Split (1)

train · 5.86k rows

text stringlengths 0 9.69k


<poi>
Also all debts need a collective if you're right, and collecting the debt will crush the entire world economy who's collecting that debt?
</poi>

So, what how does that default works? That default works is by selling that collateral to those people in like debt arrangements. But unfortunately, now those people are left with half an airport or half, what's the word for it? That's harbor. Half a harbor and half a harbor ain't worth shaped. And so therefore those people are stuck in China White Elephants, after they made dramatic public political and monetary commitments, now defaulting in their own economies, unable to fulfill financial financial commitments that they made in front of their supplier.
Why do we not get collapse on our side? This has a lot to do with flipping the analysis that we just heard. Because, first of all, right, now everybody knows that China fudges the growth numbers, so when the growth numbers actually become lower, that risk has already been taken into account by global markets to a large extent. Second of all, because this because of collapse, is a black and white process. There are no control processes. But when you have a controlled demolition then, or a controlled retraction. Then, every project that closes, you can have international, regional and national staff trying to over to trying to oversee that, trying to undo that. So for example, for closing a a a bunch of ports in the East African coast, we can have other superpowers investing into them. So we think, and thirdly, we think all of the other actors, just like Schulman said, have an incentive to support a gradual slowdown in order to avoid a collapse, and so they would be on board with that, but unlike where the class they actually have supposed to do so thanks.
</mg>

<mo>
So far governments have talked to you about with how this is an impending economic collapse, and how when it blows up, it blows up big. Opening opposition then comes and tells you that calling the bluff now China, saying this would happen, would make this blow up big and cause the same harms. So in order to crush this deadlock and win this big, we need to prove to you why China can actually keep this, what they call pretense, and actually keep it, keep the collapse away from at least as long as opening opposition says is needed for the global economy to diversify and protect itself, if not longer. What we're going to tell you, in extension, is in economies the size of the US or China, who spared the entire globe, who were so many other countries, are dependent on them. The the simplistic economics of this project might not work. Don't necessarily apply because, because there is a principle in the of modern monetary policy. Well, when I control my own currency and I'm not elected of someone else's currency. That means that the only thing I have to balance my currency and get is a surprise event of my goods and services and the things I settle as long as we can show you that China is able to do this. It continuously does this for years, without the likelihood of it significantly slowing down. We can we still easily take this debate before that just a little bit of two things first of all, it is unclear to me why God says that all of top half agreed China is on the break of collapse when opening opposition The entire case is that China has guaranteed to take ahead and not collapse. It can survive this. And the rather of doing this is what causes a collapse. That is the first thing. Second thing we say is it not keeps telling about the interaction of lists and how these figures would be alive could cause a cascade failure. However, it is unclear why that is true. When nominee himself says everybody knows that China is not entirely on it and take this into account and those that are lists involved because of unknowns, because he says that if we do a controlled implosion and implosion, then people can recover. Because he took this into account that Hispanic going into this, which implies that this is not as dangerous as he says, but he doesn't prove why control implosion is possible. Not doing this against opening opposition.
Let's now complete the gap in opening opposition as to why we think that the current exchange is sustainable for for the foreseeable future. First of all, we say the important question is, let us define what does it mean? Sustainable because, because governments kept saying this is unsustainable, we can't keep it for longer, but they never told us what it is that's going to make this collapse. We say that China, so far have been, have been have been able to continue to keep the US wrong exactly, not exactly by having nobody with an incentive to actually call it on death or inept on anything with China. Why? Because this doesn't happen. Only because, yes, opening opposition said that people would do it when they think the economy is collapsing, but we say Furthermore, when China keeps printing money, it keeps initiating infrastructure, it creates an incentive, not only for the growth will they get, but rather for the demand for Chinese goods and services and infrastructure. They drive that growth. They created a business setting before no so that no country actually at any point should we beg of them because of these backfires, because they said, Oh, but if they continue doing this, they will be branded the third currency manipulator. Does it sound a threatening but they say they're already branded the currency manipulator. We say that massive tasks harming them would only happen if people can make do without them.
Why do we think it is unlikely now? Yeah, we said, first of all, China has been doing this for years. How? A in massive reinvesting in production, moving on, specifically in production nowadays, but I think openly, don't kick that bullshit out of me, but massively investing in production, whereas the devil is buying Chinese water doesn't necessarily have, right now, an alternative supplier, which they can just go and say, Oh, well, tariff is just as the opposition to top strainball is, he puts the tariffs on China and political cost more, because nobody produces like china. There is no one. Second of all, The they expand in Chinese services, whether you can leverage your political capital and disinvestment to insulate countries buy for those services in tech, in industry, creating their economy to be more intertwined in Chinese infrastructure, which they keep talking about. Oh, maybe Kazakhstan, maybe Africa. By Israel, Italy just signed onto this, like the European Union is being pushed to become even more intelligent, in which would they are more likely to be to be to support this to Victor faith and not to enable those things and back out, which makes it more likely that both would be sustainable, because nobody has ever had if they say that keynesian economics doesn't work, we're willing to take a step further into Neo Keynesian economics. Instead, the keynesian economics doesn't work only if you can, if you can get people to only people stop buying the water, only if you can get people to stop participating in the economy. Because in case of the Chinese economy, people just keep opting in, at which point it becomes more. If closing tells us that people know that there are ways and need to hedge their best, we say that continued, continue to have this economy going strong, rather than imploding, this is what makes it more likely that this country is likely to continue in dark road on its own. And then this is what gives time for opening opposition, in this case to to be true at which point they are, i will take the opening.


