I did get a bit frustrated listening to this as it was big on rhetoric but he didn't really have any solutions, or even ideas, and didn't even seem to want to engage with the most basic concerns about the realities of imposing wealth taxes.
I couldn't believe it when he said, "here's my notebook, I'm ready to talk some numbers" and then it was drivel like how long does it take to count from a million to a billion; can we actually be serious please.
Also Josh's attempts to bring some substance of unequal opportunities in society, especially the housing market, which is not all the fault of billionaires, were not even engaged with.
Plenty of people have talked about inequality and the issue of billionaires so I struggle to see what this guest is actually contributing.
Sometimes a discussion is just a discussion. Not meant to solve practical problems but just to make us think. I found it a great discussion. About ideas. Which I think is what the podcast is about..?
Extraordinary to hear the Dean of a large Australian university’s business school express such a childishly simplistic point of view. It’s as if Carl has never bothered to think beyond his moral overlay on this topic, even while writing a book on it.
Thanks Josh for voicing at least some of the objections and follow-ups that I was yelling at my phone. I hope this guy’s book has more rigor and originality to it than the superficial ideas he presented here. These are important issues so enough already with the trivial anecdotes about the Microsoft parking lot.
It is with a profound sense of disquiet that one observes certain currents within contemporary academic discourse, particularly when they emanate from figures entrusted with the intellectual development of future generations. The essence of scholarly engagement, ideally, lies in the meticulous construction of arguments, rigorously supported by empirical evidence, logical coherence, and a nuanced appreciation for complexity. When confronted with a discursive strategy characterized less by reasoned argumentation and more by a rapid-fire succession of assertions—a phenomenon colloquially termed a "Gish Gallop"—it inevitably raises questions regarding intellectual integrity and pedagogical efficacy, especially if such pronouncements are perceived to be rooted in an uncritical adherence to a singular ideological framework like a simplistic interpretation of Marxism, without engagement with counter-arguments or alternative paradigms.
This apprehension is particularly acute when the individual occupies a position of influence within a university setting, shaping the minds of young Australians. The reduction of intricate economic and societal phenomena to an ostensibly "oversimplistic outlook" risks fostering a generation ill-equipped to grapple with the multifaceted challenges of the modern world. Education, at its zenith, should cultivate critical thinking and independent analysis, rather than the uncritical absorption of pre-digested ideological tenets. It is a lamentable state of affairs if academia's hallowed halls become venues where robust exchange is supplanted by an ideologically driven monologue, devoid of substantive logical underpinnings. The imperative remains for educators to inspire a comprehensive understanding of diverse viewpoints and to demand intellectual rigor.
I am utterly disappointed with Carl. I came with an open mind, trying to understand the deep, moral, philosophical and practical objections to billionaires. The level of narrative presented was no different than your typical 17 year old socialist wannabe reddit user. "do you know how much a billion weights?". "....taking the wealth from the rightful owners, the workers". Seriously? This is the level of academia? Its childish. It was embarrassing. Coudln't finish the podcast.
When someone becomes a billionaire, it’s not just because they worked hard or had a brilliant idea. It also reflects a system that has been rigged to funnel wealth upward, through tax loopholes, underpaid labor, lack of healthcare, environmental degradation, and often government subsidies or monopolistic practices.
And the issue isn’t just how much money they have, it’s what that kind of money does. It distorts democracy. It buys legislation. It controls media. It hoards resources that could be used to solve real crises, like hunger, housing, education, and climate change.
We don’t need to punish success. But we do need a system that ensures that success doesn’t come at the expense of everyone else. And I believe a world where no one can hoard billions while others can’t afford insulin is not only more just, it’s also more humane, more creative, and more sustainable.
I’m just not sure how to get there…
Thanks for this conversation, Josh. I rarely interact, but you’re one of my favorite humans on the planet, and I’m really grateful for everything that you do. 💖✨
Hey Joe. It’s just a conversation. A discussion to make you think. Next week Josh will probably interview Bill Gates. Or Putin. It’s the purpose of this podcast I think, to air different perspectives.
It would help if some of those perspectives had any substance to them. The outcome of this discussion was that I now think that billionaires are not so bad and that academia has it head up their behind.
Not a strong guest, I could tell right away that he'd only thought of the episodes topics casually when his retort to criticism of DEI policies as "well in the past it was all whites". Yeah, everyone knows, that doesn't justify an equally discriminatory policy in the other direction.
