Joe Rogan Experience #1131 - Dave Rubin

Dave Rubin's most popular/most influential video "why I left the Left" is a laughable joke.

But idiots gonna idiot, I suppose.
 
the theory you mention is pretty much known as unworkable in any modern setting..... so no, you are wrong

The infrastructure now makes that even more workable in a modern setting you dolt. The problem of externalities is assigning property rights. That's less of a problem now.... so, no you're wrong and making shit up.
 
That's the thing though. It's probably partly a con, but the people being conned love being conned. So it doesn't matter. Do you really think the people re-tweeting Candace Owens actually care if she's genuine, thoughtful, informed, etc?

Of course they don't, because she's obviously not at least 2 of those things. It's pretty obvious that she's just a character for them that they needed. Kind of like that Milo guy that was all the rage.

I'd still put Milo above Owens, because he seemed to be harbouring some kind of legitimate gripes against "the modern left" while in Owens's case, her stories seem to be pure innovations or atleast wide exaggerations of the truth.

She seems like the most basic type of con-man (or con-woman) and I wouldn't be surprised to see her "switch sides" in about a year or two, once her conservative gig runs dry, the way we've seen happen many times among many "social media" personalities populating both sides of the ranks.

We'll probably see a bleeding heart declaration about how she proved conservatism to be racist, sexist and homophobic by "infiltrating the ranks", accompanied by a degree of publicity from left-leaning papers to milk the whole thing for what it's worth, and that will probably be the last that we hear of her.

She doesn't really possess any usefulness to either side, beyond what she represents superficially. No intellectual worth, no character, not much of a speaker either.
 
Let's rehash: I said that his libertarian views on government regulations are ridiculous and your rebuttal is "it has a name and it's been talked about half a century ago!".

Yes. Did you bother looking into how markets handle externalities, or are you just going to continue with you're sociopathy?
 
so he abandoned all principals he held and became a libertarian? theres nothing "progressive" about libertarianism

As a former progressive...there is nothing progressive with this new era of progressives. I’m not republican but you guys are a lost party. Instead of blaming yourselves for the downfall of the left you simply focus on the presidents obvious flaws.

It’s why I’m confident we have 6 years of trump left
 
The infrastructure now makes that even more workable in a modern setting you dolt. The problem of externalities is assigning property rights. That's less of a problem now.... so, no you're wrong and making shit up.
oh really?
Ronald Coase's work itself emphasized a problem in applying the Coase theorem: transactions are "often extremely costly, sufficiently costly at any rate to prevent many transactions that would be carried out in a world in which the pricing system worked without cost." (Coase, 1960—first paragraph of section VI.) This isn't a criticism of the theorem itself, since the theorem considers only those situations in which there are no transaction costs. Instead, it is an objection to applications of the theorem that neglect this crucial assumption.

So, a key criticism is that the theorem is almost always inapplicable in economic reality, because real-world transaction costs are rarely low enough to allow for efficient bargaining. (That was the conclusion of Coase's original paper, making him the first 'critic' of using the theorem as a practical solution.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem#Criticisms_of_the_applicability_of_the_theorem
 
I'd still put Milo above Owens, because he seemed to be harbouring some kind of legitimate gripes against "the modern left" while in Owens's case, her stories seem to be pure innovations or atleast wide exaggerations of the truth.

She seems like the most basic type of con-man (or con-woman) and I wouldn't be surprised to see her "switch sides" in about a year or two, once her conservative gig runs dry, the way we've seen happen many times among many "social media" personalities populating both sides of the ranks.

We'll probably see a bleeding heart declaration about how she proved conservatism to be racist, sexist and homophobic by "infiltrating the ranks", accompanied by a degree of publicity from left-leaning papers to milk the whole thing for what it's worth, and that will probably be the last that we hear of her.

She doesn't really possess any usefulness to either side, beyond what she represents superficially. No intellectual worth, no character, not much of a speaker either.

I actually think you're giving her too much credit. I think she's just a vapid 20-something, who kinda made a name for herself on Twitter by being the perfect caricature of a black woman who discovered a whole world of right wing politics in her late 20s, after an entire life of being liberal. She was thrust into notoriety for that reason, and now people are realizing she's not all that smart after all.
 
As a former progressive...there is nothing progressive with this new era of progressives. I’m not republican but you guys are a lost party. Instead of blaming yourselves for the downfall of the left you simply focus on the presidents obvious flaws.

It’s why I’m confident we have 6 years of trump left
so you clearly dont have any principals either, if you really were a progressive you would challenge those who are extreme within the progressive ranks..... you dont just jump ship because you disagree with some people

Im not in a party, so wtf are you talking about?
 
I actually think you're giving her too much credit. I think she's just a vapid 20-something, who kinda made a name for herself on Twitter by being the perfect caricature of a black woman who discovered a whole world of right wing politics in her late 20s, after an entire life of being liberal. She was thrust into notoriety for that reason, and now people are realizing she's not all that smart after all.