<poi>
This just means, on our side of house, that you re evaluate new projects based on profitability and stuff like that. But projects still happen. The difference is you don't fund it with inflation, which also cuts over other parts of your industry, which you have to import resources from and risk hyperinflation.
</poi>

Thank you, we think that while evaluating good and new projects based on profitability It may sound nice, the ability to have new projects, the ability to continue to grow and provide infrastructure. They keep being flippant about the better road in of, What is the railway from Uzbekistan helps? Well, even if it doesn’t have China, the buildings, roads and infrastructure it world will not existed. The Nigeria has the ability to develop get oil did not they are building out of this infrastructure for such a not only for benefit of China, but for other people, if they say, oh, but they're going to evaluate qualitative, evaluate the possibility, we say, the ability to evaluate qualitatively, to also have profitable endeavors which would have challenged future sustainability, in that sense of contingent, the ability to create projects everywhere, which could, which continue to fuel and then it sustains the demand for such Chinese the ability to create 10 projects that would help people on the ground, which enable that a massively profitable project is something that requires that, because, not only to reach important when it is possible for China, you know, for example, oil, in fact, in the country, they don't need the country to have infrastructure. You say that ability is like the best of the balance in the world is slightly sustainable, because nobody in the world has has been decided to actually opt out and take the entire economy with it as they cannot, which is totally not a bit crazy and what they say, but rather a smart one.
</mo>

