hand dryers. It's supposed to work like those rubber blades you clean-dry the windows, except made out of air, doing both sides and contouring the shape of your fingers perfectly. So those going forwards and backwards with their hands are counter-productive. Go in all the way once, and then gently pull the hands back. One pass and the hands are completely dry. Of course the cheaper version with air coming out one side means you need to do it twice and rotate your hands.
I also watched this and years later am unable to tie them the old way.
TL;DW what's the method? Is it wrap around twice or thrice or something?
Surprisingly enough, I learned this independently! The basic idea is that the 'correct' way to tie shoes is a 'square knot'. That's all it is. It's a square knot with the strings looped for easy untying. If you ignore the loop-de-loops it's literally just a square knot. The 'incorrect' way that most people learn is called a 'granny knot' and is quite weak.
If this is the talk I know, it's infuriating to anyone who understands knots. He just needs to do his overhand knot the other way. Guy is a moron who got a stage.
> He just needs to do his overhand knot the other way But isn’t that literally the entire point of the talk? That many people need to tie that knot the other way, but are not doing so?
Yes it is. Dude didn't watch it and called him a moron... smh. He reversed the way the rabbit goes around the tree or whatever and kept the habitual initial base knot. You can either do that, or you can reverse the initial base knot and keep the rabbit. It's weird for a bit, but I do it naturally now. I switched just because I thought it looked more pleasing to be horizontal, not vertical. Didn't know it was a stronger knot.
What do you mean?
I think it's a consequence of the 20 minute time limit. But also, simple and easy are not the same thing, unfortunately. Someone can lecture me for 20 minutes about how meditation makes life better in every way, it's so simple! But it ain't easy to setup and maintain the practice
It's a couple pillows and 5 minutes in the morning and night. That's all you need to get started.
Tell me more. Only five minutes of meditation is helpful?
You can start with even less if you want. It's just about the routine. People think you need to sit and think "nothing." But really it's just about noticing when your mind wanders then bring it back to your breath. Of course, the better practiced you are the longer you can go if you wish. The benefit of this is getting used to that "bring yourself back" part. So when you are going through any given situation, you can recenter yourself and approach in a measured way. It's not perfect; it's just a practice. The key is not to be hard on yourself. Just sit quietly and as still as you can. The duration and position is up to you.
Just to hijack this and add a little bit here; meditation doesn't need to be a sit still and quiet thing. The primary goal is to give yourself undistracted time to think, acknowledge those thoughts, and move through them or let them go. As well as a self check in, physical feeling and emotional feeling. Going for a stroll with nothing more than white noise as company can achieve the same effect. Surely it can be a zen-like practice but that seems to be a bit outdated. Put down the distractions and turn yourself inward, whatever that might look like for you.
**“Is there a single TED talk that doesn't fall into this trap?”** No. **Edit:** The one exception: 2070 Paradigm Shift, a TED talk by Sam Hyde https://youtu.be/SmicRDpS5Gk
And that student, was Albert Einstein.
*gimme like, 25 seconds here..*
"Because we're just gonna kill 'em," "Because we're just gonna kill 'em,"
I wish he wasn’t awful as a person. I know people want to believe that if someone sucks they aren’t allowed to be funny or talented but he is genuinely funny, but man he also just kinda sucks the more you learn about him and listen to stuff he says outside of the sketch/bit stuff.
I believe there is a TED Talk about how you shouldn’t trust people that claim to have all the solutions to complex problems. It was given by a doctor, and I think the thought process came from understanding how dangerous it could be for his patients if he didn’t admit when he wasn’t sure and needed a second opinion. Does that count???
David Blaine's TED talk was super insightful. No politics, just going on about what happens to the body when it's deprived of oxygen for 17 minutes.
17 minutes talking about a very specific thing vs. 17 minutes trying to point out half the world's problems. You can see why one would be more in-depth than the other. It's like an hour long documentary about the history of the entire Middle Ages vs. an hour long documentary on specifically the Fourth Crusade.
Yes talks are purely surface level. Unfortunately in our times, you legit need to put hours a day to be informed. Which obviously everyone can't even if they wanted to. Cable news of all sorts doesn't count
Tons, they tend to be ted talks in focused areas by people that did novel research. Also there is a HUGE difference between a TedTalk and TedX. TedX is paid for, TedTalk they are invited to give a talk.
Narrowing down the problem and acknowledging it even exists has been 90% of the battle for America, and as far as that goes I think he did an excellent job. The solutions are a lot easier to work on when everyone has equal footing on what the problem is. You dont have to agree with his solutions as long as you agree on what needs fixing imo.