I tend to agree, to some degree, with the hypothesis. I at least think we need a much more progressive tax structure at the top levels in the USA. Having said that, I found this guy so dishonest when he couldn't just admit that the hiring practice pendulum had swung far enough that _sometimes_ we're seeing "reverse discrimination" today. After that I didn't really pay attention as it was obvious he was just playing party politics and unable to look beyond that.
Elon Musk is far from perfect. But to say he doesn't pay any taxes is ridiculous. He has paid more in taxes than any human that has ever existed. The problem is for people like the professor, they don't like billionaires, they think billionaires and the system that created them are unfair, so no matter how much that one human pays in taxes it is never enough for those who want to read distribute. I am far from rich, but I know the ills of trying to cure this so-called disease.
So what? Bezos stimulates so many economies wherever that yacht goes. Provides salaries to the crew. Pays interest on the loan to a bank, which pays it's employees, shareholders, etc. And on and on. When you borrow for a home (usually an appreciating asset) you can deduct most of not all interest from your taxes. Usually the same tax rules for home equity loans/lines of credit. How many folks draw on their home equity for lifestyle enhancements? Also, when u sell the house for a profit, you can usually escape capital gains taxes legally. If somebody amasses wealth, they should be able to use it for their benefit.
there are two bedroom apartments in Coburg, Melbourne, selling for $500,000. What’s wrong with that as a first home? It would have much better amenities than my first home which had an outside toilet.
Vicki (A grumpy baby boomer annoyed at being blamed for all the world’s ills.)
Thanks for this conversation Josh. I’m always a bit surprised by how disconnected academics can be. I wish you had pushed him on what his definition of Meritocracy is, sounds a lot different to mine. He almost slipped and said DEI replaced……what? Cronyism?
I did get a bit frustrated listening to this as it was big on rhetoric but he didn't really have any solutions, or even ideas, and didn't even seem to want to engage with the most basic concerns about the realities of imposing wealth taxes.
I couldn't believe it when he said, "here's my notebook, I'm ready to talk some numbers" and then it was drivel like how long does it take to count from a million to a billion; can we actually be serious please.
Also Josh's attempts to bring some substance of unequal opportunities in society, especially the housing market, which is not all the fault of billionaires, were not even engaged with.
Plenty of people have talked about inequality and the issue of billionaires so I struggle to see what this guest is actually contributing.
Sometimes a discussion is just a discussion. Not meant to solve practical problems but just to make us think. I found it a great discussion. About ideas. Which I think is what the podcast is about..?
Extraordinary to hear the Dean of a large Australian university’s business school express such a childishly simplistic point of view. It’s as if Carl has never bothered to think beyond his moral overlay on this topic, even while writing a book on it.
Thanks Josh for voicing at least some of the objections and follow-ups that I was yelling at my phone. I hope this guy’s book has more rigor and originality to it than the superficial ideas he presented here. These are important issues so enough already with the trivial anecdotes about the Microsoft parking lot.
It’s a discussion. Not a plan to save the world.
It is with a profound sense of disquiet that one observes certain currents within contemporary academic discourse, particularly when they emanate from figures entrusted with the intellectual development of future generations. The essence of scholarly engagement, ideally, lies in the meticulous construction of arguments, rigorously supported by empirical evidence, logical coherence, and a nuanced appreciation for complexity. When confronted with a discursive strategy characterized less by reasoned argumentation and more by a rapid-fire succession of assertions—a phenomenon colloquially termed a "Gish Gallop"—it inevitably raises questions regarding intellectual integrity and pedagogical efficacy, especially if such pronouncements are perceived to be rooted in an uncritical adherence to a singular ideological framework like a simplistic interpretation of Marxism, without engagement with counter-arguments or alternative paradigms.
This apprehension is particularly acute when the individual occupies a position of influence within a university setting, shaping the minds of young Australians. The reduction of intricate economic and societal phenomena to an ostensibly "oversimplistic outlook" risks fostering a generation ill-equipped to grapple with the multifaceted challenges of the modern world. Education, at its zenith, should cultivate critical thinking and independent analysis, rather than the uncritical absorption of pre-digested ideological tenets. It is a lamentable state of affairs if academia's hallowed halls become venues where robust exchange is supplanted by an ideologically driven monologue, devoid of substantive logical underpinnings. The imperative remains for educators to inspire a comprehensive understanding of diverse viewpoints and to demand intellectual rigor.