<gw>
Okay, opening government correct that there is a dominant fact that is likely to happen if Shannon Fauci or correct that it might be the case that when we back away from our promises to the shadow banks, it might also therefore, maybe we should ask ourselves, what is likely to happen on both sides of the hands. So the first question is going to be, what is the likely scenario? Is China likely to default because it's debt? Secondly, because it will also affect that. Are we capable of stopping that? And thirdly, where are the harms of economic slowdown and does it lead to collapse? And if not, how can we manage those sort of cases before that? A couple of metaphors into the mess that CO called an extension. So basically, most of the analysis is just saying, like, on why we're allowed to control this is like, well, we printed money until this point. Why not continue that? Maybe because we've taken unprecedented amounts of debts and promises We've never taken before, sure this policy might have worked when we didn't have those grand projects, or in the 1950s when we're in a developing nation other country we depend us it was actually a thing then they a weird thing about the incentives and keeping buying okay.
Let's understand how currencies work, because clearly none of the opposition teams understand that if you keep printing Yuan and people have more Yuan, that means that they can pay more yuan to get stuff in them. That means that the value of the yuan decreases because people have more yuan to pay for the value that was before 30. They couldn't only pay 30, I can pay 40, because just added more yuan to the system without creating any value. So when they buy ATV, when they factor in import stuff, that means they pay more, and therefore the value increases. So you create exactly the devaluation that might also cost the call in a second. But don't just retain the currency, just print more money. Just don't understand how money and currency works. They will not explain their extension with in response to, be like saying in intensives something, and then the last brilliant someone else is why it is likely to be to be controlled. Well, you know, Italy just signed in, so the EU would build it out. What? A couple of things. Hey, a fact that the Italy signed a deal in the future does not mean that the entire EU would be on board to just taking China out. But a more broader, but not a specific example that they might have invented. Might not note if those countries were capable, to any extent of bailing out the product in payment, they would have done that themselves. They needed Chinese debts to do so, which economic international body would lend money to Italy to bail out China and the Belt and Road sure they might slow down the cost and say, Look, if you abandon the project again, no one would say, Yeah, sure that you will give like $5 trillion in order for Italy not to collapse just because they were stupid. It is so unlikely that anybody, because the interconnectors, will decide to build them up, but they will collapse just because the interconnectors. It is a harm that they are interconnected, not a benefit. No thank you.
So firstly, what is not the consequences under our when debt contains so opening arguments is say over is just unstable. Then go here say, look, they can just take over their money and still they join their wagon and say which you didn't prove like is very very likely to collapse. It's too bad that am actually gives you a couple of very strong links to the lab that you are going to collapse and describe you what it looks like. None of those were actually respond. So let me tell you, hey, you need almost every single link to succeed. If you don't have the corridor between Pakistan and China, you didn't bypass Malaysia and the narrow straits, and therefore all the economic flows can't go directly overland, in a safer route. So all the other ports and roads are worth nothing, if only you have the roads up until close to China. About China, not none of the global goods that are supposed to go that will flow. So it is useless for the other countries to have it. The point was to trade through China and with China, because it’s large economy, secondly, there is an inherent inability to evaluate this product. Now Elaye tells us look, but they take it into account. A couple of responses to that. A it is in risk that they just impossible to evaluate because of the complexity of it, because every single it might fail, because you don't know the value of it once it succeeds, even if it succeeds, because you don’t know the exact value is it $1billion or two and a half billion dollars with the United States, we may not withdraw our Trump. What will happen in the EU such a global scale product is just unlikely to be so.
But lastly, note, it is not an economic decision. There's also politics involved, to a very large extent, political. Political decisions are likely to make shorter decisions build to try to build the port now, and that's why it's succeeding even is very unlikely, so we say that they are likely to undervalue and sell for short, and when the money is supposed to fall back, you have too little of it. Lastly, we just told you there are a million obstacles to success in each liberal country. These are just local resistance. You see everywhere in Africa, in Thailand, in in in, in Pakistan, for those projects, say that there's like, there's lack of knowledge of what is actually needed in order to set up a project. You don't know the terrain. We don't know political groups. We don't know the difficulties there is hard, and you are pushing to sign more and more countries as fast as possible.
And lastly, just intervention with Western states that slows you down more. The consequences are default book because they say but why is it the default. You have a company. Other companies have better on the project system. They have raised money. People have spent their money. Species have funded companies on the basis of will have a port in five to 10 years, then that port does not exist because of any authorities. All of the money that they invested in goes to nothing. It has no value. Now they can't pay debt loans and give me the bank all the jobs. The promised people are in there. All the investment chains have made and counted on them in order to invest in global work don't exist. At that point, things start to collapse. You don't have the money to keep investing. You don't have the money to pay back. And it's not only total your collateral is useless. Nobody has anything to do with that road or that half built port at the point of collapse. So we say our little arsenal in the house. You will collapse the cause of the debt, and you will vote, and all the consequences are going to happen before we continue. I'll take opening opposition as I promise.