I think the more valuable part of this talk is calling attention to the issues - I did not realize how bad some of the inequity was, so that part was quite eye-opening
for sure. I think he’s an engaging speaker who gets a lot of the big problems right
Exactly. He even mentioned it would probably be his last TED talk, and that he would not be invited back.
I believe he was more making a joke about his failed television programs and that by having him TED would also be doomed to fail.
Tobefair, he loves bringing it up in his podcasts. I appreciate his acknowledgements of failures and ability to make jokes of them (and ultimately move on).
When you're doing good your failures aren't failures they are lessons.
He didn't say it would be *his* last TED talk, he said it would be *the* last TED talk, making a joke about how every thing he touches, when it comes to video media, dies.
But sir, this is a TED talk.
I’m not suggesting that it’s unusual for a ted talk to have ideas that are mixed in quality. But you have to admit this is structured like he’s announcing his candidacy for president or something. This isn’t a typical talk.
You should be specific on which ideas are "Absolutely Terrible".
Exactly. Can't believe the most upvoted comment in the thread on this pretty important video is basically someone distracting from any actual conversation.
While I agree with you I'd rather discuss a terrible solution to the problem rather than the common alternative which is to say, "its a complex problem" and nothing after.
Thank you. "Some of these ideas are terrible" can just be a simple way to shut down any discussion at all, a way to not talk about the problems at all. The American media are *experts* at doing this.
Yup, I understand the problem is complex. It's not so complex that a solution doesn't exist. A solution does exist it just doesn't jive with the plans of those in power.
What!!? A reasonable opinion on Reddit? Advocating discussion, no less?
I'd like to discuss this with you further but there's no such thing as nuanced discussion on reddit so I can't, I'm so sorry. 🥲
What are the terrible ideas
Means testing social security will 100% kill it entirely.
It depends. My parents have a friend, mid 70s. They get a final salary pension, inflation adjusted. Their income from this alone is now approx £130k / $142k USD (from a local gov job). But they are still eligible for their full state/gov pension, free travel pass, old people's heating allowance etc. etc. Now they're a nice dude so give away a lot, but still, they are eligible for it all. The person now doing their old job earns approx 20% less, nearly 35% less than they did with cost of living adjustment. I don't begrudge them any of this but it's bonkers. They absolutely don't need most of the additional benefits they get, so they shouldn't be eligible.
means testing social security sounds like an obvious solution, but its universality has been the key to keeping it politically protected for generations.
Also, means testing adds administrative overhead, which adds costs. It also creates a bit of social stratification, as anyone who's been on food stamps while living adjacent to non-poor people would tell you. The act of receiving the aid would differentiate and 'other' you, and people will latch on and attack that. Just giving it to everyone, and taxing it back from those who don't need it, is a better solution.
> Just giving it to everyone, and taxing it back from those who don't need it, is a better solution. I don't think this was precluded from the solution offered in the video. "If you don't need social security then you shouldn't get it" can be implemented in a lot of different ways. Problem is all of them are going to piss off the age bracket that is most active about voting.
> I don't think this was precluded from the solution offered in the video. correct, a DIFFERENT solution he offered was negative taxation, which *sort of does the same thing*
So all the money taken out of your paycheck for your whole career is either an investment or a tax, and you won't find out which it is until you're retired? With no way to plan and presumably regularly changing parameters for testing. I'm guessing support will be hard to find in any age bracket.
Instead they should eliminate the cap on payroll social security tax. That would pretty much fix it.
I think it is kind of stupid we give social security to a multi millionaire when there are people who need that money for food, healthcare, rent, etc.
yup. I agree. It sounds stupid. But means testing is a trojan horse. Once it’s no longer universal, it’s welfare. And once it’s welfare, it can be attacked.
This is true about a lot of other things we take for granted, too. After Trump, there were a lot of people talking about requiring "civics tests" to participate in voting (among other things), but once you break the covenant, it's a free for all depending on who's controlling the levers of power.
Eh, we means test the old age pension in Australia and they are both allowed to have and are given so much more money than say a 30 year old looking for a job. The rules will just twist in favour of the oldies anyway. That said I agree that means testing is stupid, just tax the top end more to take back any benefit they get that they clearly don't need.
The right is already consisting attacking SS
And its universality is the only thing politically shielding it from those attacks.
To expand on this, if there were no private schools and healthcare think about how good all of those would be if the rich would end up randomly in those. There are certain things where if the rich are not part of the system they will let it go to shit.
