Not even a single 90+ player, yes I know the chance is 0.99% but seeing people here post they get 90+ rated player from lantern pack brought my hopes up :(
Hi all, long-time fan of the podcast. Also, not sure I'd describe myself as a Progressive.
That said, the podcast is usually characterized by an awareness of the taxonomy of ideas and arguments that Sam and many of his guests display. Often, I find myself hypothesizing what "point of view X" might say in response to the arguments presented on the show and, sure enough, these points of view are usually addressed in one form or another as the guest's speak --whether they were addressed convincingly is a different matter. But honestly, this podcast left that idea at the door.
TL;DR -Sam and Scott violate the principle of charity regarding Progressive Dems so badly that clear-headed thinking doesn't seem to happen.
Sam addresses Progressive concerns about the role of 'luck' in generating extreme wealth. Scott follows the Prog thread with "how much of your success is not your fault". Then, they totally ruin their credibility on the topic by propping up the tweeted version of Prog POV as the real argument and confirm their miss-characterization with gems like "billionaires are not bad people" and using J.K. Rowling as an example.
Is anyone seriously convinced that Progressives are talking about the taxes and regulations in the way that they currently are because of individual ethical decisions made by billionaires? Isn’t Sam some-what of an ethicist; why doesn’t he do any work distinguishing individual and collective ethics?
Real Argument Entry Point (totally over-simplified): -If you think that a large part of wealth generation doesn't have to do with the individual, at what point (in $$) may that individual's entitlement to their current rate of wealth generation (income) begin to erode, if at all? Why?
Usually this would be a mild disagreement, but SO MUCH of this podcast --with a bonafide professional on the topic-- was spent addressing a straw man of the Prog argument. Did Scott Galoway begin to appear naiive to the arguments he was opposing to anyone else? It isn’t fair to take quotes out of context, but maybe re-listen with a Progressive ear for what Scott says:
“We need more room for nuance and complexity regarding wealth tax.” “Tax complexity overwhelmingly favors the wealthy.”
“Billionaires are not bad people.” “If it’s a choice between moral clarity and my Range Rover, I’m picking my Range Rover. The majority of people think that way. People will make incremental rationalizations to make decisions that create economic security f
... keep reading on reddit ➡