<poi>
So One Belt and Road, debt isn't long enough to block China. You never explain why it was, but even if it was, it doesn't sound like strategic brilliance to suppress global demand and make the valid assets work even less if the thing you're most concerned about is losing the value of like a void.
</poi>

Okay, so here we get just the second question of, can we stop this? So a couple of things, A it is a very large part of it. Those are trillions of dollars of investment. They were that were made in the last couple of years. It is likely to grow even more. So it is at least 10 to 15% of that investment is the likely result of stopping that. But don't damage say, look, the damage can happen anyway, right? We've already promised that, so we're going to collapse a couple response this A that a lot of the process and procedures are on their way. Negotiations are happening. Currently, we haven't actually put anything on the ground in most of these areas. But secondly, this is just like a basic sunken cost, sunken cost fallacy, right? Cut your bosses don't go knee deep into the mud just because you had one foot in. But lastly, Noam tells something critical, right? Because opening opposition you Say look, but a lot of damages are happening anyway, because you backed up on your promises.
Forget the fact that there's no analysis on why collapse happens, just because when one shadow bank collapse in the Chinese sector, Noam tells them when you're more likely to control sort of scenario exactly because people already going to believe that the Chinese economy is going to represent exactly, because it's more gradual process in the collapse that is likely to happen on defaulting on loans, they have more ability to play around with that. So this is very powerful, please.
</gw>

<ow>
Imagine a country that had its debt balloon up from around $2 billion within 50 years to around 23 Imagine a country that keeps depleting all of its natural resources in order to invest. Imagine a country that clearly does not invest enough in and of itself in technology. That country is called Earth, and no one here is afraid that Earth is about to explode, that Earth is not able to sustain itself economically, that Earth might have too much money or so. The reason is that once you start talking about those kind of economies that are so big, when we're talking about China, we're talking about like, 12% of the entire Earth, regular economic structures just don't matter, for example. So let's say their example, if my port is indeed half a hole and it is worth nothing, right? Maybe then it is very unwisely to just take it back and cut my lawsuit. Maybe what I would do is come to adeal with China, in which I would buy Chinese goods. They would give me Chinese goods to make up for that worth and so on. The idea is, again, that you could always maybe China could let a political favor and negotiate a trade between me and a third country and so on. The idea is that once we're talking about those skills, the amount of as they tell us the results, the amount of opportunities, of risk and of reward, is so hard to measure up. It's very weird to say overall, instead, what we're giving you is what can actually be done, and we're doing it on two questions. We'll talk about exactly about the risk of collapse while we have a simple mechanism that is likely to work. Then we'll talk about the so called the so called shortcomings of MMT and explain why they are relevant. Before that, a few points of rebound, they tell us, for example, which body would bail out Chinese enterprises in Italy, A an international body that is afraid of starting the chain reaction that we talked about, perhaps the US which have, which has still 20% of the world economy, and it will definitely affect them as well. By that making the government of Italy itself, perhaps, as Italy, they trade Chinese goods, or they traded instead. Those are exactly the kind of things that happen. We're talking about such global scale. Secondly, they tell us that the risks are impossible to account for. Okay? Why are them? Rewards possible to account for. We're saying that just like you could have a unforeseen event in which you are only stuck with half court, you could also have an unforeseen event in which a new technology developed, instead developed in Norway, enables much better driven in Nigeria, giving you a lot more goods than you would be expected. There is no reason to assume that their side of their pessimistic side is more likely on that idea.
Let's talk about, Oh, yeah. So let's talk about, about, first of all, collapses and risk and so on. We agree. OG comes and tells you just you're spending too much money. You can't keep it up. All comes and says a few good lookings. They say, Well, maybe you do have collateral and reserves, maybe some policies don't. You can have some policies that are that wouldn't harm growth as much. And obviously we completely agree with with O. The problem is that, as O CG themselves say you still are in debt. It is normally going to cover everything. People still, as I told us, make a bet that someone needs to cook, and we're saying, You're right, but we're talking about a debt of $34 trillion suddenly the rules of betting becomes very, very different. So here's an example. The US, for example, have a debt of $16 trillion no one in the world is betting that the US would fail to say that. There is no good reason to believe that the US is race forward than China. However, it's just about the matter of perception. So if you can keep that perception going on, this is arguing people, as we have heard that themselves. Want to believe that everything is going to be okay. Want to believe that the day it's going to be fine. So what do you do? Able to do? Many people would just collect on their debt. They don't think they can get anything right now, exactly because they sunk in cost. And this is exactly why they could wait for the future. They would bury the loss, to some extent, on them, on themselves.
Secondly, I told you you could always print more money. Now they're telling us you cannot print more money. We'll get to that in a second. But the question is not yet. You can think. The question is, if you print your money, will people take that money? And the answer is yes, they are sort of good, because you have good things to do with you. And you can invest in China, in Chinese Bucha, and buy the Chinese good and so on. Therefore, we told you that since China still has all of its political might, they can still, again relate, to a large extent, using that political mind. So if what they want, and this is important to CG, if what CG wants is a controlled explosion, we're telling you we have a good way of providing that control explosion using our method. Because what's happening is that slowly what should be where we have China, China can only keep on investing two terms that people still trust it. And if people slowly start to lose trust, trust, then again, they slowly start backing out, and that is fine. You don't get that huge chain event. It does happen when you have a concrete every year. Let's take all your credit. It does happen when you have a concrete policy that says, oh shit, we're in trouble. Now get up right then we say, stuff changing. So let's talk about MMT, why it's still working in spite of, like, the so control coming, and we'll tell you, construction