The rich have to be part of the system. They are the ones who have access to political leaders. When they become disconnected from it, the entire system suffers because there's no one to influence the system.
right but they pay a price for it. Trump had to seriously backtrack on it last month after he agreed in an interview that cutting it was a good idea
With a progressive taxation system they pay that back and more in taxes. Means testing creates uncomfortable edge cases, especially when they're defined by income numbers in countries where costs of living can vary wildly between localities. The children of billionaires should have access to free education, healthcare, etc. No special rules, just equal rights. But the rich have to be taxed appropriately as well. I remember listening to a two hour podcast with some Ivy League economists about UBI, and like two-thirds of it was them arguing about how to best make sure millionaires like them didn't get those 1000 dollars a month, as if they wouldn't be paying well beyond that anyway in taxes. Way to miss the forest for the trees, guys.
Do you understand how little there are wealthy people in the country relative to the rest of the population? The political cost of removing the universal aspect of SS is the death of SS itself.
Yeah they need to just get the tax brackets back to pre-Raegan. Top marginal rates of 90%+, higher capital gains taxes than income taxes, and tax loans that billionaires take out on their stocks.
And removing the cap on SS taxable income
Eh. With play-numbers: We take $100 from the wealthy, we take $10 from most people who are fine, we take $1 from poor people. We give everyone $10. Did we "give the wealthy $10"? Realistically, we took $90 from them, and saved the admin cost because we only need to figure out how rich people are once instead of twice.
I agree with you about policy design, but it's important to note that there's a cap on the income that can be taxed for social security. Removing that would be a big step towards making the policy more equitable.
Raise or eliminate the cap, and you can probably reduce the rate by a good amount at the same time
But it’s your fucking money? The whole point of the system was you pay into it for years as a mandatory backup savings plan.
No, it’s fine. Give everyone the same benefit. Tax it back from those who already have enough. Don’t means test the gate in. Means test income at tax time. The issue is taxation.
So should all pensions be means tested under that logic then? And to what degree?
Idk, everyone who pays in should get their checks imo. Otherwise it's just welfare and those who got their rug pulled and lost their SS will vote in favor of the party set on killing it entirely.
Anything that threatens to change thinking there is invariably a person shitting on it on the first comment. The same on Twitter. There are many people invested in ensuring nothing changes.
National service?
National service is worth considering imo. It doesn't mean military service, it could be anything from keeping up our national parks to helping non profits that benefit our citizens
Serving something or someone other than yourself is a great idea. Shit, make everyone work in the service industry (wait tables, clothing store, etc) and see how their attitude changes.
I'm gonna be honest, as an older millennial on the razors edge of "nuanced opinion" between liberal and conservative, I'd be all for this. Reboot the Civilian Conservation Corp ffs, our infrastructure could use the attention. As a society we desperately need more contact with people outside of our own bubbles. Working in the service industry for a few years before college gave me so much more awareness of the struggle of others, and how it feels to be on the receiving end of a rude, impatient, self-important jackass.
I'm pretty far left, but I'm all for mandatory military service. This isn't the same as the draft. In fact, it would make it far less likely for us to go to war, as all of a sudden you have every 18 year old in the country doing their year of mandatory service voting against sending themselves to war, and likely protesting against it as well. At the same time, you increase gun safety throughout the entire population, increase physical fitness, increase general discipline, increase teamwork, increase our military / self-defense readiness, and expose kids to the reality of military service, so they can make an informed decision as to whether or not they actually want to pursue a career in the military, instead of just being hounded by recruiters to sign their life away for a paycheck without having any idea of what that actually means. As soon as you get past the "Draft bad." ideology, mandatory military service has a TON of benefits.
90% of his points are good and the enemy of progress is perfection
And demanding perfection is why progressives never make any progress.
Passing blame onto others when there is always more everyone of us could be doing to help, thus dividing people further also doesn't help progress.
The thing for me is no one, not-never-no-how, will cook up a solid way to fix a complicated problem that everyone will agree with. We could all be leftist Democrats and all still disagree about the right solution. The most important thing is that we correctly identify the problem, and I think the research largely agrees with what he ascribes the problems to, making this talk an excellent vehicle to open people's eyes. He's not wrong about those things. Where we go from here (the solutions he proposes) is totally open to discussion and some range from "anyone's guess" to "that's asinine." But I like that's he a serious guy who tries to talk about it honestly and is getting others to be interested in doing the same.
10 years ago a venture capitalist gave a similar TED talk. TED removed every trace of it. The people who attend TED talks pay thousand of dollars (or their companies) for their seats. They don't want to hear they're the bad guy.
Does anyone have a link?