Yes I agree, based on this interview I’d put money on this guy being a shitty teacher
I am utterly disappointed with Carl. I came with an open mind, trying to understand the deep, moral, philosophical and practical objections to billionaires. The level of narrative presented was no different than your typical 17 year old socialist wannabe reddit user. "do you know how much a billion weights?". "....taking the wealth from the rightful owners, the workers". Seriously? This is the level of academia? Its childish. It was embarrassing. Coudln't finish the podcast.
Thanks Josh for pushing back.
When someone becomes a billionaire, it’s not just because they worked hard or had a brilliant idea. It also reflects a system that has been rigged to funnel wealth upward, through tax loopholes, underpaid labor, lack of healthcare, environmental degradation, and often government subsidies or monopolistic practices.
And the issue isn’t just how much money they have, it’s what that kind of money does. It distorts democracy. It buys legislation. It controls media. It hoards resources that could be used to solve real crises, like hunger, housing, education, and climate change.
We don’t need to punish success. But we do need a system that ensures that success doesn’t come at the expense of everyone else. And I believe a world where no one can hoard billions while others can’t afford insulin is not only more just, it’s also more humane, more creative, and more sustainable.
I’m just not sure how to get there…
Thanks for this conversation, Josh. I rarely interact, but you’re one of my favorite humans on the planet, and I’m really grateful for everything that you do. 💖✨
You formulated exactly what I think! Thank you. Nice to know I’m not the only one yelling into the wind 🙏
Literally had no real interesting thoughts except “billionaires bad”. Josh gave him a lot of free kicks and came off terribly.
Hey Joe. It’s just a conversation. A discussion to make you think. Next week Josh will probably interview Bill Gates. Or Putin. It’s the purpose of this podcast I think, to air different perspectives.
It would help if some of those perspectives had any substance to them. The outcome of this discussion was that I now think that billionaires are not so bad and that academia has it head up their behind.
‘Let’s talk about what BillGates does now, today, with his scientifically rigorous charity’
Carl ‘Let’s ignore that and talk about Bill Gates 40 years ago’
..this is not a serious thinker
Not a strong guest, I could tell right away that he'd only thought of the episodes topics casually when his retort to criticism of DEI policies as "well in the past it was all whites". Yeah, everyone knows, that doesn't justify an equally discriminatory policy in the other direction.
I tend to agree, to some degree, with the hypothesis. I at least think we need a much more progressive tax structure at the top levels in the USA. Having said that, I found this guy so dishonest when he couldn't just admit that the hiring practice pendulum had swung far enough that _sometimes_ we're seeing "reverse discrimination" today. After that I didn't really pay attention as it was obvious he was just playing party politics and unable to look beyond that.
Huh another progressive professor.... is there no end to them? Good job schooling the professor about taxing the rich and watching them flee.
Elon Musk is far from perfect. But to say he doesn't pay any taxes is ridiculous. He has paid more in taxes than any human that has ever existed. The problem is for people like the professor, they don't like billionaires, they think billionaires and the system that created them are unfair, so no matter how much that one human pays in taxes it is never enough for those who want to read distribute. I am far from rich, but I know the ills of trying to cure this so-called disease.
So what? Bezos stimulates so many economies wherever that yacht goes. Provides salaries to the crew. Pays interest on the loan to a bank, which pays it's employees, shareholders, etc. And on and on. When you borrow for a home (usually an appreciating asset) you can deduct most of not all interest from your taxes. Usually the same tax rules for home equity loans/lines of credit. How many folks draw on their home equity for lifestyle enhancements? Also, when u sell the house for a profit, you can usually escape capital gains taxes legally. If somebody amasses wealth, they should be able to use it for their benefit.
Jeff, is that you?
Jeremy, was this an attempt at humor? Socialist like yourself have no solutions. You just have ad hominem attacks.
there are two bedroom apartments in Coburg, Melbourne, selling for $500,000. What’s wrong with that as a first home? It would have much better amenities than my first home which had an outside toilet.
Vicki (A grumpy baby boomer annoyed at being blamed for all the world’s ills.)
Thanks for this conversation Josh. I’m always a bit surprised by how disconnected academics can be. I wish you had pushed him on what his definition of Meritocracy is, sounds a lot different to mine. He almost slipped and said DEI replaced……what? Cronyism?
0 convincing or persuasive arguments coming from Carl.
As far as billionaires go - don’t hate the player, hate the game!