<poi>
ultimately mitigatory solutions, CEO suggests, are actual strategies for preventing those collapse with gradually downside. They are impossible to execute in the midst of a global financial economic crisis.
</poi>

Good, then that we're not in the midst of a global economic crisis. We don't understand what let's talk about energy. So it does. It is impossible for a few reasons, a the group, integrity, will be blamed as a a a as a country manipulator. One me tell you literally status quo. More than that was saying it is literally China's policy to keep its un low so they can keep on selling more goods. So when they're saying, Oh no, we would have inflation. It is, in fact, China that is making sure they are inflated to an extent today, so they might just not have to do it as much on their side, but that's all about themselves. Because they're saying, Oh, but what about all like, why wouldn't people still use the one? It could be worthless, but then again, NFT comes to the rescue in a few ways. Why do they tell you, A that it is about what you can do with your power as China. We will tell you, it's not only your political mind that you can go and so on, that you can make sure that you get cheaper good in other means. It means that, for example, if what you want is to import certain stuff or sections, then the PN and now comes incredibly powerful and so on. But we’re telling you you know what can do use taxation. What is taxation? Taking back the money? So the result too much, it is the easiest thing to do for all those listeners. Good day.
</ow>
<pm>
I think everyone insures that it is unfair. And a bit evil when we can stand here living an extremely high quality of life, and there are people in the world who live in complete destitute poverty, I don't think anyone's going to disagree with that. I think what this debate asks us to focus on, though, and the bit that is difficult, is to sort of posit the question, you know, even if we broke that down, even if we could get to a stage where a lot of these differences are far less extreme, what should we aspire to live in our life, and what are the moral responsibilities that we have with respect to how much we keep for ourselves and how much we distribute to other people?
So to clarify some of the stuff in this debate, I think we take a relatively expansive view of what the basic needs of people are. So it's not just like you have a hot, dry water and you're going to imminently die, probably have like, a healthy and happy, social life, like you are a fulfilled and contented person by some definition of that, to the extent that is an important bit of your basic needs, and to the extent we need a definition of your moral I think when I claim that my best definition of role is just that you feel bad about something like it doesn't need to imply that you go and do something actively. It doesn't mean to imply that some kind of like moral law of the universe that is casting down on you. My definition of moral is that, like, if that is the state of the world, and you're not doing anything actively about it, and you don't have a reason to justify it, then you know you should feel bad about that. You should consider that a wrong deal committing against other people.
Now I want to highlight something that I think is going to be incredibly important in this term, which is to say that just because something is immoral does not mean that it is the only immoral thing. And it does not mean that it is the only thing that you need to spend time fixing, and it does not imply that remedying that is the most important thing for you to do, if opening opposition or closing opposition proved to you that it might be better if society was structured around you know, like vastly increasing technology, obviously it was, like, incredibly valuable, because that was because that was going to improve the quality of life for the most amount of people in the future. Great. It proved that that moral duty is more important than the moral duty that we're talking about. We are highlighting a very specific question here, which is, in the absence of all other things, in the absence of any stronger, competing moral claim, should you view that, state of the world, as unjust and something you should feel bad about. And what I claim the answer that is yes.