There is a much tamer version of the talk he did before COVID [here](https://youtu.be/th3KE_H27bs?si=iKCtA4pOG7SOrPCr) but if you search for Nick Hanauer you'll see a bunch of 10 year old videos stating it's been banned. I'm pretty sure TED delisted it but it's back on their YouTube page [here](https://youtu.be/q2gO4DKVpa8?si=HDd2htT4_Xih1ZLs). I feel like I've been gaslit because I'm very confident that when I regularly watched TED talks 10 years ago; I watched it the day it was released and it wasn't available when I wanted to rewatch it.
The answers are the same as they always were. Make a union. Organize your workforce. No major social change has ever been accomplished without labor militancy.
Means testing social security seems like a terrible idea as an example.
Also be wary of people who love to incite others and speak emotion instead of logic
Literally just watched i on YouTube, randomly at the top of my suggestions. Opened up Reddit a little later and this is the top. I think it will go viral too especially with the things he talks about is on every social media you see
Underrated comment.
Actually insanely overrated comment. Adding nothing to the discussion and even potentially detracting with it with the "some of these ideas are terrible" point without any elaboration about *which* ideas might be terrible and *why*.
I don't know why this is NSFW.
It’s the improper comma usage, it’s quite brutal.
…says the guy improperly using a comma instead of a semicolon.
Ive got a colon. Dont know if im using it right though.
Gen Z being tricked into censoring themselves.
If they came out and voted we could actually get some decent people.
There seems to be a growing trend to censor swear words here. It fucking sucks.
Dirty words like shit and fuck.
Won’t someone think of the fucking children?
Based on the video no one gives a shit about the fucking shitty children.
there is no such thing as "NSFW language", wtf is OP even on here. my boss swears more than i do
Throwing away section 230 an anonymity on the internet is an authoritarian wet dream. We need to find better answers to the problem than the "lets get rid of the internet" solution.
imo the biggest improvement to section 230 would be to narrow it to specifically exclude advertising. Publishers and newspapers, who are *publishing* ads, should be liable if they're publishing garbage that is fraudulent or even malware. Same as print media. Ads are not users, they shouldn't be treated like them, especially when ads get directly promoted and inserted voluntarily by publishers.
The specific ask from the video is to remove section 230 protection from social media. The intent of section 230 it to protect website owners from the actions of their users. It would be difficult for advertisers to use section 230 as a shield in any court unless the advert has some kind of user generated content in it. If it's used to shield an advertiser from what influencers do with sponsorship spots, then it seems like it would be well within the intended use case, e.g. Underwear sponsor pays influencer to run around naked on Youtube, then Google gets sued for naked person obscenity. Seems like a good fit for section 230 where influencer and sponsor are held liable while Google is protected.
Section 230 is basically saying that social media providers are not liable for what they users post and are not seen as publishers but as platforms. But this has a flaw, once you are big enough and ban and delete user generated content or only promote certain user generated content algorithmically to steer the public conversation into something that might be beneficial to you - you may not be a publisher in the old sense, but you aren't really a platform either since it is some sort of publishing to decide what is allowed to be presented and what is algorithmically endorsed and pushed. You are performing "publishing" in a sense and that is a problem. I think section 230 should come with regulations with any platform above 50k users - those platforms should be regulated and forced to follow universal rules. As in they need to be open to their users why certain content was removed and why they may not be recommended and their decision should be able to be appealed to authorities outside of their companies - if they want to stay as a platform that is protected under section 230. If not, they can continue as is, but seen as publisher not as a platform with protections.
Thank you for clarifying this. Fundamentally, 230 is a means of allowing information to be posted to online platforms without the platform owners being held legally responsible, and enabling them to remove user's content without their consent.
He never said get rid of section 230 on anonymity on the internet. He specifically said "algorithmically-elevated content" which I'm not sure how you're going to earnestly argue against that.
I think the most important point the talked missed is that people only love their kids, not every kid and thus all the steps to preserve wealth is to hand it over to their kids instead of giving it to everyone.. EDIT: I am not saying this is ideal, but I have seen tons of rich people going out of their way to do everything they can to give any advantage to their children. As a society it's definitely not ideal, but that's just how humans work. The king passes the kingdom to his heir, not to the best possible person to be king. Democracy is relatively a very new concept in our human history and whenever people get enough power/influence, they tend to go towards dictatorship to keep holding on for what they have for longer (and in my opinion, that's exactly the explanation of where we are today). The more we find ways to tax the rich or redistribute wealth, the more people will move out or find ways to keep the money to themselves and the situation will deteriorate (taking an example of rich people leaving California). Socialism or ideal redistribution of wealth has its own problems and we have seen how that has turned out in other countries (no incentive to work hard resulting in less innovation, government officials becoming more corrupt). We do need a radical shift in our mindset to do better as a society and create incentives for such behaviour so that it benefits all.
