So, Jubilee put out a new debate, this time with it being one capitalist vs 20 anti-capitalists, with Patrick Bet David being the capitalist. And...not gonna lie, it was cringe. Some of it was PBD as I literally CANT STAND that person, but part of it was also the fact that the contrast being leftists who seemed very unskilled at debate didn't help.
Anyway, PBD, for those who don't know, is this podcaster who is quite popular in right wing circles. He's an entrepreneur, a "job creator", and proud of it. And honestly, this guy eats, drinks, and sleeps capitalism. Like everything in his mind is how to make more money, it's considered inspirational because he encourages this maximalist mindset where everyone spends their whole lives working and making money, and ugh...yeah, given MY views? I HATE this guy. But then again, I also think a lot of socialists are kinda braindead themselves, as they seem to hate the idea of having logistics to figure out hard questions, and even though I'm a reluctant capitalist, I'm still a capitalist in some ways because of pure functionalism.
Like one of my anti capitalist friends tonight was shocked that I said it's okay is some level of inequality exists as a motivator and he was shocked to hear me say that. But...we do need a motivator to get people to do the work necessary for the functioning of society, and think capitalism still has the best system for that. I just disagree with the extent to which such an incentive structure is necessary.
Which brings me to the debate's first claim:
Claim #1: Incentive is the engine of capitalism, remove it and the system fails
I would actually agree with this claim, at least in theory. If we have pure capitalism where all property is dictated by who works for it in a market system, and "communism", putting that in air quotes because we all know it's more nuanced than that, a system where everyone gets paid equally regardless of who works, I do believe that capitalism is a more functional system than 'communism." I dont want a communistic society where the government controls everyone and there's no incentive structure. It's a big criticism I have of communism. Even more so, because material conditions mean we do need people to work, market incentives end up being replaced with the raw application of force, which is why I'd argue that most communist states end up becoming dictatorships. You can't remove the incentive structure of capitalism without the economic system collapsing.
HOWEVER, I really hate how absolutist this debate is. After all, we live in an era where we have great wealth, and the biggest barriers to solving poverty is capitalism itself. And this incentive structure. It's led to a situation where we end up talking about the endless creation of jobs, because we just dont believe in giving people "something for nothing." Meanwhile, I adopt a hybrid approach. Give people a UBI and meet their basic needs through government programs, and THEN leave the rest to the market and incentivize people to do more. Nothing in my ideal system removes all incentives. it lessens them, and lessens the rewards and extremes of the current system, but does not eliminate them.
And that's the real question: how much do we need? I'd argue it's a balance. It's not one extreme or the other. And that's where this debate disappointed, because PBD is a capitalist die hard who believes in the one extreme, arguing against a bunch of 20somethings who have no idea what they're talking about going on about how people would still work even without financial incentives.
my own take based on the evidence? Eh, i think the socialists have a point that some would work regardless of financial incentives, but it really depends on the person and kind of work. Many would probably avoid doing the hard, unpleasant jobs without stacks of cash tied to them. And quite frankly, my own interests are more in removing the crushing "incentive" to work that poverty and associated systemic violence that coerces, rather than removing ALL incentives. I do believe we can have a balance, and even a UBI and associated taxes won't be enough to completely remove all incentive to work. It might lead to some mild work reductions, but I'm okay with that, the economy exists for humans, not humans the economy after all.
One aspect of this whole debate overlooked is the idea that in the grand scheme of things, we shouldnt wanna work at all and we should automate as much necessary work as possible to liberate humanity from NEEDING to work. Instead we keep people artificially on this treadmill of work and production, and creating jobs just to justify giving people a paycheck. I dont think that people should have to work for rich people in order to survive, I really don't. And PBD seems to not understand this core concept. Neither do the socialists, given socialism quite frankly misses this too, but yeah.
Claim #2: Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system
Once again, the debate is going to be unnuanced here. It's technically true. Capitalism is the first economic system that has created an economic surplus, and that surplus is responsible for the great wealth that people have. However, capitalism also produces systemic poverty. Despite this guy's obsession with job creation (and yeah he lays it on thick here, I'll get to that later), capitalism systemically doesn't produce enough jobs, the jobs dont pay well enough, and we trust the well being of the rest of the society to the whims of the wealthy "job creators" who wanna extract as much wealth out of people as possible, while paying them back the least money as possible. I dont deny this engine is necessary to some extent, but once again, it's a matter of degree, and these debates dont allow for a nuanced discussion, it's just PBD laying on the point so thick that he comes off as insufferable and the leftists arguing against it just come off as bad.
Capitalism is a system that is a great wealth creator, but a horrible wealth distributor. Destroying capitalism is killing the goose that lays the golden eggs, but let's just say those eggs arent well distributed in the first place. Most of them to go the top with the vast majority of the population being kept artificially poor and dependent on employers, who extract as much wealth from them as possible.