<poi>
When you think people should feel better? Are you defining the motion as we think people should literally feel better or is that just an indication of a vague sense that you think it's
</poi>


I do literally mean, like, you should feel bad. Like, my sense of how I know whether Sonic is moral or immoral, it's not because there's like a wall written down, like, up above, and it's because, like, I know in my heart that is like pretty shitty that I have stuff and have a happy quality applies, but other people do not. Maybe have a more sophisticated version of what immorality is. I think that's the most real to most people buying,
First of all, by utility. I want to point out, first of all, that almost always, like, almost always any marginal stuff that you have above the borderline, even if you cannot perceive it at the time, being like both generates more happiness for you, but less happiness for you than avoided were given to some other individual. And second of all, almost always, even if you cannot perceive it, is a result of something that is arbitrary and pretty unfair, and therefore presumed that all people have an equal right to happiness and that we should value all people equally. That is an incredibly strong indicator that the only acceptable end state of the world is when everyone is like, fully equalized. What are the reasons that people often posit that there are like arguments as to why you may actually be entitled to keep stuff for other people they don't have, or keep stuff beyond what other people have. The first reason I can think of is that people say you've earned it. Well, let's step through the reasons how people like actually tend to earn it in the middle real world. Like, often it could be inherited. If it's not inherent, then often it's the function of things like the birth worry that you happen to be a very well spoken or social person, very intelligent person, even if that is not something you can actively perceive on a very granular level. Between like, someone who is at the 52nd percentile, of talent in particular thing, and someone was at the 49th percentile, all of these things incrementally add up and feed into the state of the world, where your happiness is, the things that you get to enjoy your life, even if you feel like you put in the groundwork yourself for it, are just a function of things that are by and large beyond people's control. Where training society often do feel very viscerally about that thing that no, I did the harbor. I'm entitled to that thing. But when you really, really break it down, it's often extremely difficult to say, Well, if that other person had exactly the same situation as I had, they probably would have ended up wealthier. Well, I would not have. And once you realize that and take that veil away, I think it's difficult for you to not feel some sympathy for not for you to not feel as though it's unjust that you get to keep that stuff and think that it would be right for you to give it to other people.
The third reason why often there is like an injustice to saying I've earned it is that there are just imbalances in the way that people treat other people, even if you had exactly the same situation coming into the world, the fact that people are racist or people treat people in bad ways, in a way that you can never fully perceive or never fully recognize, means that often those people do get screwed over. They may you may say, I worked awfully hard for them, but I was just smart, so I deserved Well, maybe you didn't appreciate that person. Teacher was more native them in a way. And here's the thing, right? Because you can't ever really fully perceive the set of circumstances that has caused your hard work and someone else's hard work to result in different outcomes. I think it's extremely difficult not for you to fulfill the sort of definition around I think it was real difficult. It's. Difficult for you to not feel a bit shitty about having stuff beyond your basic needs, and other people might not other people have less than if you've got about your basic needs, because it's impossible for you to say the extent to which that is a totally arbitrary thing. The second reason that people often give as to why you might have specific reasons to give stuff, keep stuff for yourself, or use stuff to your own interests, is things like, Well, I love my family very much, much more than I like other people.
Realistically, proximity is not equal to again, that those people are more important to you or more valuable than other people, right? It could equally be true that if you've never met that person, they didn't come into what you would not care about them at all. And again, from behind that veil, it's difficult for you not to feel bad about that same world where you keep resources that could go towards other people.
Second of all, I want to talk about consumption. So this is a set of arguments that go, even if like, this is not an imbalance or like an unjust thing it is bad to Just use resources as a whole, before that closing