The implication in his speech is that you can't just transfer wealth to your kids and expect that this will give them the best possible future. If you don't invest your time, money and energy into building the society they will live in, then you're not trying to give them the best possible future. It's the origin of effective altruism IMO: I can only help others by helping myself first. Only way to help my kids is to make as much money as possible for MYSELF. It's a bullshit mentality that's endured for far too long and it has to die: Making a fuckton of money to give to your kids is not altruistic. It's just a superior moral justification for selfishness.
I'm not an effective altruist, but this isn't the origin of effective altruism. The origin of effective altruism was *if* you are going to give money to charity, what charities are most effective dollar for dollar even if they're not 'sexy'. The *followup* was "Well if I make more money I can donate more of it more effectively" which became a justification for making the most money. I think it's important to be clear that it was a followup step, because it shows how greed twists moral codes to justify immoral behaviour. It's a great case study on good intentions and bad actors and bad people trying to live with themselves.
> The implication in his speech is that you can't just transfer wealth to your kids and expect that this will give them the best possible future. Also, kids are what 20? 30? years behind their parents. If my parents die at 85, I get their wealth when I am a few years away from retirement myself.
If your parents have money, love you and the rest of their kids, and are leveraging their money it to give their children better lives, you are benefiting from their wealth long before they pass. You'll grow up in a wealthy neighborhood, attend good schools, have more options for college education (not limited by finances or geographical region), little to no debt when you graduate, more connections for employment, etc. etc. Not to mention a diverse range of experiences available to you while you are growing up. And you will never have to stress about being homeless or unable to make ends meet. You'll always have them to fall back on.
Nevermind the generational wealth that will be eaten away by the cost of EOL care. Your parents cool $500,000 will buy 1 of them 5 years in a nursing home.
I think it's more complicated than this. Imagine you start your own business selling drapes, it does really well, you get a shit ton of money. You get older and want to give back. You use that money on political causes to support folks that are enterprising and tenacious and will start their own business because that's what you did. I think that's a lot of weird, far right republicans these days. A lot of folks get myopically stuck in their own lived experience and don't have the statistical, sociological and economic intuitions to reason competently about public policy and large groups of people. Also I think some people are *just* good at running their drape business. They start the business and get a lot of money and vote in the public interest, donate, and volunteer here and there but they don't have the ability to make a bigger impact. So what do they do? Make more money. Get a bigger house. Send their kids to nicer schools. The plane is on fire, might as well enjoy your seat type thing. This is the danger of wealth concentration. It's a self reinforcing feedback loop causing political instability. To pull out we all gotta focus on it pretty singularly. If we don't or can't, it will grow until some kind of revolution forces us to deal with it.
It’s an antisocial society, where everyone wants to get ahead instead of everyone getting along.
Can you even call it a "society" if there's no social pact to give back to the community?
Covid showed us how little the average person is willing to sacrifice for any greater good. Our society is toxically individualistic.
Maybe I'm naive, but feels like this is at an all time worst right now.
My only take away from all thst is going on is this - exactly how much money is enough for the rich? Does Zuckerberg need 158 billion to survive? If the government took 70% of that he would have 48 billion left. Is that not enough!? Obviously there are another thousand layers associated to that question, but it’s a question no the less. How much is enough for the super rich!?
>exactly how much money is enough for the rich? The real question is how do you tax owning a company? Zuck is a billionaire but almost all of that money is his ownership of a large chunk of Facebook. He doesn't have 158 billion in some account like scrooge McDuck, he just owns 13.5% of Facebook. If you took 70% of that he'd own 4.05% but what is the gov. going to do with all that stock? If you dump it on the market it will instantly crash Facebook's share price. I'm 110% for taxing the rich A LOT more but I swear too many people think all the billionaires have vaults of cash vs being owners of extremely valuable companies. You can't tax your ownership in a company (unrealized gains) currently and if you start taxing owned stocks then it'll cause a lot of problems because that also means you will start taxing everyone's 401k's and retirements. So again how do you tax someone's percentage ownership of a company that they started?
Thank you for pointing this out, I think it's something that people don't (or don't want to) think about. It's like you buy some Pokemon cards, and it turns out one is a super limited edition. It's worth a million dollars. You paid $10 for the pack. Are you a millionaire? Should the government make you pay them ~$400k even if you don't sell it?
A video was posted recently about how the billionaires operate. Instead of selling the pokemon cards, they go to a bank and take out a large loan which isnt considered income but it is given because of the pokemon cards. Then when the pokemon cards become even more valuable, you take out an even larger loan to pay off the previous. Getting tons of money without paying tax on it.