Which brings me to the job creator thing. This guy is just...insufferable. Like, people talk about not finding a job, this guy offers people a job, and when people question aspects of the job like what they'll do and how much they're getting paid, he says they're bring choosey and need to lower their standards. No, dude, no, people shouldnt WANNA work 80 hours a week, FOR YOU, I'm sorry, they shouldn't, and the fact that you seem to expect people to grovel to you and to kiss your ### just to get employment sickens me to my core.
Like he really thinks he's doing so much for others by being a "job creator." I dont deny that the stuff that many employers produce is useful for society, not sure I'd say that of PBD since he seems to be in insurance and stuff and idk, there was some discussion on it and it seems kinda shady the way it was framed in the debate (one person even called his business like an MLM scheme that relies more on making money off of employing people than selling product), but yeah. Keep in mind what I said, great wealth creator, horrible distributor, and we need to break this culture of acting like an employer is doing you a favor by creating jobs. They're not. They're doing THEMSELVES a favor. You're just coerced to work for them in effect by the system.
Which brings me to another criticism of the guy. He keeps acting like employment is voluntary and people can quit, but he seems very uninformed on how the market is set up to ensure that true full employment can't exist, and for all his talk of workers quitting and going somewhere else, the system is set up to ensure that workers are desperate and that they dont quit, and that they dont have better options. Basically, the system is set up to ensure the "work force" is submissive and compliant to demands. Rather than workers and employers coming together and negotiating as equals, PBD just seems to expect people to kiss up to him when he throws his jobs in their faces (and yes, he did this several times with several people in this debate). And he seems to dislike people being choosey at all. HE can be choosey with who he hires, but if workers are choosey with their work, well that's just a fault of their work ethic and they should just bend over backwards more. Typical right wing capitalist mindset, really. It's why I find him so slimy and disgusting.
Claim #3: If all of the money in the world were divided equally, it would return to the same pockets in five years
PBD seemed to be pushing this narrative to push the argument that some are more worthy of money than others, and to basically make an implicit argument against the poor that they dont know how to control their finances.
He has this mindset in general that your whole life should be spent working and trying to bootstrap your way into a better position in capitalism. And he kinda has the implicit attitude that those who are poor are bad with their finances and if all wealth was divided the same way, the same people who are rich now would become rich again because they are just better with money than the poor and have this entrepreneurial mindset and the poor don't.
I dont deny that this might be the case to some extent. Some of it is work ethic and financial literacy as PBD says, but some of it is also just...the system. Not everyone can be wealthy under capitalism. Some people need to do the grunt work. And there would inevitably be a new class of entrepreneurs who spend their lives working to get more wealth while others don't as much. But that's the thing. It's besides the point. Not everyone should have to do that to survive. Some people want to, and that's fine, and they should get financially rewarded for it to some degree. I once again just disagree on extremes.
I mean, under my humanistic capitalism, the economy exists to serve humans, not humans the economy. While financial incentives make people want to work and improve and without those incentives the system would collapse.
And again, Im not opposed to capitalism to some degree, but as someone who does advocate for wealth redistribution, yes, the rich should be taxed, the poor should get some money, and yeah, they might spend it, and that's fine. I dont see a problem. Because Im not a poor shaming ###hole who has indoctrinated all of these hardcore capitalist attitudes.
And beyond that, well, it's not even all merit either. Some people are just more financially literate due to having more opportunities. I could see some currently rich people losing their wealth if it were all redistributed (see: donald trump), but I could also see some hard workers at the bottom working their way up. Either way, yeah, we would see inequality reemerge over time. Which is why im not for a one time redistribution of the WHOLE economy, but a regular redistribution of a part of it over and over again. I dont expect the poor to be all PBD bros who read self help books and figure out ways to make money in their sleep. I think that mindset is kind of unhealthy. But again, that's why PBD drives me nuts. He IS that guy and he's idolized by the right for it.
Claim #4: The US is more socialist that capitalist today, if you hate the system you're anti socialist
Okay so PBD went full idiot on this one. His core argument is because the US spends 68% of its budget on "entitlements", that that's socialism. First of all, we spend around $7 trillion a year as of 2025, and the entire country's GDP is around $29-30 trillion last I looked. So that's 1/4 of the entire economy. Second, yes, we spend a lot on social security, medicare, and medicaid. We spend around $400 billion on "welfare" excluding medicaid and I know this since I just recalculated my UBI plan for that book I'm trying to write. Most of it is healthcare spending, medicaid goes to the poor, medicare to the elderly. Social security goes to the elderly, what, should we just not give checks to the old people? Should they have to work until they die? Or are you gonna shame them for lacking financial literacy. Wait, dont answer that, this guy did debate social security later on in the video in the last section and HOO boy, this guy is a ghoul. He seems to think that welfare creates a victim mentality in the poor and he has a lot of really REALLY bad mindsets here.
On social security, someone pointed out to him that if we left it to the stock market that people would go broke if a recession hits, and given my family lives on social security at this point, I can honestly say that this is what happened to us. My dad did have a retirement fund, but then 2008 happened...and it's gone. And yeah, now good old social security came in and did its thing. But apparently my dad should have to still work in his 70s with a bad back because PBD says so...so...yay?
