Bet On It

Share this post

My Youtube Channel is Getting Pretty OK

betonit.substack.com

Discover more from Bet On It

Caplan and Candor
Over 9,000 subscribers
Continue reading
Sign in

My Youtube Channel is Getting Pretty OK

Bryan Caplan
Nov 22, 2022
22
Share this post

My Youtube Channel is Getting Pretty OK

betonit.substack.com
12
Share

I’ve had a Youtube channel for years, but never did much with it. Until now. Original content is still sparse, but I’ve now assembled playlists of over 100 videos I’ve shot over the last quarter century.

Start with Most Watched, Fun Debates, and Cartoons! I’ve also got playlists for each of my four main books and my Bet On It podcasts.

Rounding out the collection are two catch-all categories: Freedom! and Caplan and Candor. If I’ve missed anything, or if you’ve got old footage for me to upload, just say the word.

I’m also open to requests to create other playlists on other topics. Tell me your dreams in the comments.

P.S. Here’s the latest video I’ve added, of my (in-person!) March 2020 debate on capitalism versus socialism against the University of Chicago’s Brian Leiter.

22
Share this post

My Youtube Channel is Getting Pretty OK

betonit.substack.com
12
Share
12 Comments
Share this discussion

My Youtube Channel is Getting Pretty OK

betonit.substack.com
Bart
Nov 25, 2022

You should put these videos on the main channel , almost nobody clicks through to the playlist

Expand full comment
Reply
Share
Data Framed
Writes Data Framed
Nov 23, 2022

Question for Bryan:

Bryan's argument is that social democracy is bad because it harms the poor via immigration restrictions and building restrictions and presumably a million other regulations, and because it wastes the money it gathers by spending on non-poor people.

Leaving the first part aside, which is clearly true and I concede, is Bryan's view on the second part that spending on non-poor people is unjust, or not utility maximizing? Most people in society are consumed by one vice or other. The ur-cause of vice is lack of impulse control. Most people are consequently unable to assess risk (are innumerate) or unable to save for the future (have high discount rates). The welfare state's function is both social control (steering people to do things the state approves of with their money) but also to insure against the bad and predictable outcomes of people operating in a cognitively demanding society.

My question is: why is redistributing non-poor people's income back to them in essentially forced savings and a health care system bad? Would it still be bad if you could demonstrate that, say, social security improved human welfare, or is this a moral claim independent of results?

Expand full comment
Reply
Share
10 more comments...
Top
New
Community

No posts

Ready for more?

© 2023 Bryan Caplan
Privacy ∙ Terms ∙ Collection notice
Start WritingGet the app
Substack is the home for great writing