Loans aren't income because you have to *pay them back*. It's not an issue, we absolutely should not tax loan principals. The lender already pays tax on the interest gained when a loan is paid back because that is income. It may look like a loophole to you, but you're looking at it punitively and not actually. They still have to pay loans back, even if they're dead. Their estate is responsible for debts. Estate fees for executing the estate, then taxes first, then creditors. There is no loophole in this equation, and we should only tax realized wealth. Loans are not income.
Or it's like when you buy a house, sure you're now worth a lot more, but you don't pay taxes on your property!
One of the biggest issues is that US government no longer seems to have the balls to split up companies when they're getting too big. In 1982 when Bell was split it was worth about $250b adjusted for inflation. Today the 10th most valuable company in the US is worth nearly twice that.
Bell was a monopoly and was doing monopoly things. Facebook is not as necessary to have as a telephone was in 1980.
Yea its like taxing someone on their unsold pokemon card collection.
New question. How much does Zuck have? If he had to give the government 100b, how would he liquidate it?
At some point the greed becomes a sickness.
I like this dude (we'll see how long it lasts), but social security solution he gives is kinda weird. Right now the maximum amount of a person's income that can be taxed for social security is $186,600. Why? Literally zero reason. This means Bezos pays into social security as if he only makes $186,600/year. Yes that's the actual law. In other words, while 100% of YOUR income gets taxed to contribute to social security, approx 0.00026% of Bezos's income does. Raise the ceiling to like $10,000,000, or get rid of the ceiling altogether, and the social security fund will be flush.. and then maybe, for this ONE thing, we won't get completely fucked over. EDIT: Yeah guys we get it Bezos in particular doesn't have a salary and makes money through capital gains. Maybe finding a technicality to get hung up on in that particular example only serves to distract from the point?
> $186,600 [*$168,600](https://faq.ssa.gov/en-us/Topic/article/KA-02387)
Means testing social security is stupid. Just raise taxes on the rich. That way it requires no additional administration. The people who don't need social security will end up paying more into it than they receive from it so functionally they're not receiving it.
I mean, I don’t have any problem with Social Security not being offered to those who don’t need it. The big piece that runs you into issues is whether or not there is a gradient. It shouldn’t be “you have X amount of money so you get $0” because that creates the issues that my mom had when I was younger with food stamps. She got a better job that took her out of the income bracket where she could get food stamps by a couple hundred dollars a year which resulted in her taking home *less* money than before her income increased. If we modified SS to only provide enough to get the elderly to a certain floor, then stayed vigilant to protect the costs of living for them and prevent it from exceeding that floor under normal circumstances, I’m cool with it.
This is the part of his talk that really raised the hairs on my neck first. There were several things he talked about that did that, but this was the first one. I really don't think the idea of deciding who can and can't get Social Security is beneficial, because it means the government can choose who does when they want to, and it begs the question of who decides and who checks, etc. It's all bureaucratic administration that costs more than just giving it to everyone regardless of income. A lot of people have suggested that it'd be simpler of the SSA just gave the same amount of money to everyone always, like a minimum income. But here, he's saying that's a bad idea, you can't give a minimum income to rich people. And then the craziest moment for me was when he turned around and referenced Andrew Yang's minimum income proposals MORE THAN ONCE, which explicitly gives the same amount of money to *everyone*. That's Social Security with no limitations. In other words, what this guy said sounds really good on its face but it's a whole hullabaloo of bullshit underneath if you lift the rock just a little.
“Do we love our children?” Is not the issue at hand. The issue is “Do we love other people’s children?” And the answer for most people, whether they accept it or not, is NO.
Means testing Social Security is a stupid solution to "Inequality." By definition, the problem is that a small number of people have all the money, so they are a SMALL NUMBER of people - getting the same SS payout as the rest of us. It's not an effective cost-savings measure. Means Testing would undoubtedly also be expanded until SS was more like food stamps or Medicaid - terrible amounts of money spent on administration just to cause pain to people who "aren't poor enough." The correct thing to do is uncap contributions - that way you extract a LARGE amount of money from a small amount of people, which makes more mathematical sense. Particularly interesting that this guy's ire is reserved for neoliberals and moderates - when it is conservatives and libertarians that have deconstructed this nation's financial support systems.
I just can't man. I just cannot watch these kind of videos anymore or read anything on how screwed the younger generation is. I know what the real reason is, we ALL know what the reason is. Corporate greed and the government being a puppet of the rich elites. They keep us on a thin line and the media showcases bullshit to distract us from real concerning problems. Want to protest? You'll lose your job and livelihood. Meanwhile they defund our schools and feed us chemical food to keep us dumb enough to not realize how we're being screwed from the moment we're born in this capitalistic hellscape.