<poi>
Given that not just wealth, but also other social constructs and interactions are impacted by voluntary birth. So do you believe that capitalizing on any kind of privilege is exclusively moral?
</poi>


Ah, it's not exclusively immoral. Like I said at the very beginning, if you think you can do something good with that injustice, like use it for a better or higher moral purpose, then fine. If you have no reason to do so, then, you know, point back consumption.
I think that taking resources above and beyond what you need first of all, does harm to the environment by and large, or use up things that future people might want to use, and they have more rights, just the same way that we do, to the extent they will try and use the resources of this earth. And if we overuse resources, we will negatively impact their life in the future. We have a moral duty to them. But also, I think even if everything that I have says on people who lived in a perfectly fair life, no randomness society, and there were no future people to consider, I think a society that is structured where people are happy or tolerate having more than you is inherently a big evil right, like having yourself placed above other individuals and above all you, basically is sort of the foundational thing people engaging in things like strife or political tribe in public because you think you are better than other people or people who need to be beneath you. You need to have a society which I have a lot of other people do not have enough. It's only when you properly equalize and accept that sort of like injustice to you having more than what you fundamentally need that you can break down a society that's constructed around having some people who are beneath you and having some people to you oppress. I agree this is like a really difficult thing to reconcile, but I want you to, like, ask a very simple question, like, if you had two complete life fascio Like brave, empty individuals and they had nothing different form. Like, would you all want them to have more than the other? Like, probably not.
</pm>


<lo>
It's incorrect for the Prime Minister to set this debate up by saying, if one is healthy, happy and content, then everything above that is something they need to share, because the fact is, the majority of us are not going to be happy or content with the absolute bare minimum, which you actually do need to defend in this debate right anywhere above, like suspended. So it's a real Peter Singer s Burton that you're going to have to deal with.
So let's clarify then, what is this debate? What we say on our side of the house that we stand behind the fact that it's okay for you to have wealth, it's okay for you to use that wealth, and it's okay for you to have more than others, we also have to say we do support redistribution by governments, but not on the grounds that, what the grounds that differences in wealth are immoral, but rather that we can enable more people to be happier and enable greater efficiencies in education and services, etc, by sharing that work. We're very happy to say that.


