2 comments

  • I love you Aubrey, I bought your book, you are the man. That said, this conversation of capitalism is severely lacking an opposing voice. You guys attempted to tackle environmental issues but it was extremely pie in the sky. You did not mention Wall Street at all. The last time “capitalism” was allowed to run free we saw the entire economy collapse, millions of people lost their homes and jobs and a huge percentage of wealth which is a finite resource was transferred to those with wealth. Our world is monopolized. There are cures for disease that are not on the market because the pharmaceutical companies don’t make money on cures and they have the resources to crush the competition. There are energy solutions that are cheaper and cleaner than oil, yet they are stifled because the resources are controlled by entities that are concerned with money over society. Capitalism is a societal model just as Socialism is, just as Communism, etc. The idea being that these systems are all created to serve the greater society. That is why it is imperative that a system be in place to break up monopolies.

    Another lacking area is the debate about what to do with people who don’t have capacity to take care of themselves. Mentally ill, addicts, orphans, elderly without family, etc. Sure the market may have some solutions, but if these people don’t have the capacity to pay for these solutions then they are going to end up on the streets, end up suffering, end up being a casualty of the system. This is the ugly side of social Darwinism. It’s nice to think that we all want to help one another, but unfortunately the people with the resources are not adequately putting them back into the system. I’d love to hear a podcast with the rebuttal to this. This was severely lacking an opposing voice.

    Bill Clifford
  • There’s an obvious solution here to me it seems:

    Attorneys that represent public resources (air, water, etc.) and that ARE financially incentivized (instead of pro-bono.) Financially driven solution to protect (Ryan’s argument), and without complicated/perhaps impossible ownership (Aubrey’s argument).

    Shiraz

Leave a comment

Please note, comments must be approved before they are published