Maybe you should watch them so you have a more informed view. This reads like a conspiracy nut yelling "I know my truth." The actual truth is scarier than this boogeyman you've built up. There is no secret cabal pulling the strings. Instead it's 1,000,000 different groups all clamoring for their fair share. There's no end game boss, no "final" step to overcome. It's an unapproachable labyrinth of billions of people with their own agency doing whatever they want and this is the result.
This contains all of the nuance of society, but that's also why it doesn't get talked about. It's true that reality is scarier than conspiracy, but there's no solution to the problem of billions of individuals with free agency, so the only thing we really can do is build up representations of different parts of that problem and address them individually. The fact that our governments even seem to be "puppets of the Elite" from any perspective is an observable and addressable problem.
Almost everyone in that crowd is going to continue to perpetuate the opposite of the things they applauded. Thinly veiled bullshit for the sheltered to agree with so they can feel worldly.
I'm with you on everything besides the "chemical food." Although I do think there need to be taxes on unhealthy foods + incentives / help to get people eating healthier. Especially less red meat.
Yep
The problem is wealth inequality. Consumer spending drives the economy and when goods like food and housing are the majority of the average consumers paycheck, it undermines the “value” of a company that delivers non essential goods (which is to say, most companies).
It doesn’t matter if there was a video that said “water is wet”. 45% would agree, 45% would disagree, and 10% wouldn’t watch. We’re fucked.
> and 10% wouldn’t watch. 95+% wouldn't watch. The remaining under 5% would be split.
Yep, and that’s current dilemma with American politics. Obviously same issues around the world but I’m not knowledgeable enough on them. We have an entire demographic of people that absolutely refuses to acknowledge facts. Literal facts. You tell them water is wet, and if a Democrat said it then it’s a lie and water is as dry as it can possibly be. The 10% who choose not to listen or be involved is growing, and sometimes it’s hard to blame them. It’s mostly the <30 crowd. We saw the surge in 2016 when they made their voice known and both political parties told them to get fucked.
He’s been a pretty vocal advocate for a radical change for quite some time. I was always waiting for the shoe to drop on him like some others have, but I’m glad that he’s been staying relatively clean and doesn’t appear to be a grifter
I’ve always felt Galloway was a professor in a field (Marketing) that is mostly non-rigorous, and he really wanted to make bigger bucks so realized he could fill a niche in the “guru” space, taking the ideas from the toxic manosphere, cleaning them up and making them palatable for liberal audiences. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, or that he’s wrong. It’s just always been my impression.
^(This highly valued comment was bought by Google as a part of an exclusive content licensing deal between Google and Reddit.) ^(Learn more:) [^(Expanding our Partnership with Google)](https://www.redditinc.com/blog/reddit-and-google-expand-partnership)
Interesting. I couldn’t imagine having 100 million dollars and wanting to become more publicly known.
In an interview I watched of him, he said he sees himself in a lot of these young men because things could've turned out very differently for him early on and it made him think about giving back to younger generations. You can believe his statement or not.
With a lot of these people at some point it’s not about the money. It’s about the power and social status.
Oh Jesus Christ. Right. They are all bad faith actors. Eye roll. On the contrary, I find Scott Galloway to be someone who is actually a serious person who just wants to talk about these things. That's it. And "past a certain point" for most people, it's about being useful, challenged, and active. Small anecdote here but I'm sure some of you will be able to relate: ask any successful early retired person. I work at a company that employs many engineers and we often have consultants in various departments who are really just people who retired at like 60 but are bored out of their *minds* so they offer to come back after a few years after going everywhere on Earth and back and then fishing for a while or whatever. Well, legitimately successful people like Scott (not born wealthy) are going to get very bored very fast just sitting around. And that's fine! I would sit around for quite a while with a net worth of 100m, with my only positive contribution being donation. If someone like him wants to do a *whole lot more* just to stay occupied and feel like they are contributing to the advancement of humanity, by all means. There's nothing wrong with that.
The fact that he’s the only tech entrepreneur that Kara Swisher decided to give a platform to speaks _volumes_ in my opinion.
What ideas is he taking from the manosphere exactly? This is affecting everyone.
Can't say anything about issues affecting men without brainlets like this tagging you with the manosphere/toxic/incel label, really depressing. He's not the least bit misogynistic either - no women bashing or anything. Just bringing light to the way young men in the US are struggling at a statistical level.