So I want to deal with two independent points of rebuttal before substances. So the first one is that we hear that proximity is not fair criterion, right? The fact that someone's far away from you doesn't mean that you shouldn't care about them in the same way that you care about your family. The first thing is, we say we dispute that we speed up the first round on the basis that we think that you do have a great responsibility to people who are closer to you, great responsibility for people who interact with and certainly a great responsibility for people who have given you things right, whether it's your parents or your teachers or your state, because you've benefited directly from those individuals. Right? Conversely, with people. Who are far away their situation can be incredibly unfortunate, and as you correctly point out, no one's disputing that in this space, but it fundamentally wasn't your fault, and this is where there's an important conflation. There is a difference between acknowledging something is bad and that it would be a good thing to help. It would make me a morally good person to assist. But it's not to say the same that it is immoral for me to continue living my life in a way which isn't just directly geared towards helping that person. And a simple reason for that is it wasn't my fault. It is not my fault that there are people struggling with poverty or disease across the world, right? That is not something which I myself was responsible for. Therefore, it's incredibly unfair, and we say wrong for you to criticize me as an immoral person, right? Let's be clear about something right? Calling something immoral, calling someone immoral, is a very high bar, right? You're saying that you are unjust. You're someone who is is is doing something which is just outright wrong, and we say that's not a sufficient bar that they've proven thus far.
Second, one other deals deal with is this issue about feeling bad. Because, in response to sellers poi, the answer is, is, yeah, we do want you to feel bad about it, right? We say we do good immoral, and we certainly don't want you to feel bad about it. And why is that? The first thing is, because you're not going to be happy or content if you're constantly walking around thinking that you are to blame or you are immoral, if you're not doing everything you can to help every other person in the world, because the fact is, even if you're the most altruistic and most morally good person the world has ever seen, there will still be millions of people suffering and struggling, right? And you are saying, I should continue to feel bad about that, and it's an awful burden to pace on an individual who might be doing things to help that situation, or might just be leading their lives and not harming anyone directly. Secondly, what we say is actually leads to inefficient altruism. If you walk around with what John says you should do, because there's constant feeling of guilt, constant feeling I need to do more, constant feeling of I'm an immoral person, you try and outlet that as quickly as possible, right? You give people handouts. You give people the items and possessions you have, because that's the easiest way for you to deal with that burden. We say that's incredibly ineffective, but it's far more effective. You live your wildlife, you accumulate wealth, and if you then decide, yes, I would like to help people. You help them in an efficient way. You give money to charities. You set up funds in the way that Bill Gates has done, in a way, by the way, you would never be able to accumulate that wealth at all if he took your principle from day one, right? He needed to live a bit of a life of luxury being able to, like, build a monopoly in order to help those people.
So but first point of the substantive obviously, some of this has already been covered, but the first point I really want to talk about is we're going to be bolder, right? We're actually going to outright say, why is it? It's actually actively moral for you to accumulate and retain that wealth. Three reasons here, right? The first one is, when we were born, yes, there is a birth function set to I didn't choose to be born to my parents, but that doesn't mean I don't have a burden. It's a fact, if I didn't sign up to any kind of agreement when I was born that said that I'm going to make sure that I help people to invest in my ability, right? I didn't do that. So how on earth did you then impose that burden on me? Right? Because this, as I've explained in the example I gave you previous, is an overwhelming burden. Yes, very tiny. Go ahead.


<poi>
No one chooses or opts into a moral system, any moral obligation exists not because people have consented to it, but because we acknowledge that the feature of the world we live in.
</poi>


No that's not true, because what you're presupposing is that by that your form of morality, you're imposing on us in this debate is one that says consent isn't necessary. We say consent is necessary for moral morality to be determined or not.
The second reason we say for this is that you can't, and this is what we quite said earlier, you can't be immoral for doing things you've not contributed. Directly, if you punch me in the face, that's a bad thing. That's an immoral thing. You could not have. You could have avoided doing that. You could have avoided imposing harmony, right? But the fact that there are billions of people in the world struggling for things which have got nothing to do with nothing to do with you, has nothing to do with you, right? So it's illegitimate to them say it's immoral for you to accumulate and lose wealth in that situation, whatever things which are outside of your control. The second thing I want to look at is actually to explain why it's mutually beneficial. Why? Sorry, why mutually beneficial trades are always moral, right? Because on their side of the house, if, if I, for example, have a farm, and I like Bill, I get more, I grow more apples than I need to, right, I am not allowed to sell the apples. Or if I am allowed to sell the apples, I'm only allowed to sell it in order to give money to charity, directly, right, or to help someone. What we say, however, is, if I'm able to trade my apples with sellers bananas or something, right? And that we both benefit from that. We both now have two sets of goods. We both now have more than we have to do to begin with. I've improved his life, and I've improved my life. But importantly, many of these decisions, when you look at on the large on a bigger scale, lead to far more benefits, right, into more people being employed, into more people being the. Pay the salary. Need some more people being taxed. Need some more people being risen out of poverty. And that can only happen when those individuals make those decisions.
The greatest number of people who pulled out of poverty have been in the last 20 years, and a huge amount of that is due to capitalism. And we can't say we can't stand behind that. Stand behind enable people to make profits in order to develop and research and employ people. If we're saying the underlying actions those people are taking are immoral, that would be absurd.
So when you answer look at this debate, and when you consider this debate uh uh after the speeches, what we need to consider is, firstly, were we in charge? Were we to blame the harm that these people are suffering from no were we ever signing up to something that says you would help them? No? And can we actually help them by doing things which we say are perfectly well, very proud to have both speech.
</lo>

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.