Honestly, F this guy.
But I digress. To go back to the matter at hand, no, it's not more socialist. he just hates welfare and social programs and has this bootstraps everyone should work 80 hours a week and figure out how to monetize their lives in their sleep mentality. And that's just not healthy.
Honestly, if we wanna have a discussion, we're only 25% "socialist" if we count that by government spending and I'd prefer we be like 50-50. he has this idea anything more than 30% is bad, and that's what the top marginal tax rate should be and he has this mentality that "you dont get to tell me what to do" when it comes to taking his money and spending it. Yeah, we the people should have that right, and I would have PBD paying 70% in taxes, with a lot of that going toward UBI and universal healthcare. I would have the federal budget be closer to 50% of the nation's economy. And if we wanna define capitalism and socialism in terms of government spending, yeah I'm for a mixed economy.
Of course, I define socialism as workers owning the means of production. Ironically, I find PBD strangely socialist since he says he offers all of his employees stock in his company. And that's kind of based, it's the one good thing I'll say about him, but yeah, honestly? I think the US should be more socialist in terms of government spending and think the problem is we're too capitalist. Again, I want balance.
Of course, I dont really think it's about the size of the government, but how you spend the money. Even if a lot of money goes through the government, that doesnt mean much if in my case a lot of it is going back out in UBI checks. Im just redistributing who has the money. I still consider the system predominantly capitalist.
Claim #5 (initiated by an anti capitalist): America has never been a meritocracy
So this discussion got kinda weird and veered into various topics, but yeah, I dont believe capitalism is a true meritocracy. It has the pretense of one, and some elements of one, but as was discussed in it, it kind of has a lot of luck involved. And to make a socialist argument, the pretense of meritocracy is primarily there to justify the wealth of the rich and the poverty of the poor. it's so people like PBD can go around saying they earned it while everyone else is just lazy and has to work harder. I aint saying PBD didnt work hard. He did. But that doesnt mean no one else does either. And I would dispute how much of a role work ethic should play in one's economic situation anyway. To go back to point 1, yes, we need some motivation, but we dont need the extremes we currently have, and I believe the goal should be to automate as much labor in the long term as possible so we dont need as much merit going forward.
And yeah. PBD kind of framed the debate like this, 40% of people will agree with him no matter what, 40% will agree with the other side, and it's on the 20% in the middle. Nationally, I'll agree, although it's a bit more simplistic. But that's what kinda pisses me off about PBD. He pushes himself as a rags to riches story, but let's be frank about statistics. PBD makes millions of dollars a year. The median income in the US on an individual level is $50,200 and on the household level it's $80,020. The top 1% of income earners is $430,000 for individuals and $631,500 for households. PBD is in the top 1% of income earners, and even more so, he's probably WAY up there. 0.3% of people on an individual level make $1 million or more, and based on a quick google search, he makes AT LEAST 10 million.
He acts like anyone can be him if only they believe in themselves and work hard enough. No, they can't. He's like the winner at a casino telling everyone else who lost their life savings that they just have to git gud and pull themselves up by their bootstraps, acting like anyone can do what he did, if only they work hard enough. They can't. That's just the mathematical reality of the system. For people to be that rich, everyone else has to be that poor. Someone has to do the grunt work and be these wealthy peoples' employees. And again, our system doesnt guarantee a job, cant guarantee them a job, and poverty is systemic. Even if everyone works hard, just as many people are going to be poor, as are poor today because the problem is the system.
And to go back to the 40-40-20 thing on changing peoples' minds. Why should anyone try to follow the guy who is basically in like the 0.1% or less of the country? Americans need to stop seeing themselves as temporarily embarrassed millionaires, and yes, they should see themselves as victims. To go back to the above, if we implemented UBI and policies like that, it would benefit roughly 71% of individual income earners, and I estimate around 78-84% of families, depending on whether we go by the median or average household size. Let's say around 80% benefit from my policies.
This guy who is in the top 1% tells you to work harder to be like him. I tell you if we redistribute wealth more and have more "socialism", that roughly 80% of you, give or take, would be better off. And we would still have enough income inequality to have enough of a meritocracy to motivate people to work.
Yes, we gotta keep some semblance of meritocracy going, warts and all. Im not advocating for full communism, or anything. But neither will I argue for all capitalism either. I argue for a middle ground, a hybrid position. I dont deny that PBD has a few points, and I have to admit, arguing a bunch of uneducated socialists isnt the best thing for the left wing cause as many of the people he was arguing against...werent that smart compared to me in my own estimation. But....let's not glorify PBD either. Dude's die hard capitalism is cringey and even if he's right, omg i hate him i hate him i hate him.
I just wish we could have more nuanced debates and that all debates on capitalism vs socialism didnt devolve into tribalism as the loudest and most extreme voices on both sides dominate the debates. Which is what happened here. The answer is in the middle, not in the extremes.