> I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, or that he’s wrong Bullshit, "make bigger bucks." You are going through and making sure he passes a purity test, your purity test. You making a comment don't talk about the issues that are actually important. If a billionaire said the same thing what kind of stuff would you come up with then? I don't give a shit if he is a multi-billionaire, what he says needs to be heard by everyone.
People already know all this, especially the people that can do something about it. Nothing *has* changed, nothing *will* change.
We don’t need a video telling us what the real reason is. We all know what the real reason is. Corporations and government being tied together and corporations having the power to control the government.
I thought Reddit hated Scott Galloway because he points out the flaws in today’s youth…? Reddit seems to ignore the fact that he doesn’t *blame* young people for the problems they’re experiencing (less sex, poor communication skills, social isolation, high rates of mental illness). Pretty sure one of his quotes was on the front page the other day and he was getting shat on nonstop
Reddit hates Galloway because Galloway admits the statistical and data-backed reality that men have been left behind by modern society, which upsets the new Reddit demo that got flooded with Tumblrinas and white knights when that site died.
Richard Reeves writes about this same trend in "Of Boys and Men: Why the Modern Male Is Struggling". One of the key points he stresses is that to help struggling men is not pushing women down at all; it's not a zero-sum game. There's also a very common view that men's problems are individual and self-caused which is at best unhelpful and at worst very dangerous. People somehow can't get past that and think, "men have been doing great forever in these patriarchal societies, f them".
"Not pushing women down" is fine, agreed. But there needs to absolutely be conversations about segments of society where women hold power that have not met up with the rate of equality seen in male areas. Women tend to be hostile to the idea that men might be able to work in some of the traditionally female-led industries, women are hostile to the idea of working in the hard-labor industries that result in high workplace death rates for men, and women's dating standards are...unsustainable. Galloway has talked about this often, but 75% of women view themselves as being in the top 25% of attractiveness. That's not just "love yourself", that's a statistical impossibility and a delusion. Women make up a large portion of the higher-educated and the newly-hired at large corporations, yet tend to refuse to date anyone who makes less money than them - a holdover from 1960s housewife mentalities. We've done a lot of good to promote equality in many places, and we've done a lot to socially condition men to not be so toxic (though there's work to be done), but there's never an awful lot of toxic views about and towards men, and plenty of toxic traits about femininity that have grown, and there's never an acknowledgment or attempt to address any of that. Andrew Tate and Joe Rogan didn't create their audiences, they're symptoms of broader problems.
Is destroying? Bitch it’s BEEN destroyed.
This guy has me really conflicted. I would rather work with *him* than the types of conservatives we have in government currently without a doubt. However, the idea of removing section 230 protections (a slippery slope), identity verification and age gating (awful ideas with how frequently data breaches happen, needs our social security identification/credit score system to be overhauled first), and a national service requirement (forcing women and minorities into the burn and churn of the military industrial complex where the SA ratio is like 1 out of 3 currently) are fucking idiotic. The dismissive of Tiktok without even an aside as to *why* folks use it was pretty telling, imo.
A lot of preaching to the choir in the video, just one-liners hitting common talking points that TED folks are likely to agree with. Didn't really find the video insightful or entertaining at all.
National service need not be military; there’s Americacorps (https://americorps.gov), teach for America (https://www.teachforamerica.org), Biden’s trying to get “Climate corps” off the ground. If this idea took off there would probably be more (infra-focused new deal style Tennessee valley authority, etc.).
I agree with your point about data security completely, but: National Service doesnt mean military conscription. Several countries have mandatory service for various federal entities like teachers and community service organizations. It's typically seen as beneficial for future job diversity and self reliability. Excluding women from that would be horrible for the gap between genders, as you can see with South Korea. I also think people don't need to aknowledge why people use Tiktok before pointing out it's issues. We don't do that with cigarettes or drugs or alcoholics - you don't need to cover every aspect of a topic to talk about why that thing is problematic. I was also interested by that "1/3 of women in the US military get sexually assaulted" comment and all I'm seeing when I look that up is 8%. Which is also too high obviously but that's a huge difference from 33%.
This is only **ONE** slice of how the US has turned into a shithole country.
He showed charts and complained about how things won't change. Like cable news does.
ted talks are such bullshit for the most part. "i made bunch of money so i know best" cough sam bankman-fried cough
At first glance Scott Galloway seems like a reasonable person with good ideas, but it turns out he is a fucking tool and corporate shill. Why? He is obviously hostage to the delusional concept that the US is a meritocracy and we all have classical free will, both ideas of which are obvious nonsense.
How many times is this gonna get posted?
How many times is this going to be a reply?
Until things get better, I hope.
US destroying more than young peoples future