I don't think so.

She already ran a website intended to doxx gamers/Twitter trolls who were part of the GamerGate movement. Even a noted feminist had to tell her off because she was hurting the perception of the feminism with her actions.

She's got a bit of a history pulling scams and she has also admitted that her enormous loans are playing a significant part into why she's doing what she's doing.

We've got to remember that America is a capitalist democracy, and a lot of people learn how to be "players" at a fairly early age, lying, exaggerating and misrepresenting others in order to make their payday. Pure profit motivates people more so than morals, ideals and such things.
 
No, its called the Coase theorem. That "problem" has been solved half a century ago. Learn what you're talking about.
"Solved" by an economist who also argued that the premises of his model (i.e. effective bargaining and low transaction costs) are rarely observed in the real world, something that severely hampers the applicability of the theorem.

Again, these are Coase's words, not even outside criticism (of which there's plenty).
 
Wasn't Owens running some "liberal" scam a couple of years ago?
i think most people in politics will gravitate to wherever the money is flowing; even if it means changing their public core beliefs.
 
I don't think so.

She already ran a website intended to doxx gamers/Twitter trolls who were part of the GamerGate movement. Even a noted feminist had to tell her off because she was hurting the perception of the feminism with her actions.

She's got a bit of a history pulling scams and she has also admitted that her enormous loans are playing a significant part into why she's doing what she's doing.

We've got to remember that America is a capitalist democracy, and a lot of people learn how to be "players" at a fairly early age, lying, exaggerating and misrepresenting others in order to make their payday. Pure profit motivates people more so than morals, ideals and such things.

That site was never created btw.
 
so you clearly dont have any principals either, if you really were a progressive you would challenge those who are extreme within the progressive ranks..... you dont just jump ship because you disagree with some people

Im not in a party, so wtf are you talking about?

You’re defending progressives in most threads. Anyhow, I don’t disagree with some in the party I disagree with almost all. Attacking first and second amendment rights killed the party
 
"Solved" by an economist who also argued that the premises of his model (i.e. effective bargaining and low transaction costs) are rarely observed in the real world, something that severely hampers the applicability of the theorem.

Again, these are Coase's words, not even outside criticism (of which there's plenty).

Transactions, and more importantly the threat of transaction (litigation), that happen all the time. so what if Coase got cucked out of his own brilliance.
 
You dufus, transactions for controlling externalities happen all the fucking time, you've probably been a party to one.
sorry buddeh, you tried to look intelligent.... but it backfired terribly
 
You’re defending progressives in most threads. Anyhow, I don’t disagree with some in the party I disagree with almost all. Attacking first and second amendment rights killed the party
I am a progressive, do you think that means Im tied to a certain political party?

aw buddy, are you scared they wanna take yer guns away?
 
Transactions, and more importantly the threat of transaction (litigation), that happen all the time. so what if Coase got cucked out of his own brilliance.
Uh... what? Transactions happen all the time? The fuck that is supposed to mean?

Coase's point is that low transaction costs are not empirically observed due to social norms, information asymmetry, etc etc. Keep in mind I'm only mentioning factors that can't be pinned on the evil gubment. If transaction costs are significant, bargaining breaks down and Paretto efficiency is not reached. The fact that even the author points that out is more than enough proof that the theorem is more of a thought experiment (a very interesting one) than a "solution".
 
That site was never created btw.

It was created, but never as anything more than a very basic template. In the meanwhile she collected money through Kickstarter, despite not putting any effort whatsoever into actually creating anything, until Kickstarter shut her down. She claimed to have around 12,000 profiles listed even though she had only a few dozen real ones.

http://web.archive.org/web/20171001000000*/www.socialautopsy.com

She also has operated under "fake names" in the past, too.

Her whole project got exposed pretty badly, by feminists:



Once she got driven out of those ranks, she joined the conservative club.
 
Last edited:
And that right there is the only common theme shared by most of Rogans guests - the willingness to have a conversation and agree to disagree. And that flies in the face of this new trend where any disagreement will see a person wanting to be excommunicated from greater society by labeling them "X". And that's exactly what some people act like - cult members with intolerance for diversity of ideas. Seems cowardly and pathetic to me.
100%. The closest to "alt-right" that Joe's guests have ever been are Milo and Gavin. However, they're actually "alt-light" rather than alt-right. They're both involved in interracial marriages, a same-sex interracial marriage in Milo's case. And Joe hasn't had them on in quite some time. I don't know if Joe refuses to have them on or people like them on anymore, but at any rate, he's had people with much more mainstream views on like Ben Shapiro lately. And you're a total idiot if you think that he is alt-right.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,234,841
Messages
55,311,599
Members
174,734
Latest member
Bob Gnuheart
Back
Top