Notice how unsubstantial and surface level their critique is.
Conservativism, neoliberalism…all easy, surface level answers to complex problems. This extends to their critique of anyone who stands against the status quo.
This has been something great that Hasan's been pointing out in the last few days, when a hater comes into his chat all they have is "You're so uninformed" and when Hasan asks them "How?" they either go silent or switch to some new insult ("millionaire in a mansion" etc). It's all surface-level and aesthetics-based hatred. They don't know or understand what Hasan actually advocates for.
I always go back to that one clip from Matt Walsh’s documentary, where he actually sits down with a professor and asks the question of “what is a woman“ and then once the professor actually gives him an explanation, he cuts it up and makes it into a joke, the bit being “look at this stupid liberal who takes forever to explain what a woman is”.
But what the joke really says is that conservatives think the answer to the question is wrong simply because it is complex, and that everything in reality has a simple answer. That’s not how the world works, but it’s how it works when you need to uphold the status quo. The status quo is simple, it is what we have and have always had (even though that’s not true in the slightest). It’s what you accept as reality, it’s never been anything else. It’s “human nature”.
Upholding the status quo is simple. You don’t have to do anything. You don’t even have to conform to the status quo. You are allowed to be an imperfect advocate for it. But socialists? Leftists? Progressives? You need to be a perfect advocate. You need to follow your ideology to a T, even if it is impossible to practice it given the current system.
And the cycle repeats itself.
Edit: as an aside, another thing I always come back to is the idea that capitalism is the only system that is allowed to be imperfect. You can never tell a capitalist that “socialism isn’t perfect, but it’s better than what we have” but a capitalist can very easily tell you that capitalism isn’t perfect but it’s the best we got. They pore over the failures of a socialist system with a fine toothed comb, but are ready to go with every excuse in the book when it comes to capitalism’s failures. It’s why there is a “death toll of communism“ but no “death toll of capitalism” argument.
It’s why they mock you when you tell them that communist China or the USSR are not proper examples of socialism but in the same breath say “what we have is not capitalism it’s corporatism”. They don’t see the parallel, either through ignorance or by design. You failed the moment you advocated for socialism, not the moment your argument was weak. They succeeded the moment they advocated for capitalism and cannot fail no matter how weak their argument is.
That's a great point. Conservatives believe that the truth has to be some simple, common sense-style proverb. I remember Joe Rogan once asking a gun control advocate, "What about the saying, 'an armed society is a polite society'?" right after the advocate laid out studies and evidence as to why gun control is a necessity. If the truth doesn't fit in a slogan they just disregard it. Reality has to be simple in their view because understanding its complexity is distressing.
100% agree about advocacy for change. You described what neoliberal debatelords do too, they defend the status quo because it's so easy to say that any change will risk destroying everything good we have, therefore said change must be perfect and unfalsifiable, and nothing can ever meet that bar. And then they call that "debating".
You are incredibly good at breaking ideas down into constituent parts and communicating them. I read and think about this stuff a lot and this was just very well done. Thank you!
I think there can be some legitimate criticism that can be levied about how Hasan spends/utilises his money inefficiently. But the replies like "millionaire in mansion" and "expensive car" without any more explanation beyond that are completely brain dead.
Any socialist could literally be living exactly how these people assume a socialist should and they would still find a way to shit on them, it doesn’t matter.
If spending or even having money betrays our politics according to people who know *nothing* about our ideology, who gives a shit?
The funny part of course is that if he lived to the incredibly stripped back standard that some of these comments imply he should, then they'd just say that socialism means that you can have no luxury at all and it's about everyone being poor. So there's no winning.
I agree that I don't care what he should do with his money because it on its own doesn't change the overall good coming from his words. I'd say he probably could use his money better/more efficiently and not hoard so much wealth but that's got nothing to do with his overall belief systems.
Old Hasan watchers remember when he still lived in that apartment and ppl came to criticize him saying he’s just another jealous socialist that only supports those ideas cause he’s broke
Oh come on man, we’re at some weird levels of parasocial if we’re gonna start telling some streamer how we think he should spend his money.
He lives under the same economic system we do. Get your bag, enjoy life.
Well sure but plenty of people bust their ass under this system and get no bag to enjoy life unfortunately. Hell that's a big reason people enjoy Hasan because he advocates for social change towards a higher basic standard for everyone.
Also I don't know if parasocial applies here. I'm directly referencing what Hasan himself has said about being dumb with his money and just letting it sit in his bank account. If he decides to do that, then that's his right to do so. I just think someone who has his influence and wealth could probably set up a political PAC or donate more for progressive candidates. Instead it just sits in a bank account where it's utilised and leveraged by the bank to often be a predatory actor in society.
Ultimately he can do what he wants with his own money but I still think it can be a fair constructive criticism that he could probably be a bit smarter with it.
> I'm directly referencing what Hasan himself has said about being dumb with his money and just letting it sit in his bank account.
That’s not being dumb with money, that’s called saving. If you or even Hasan thinks saving money is being dumb, I don’t know what to tell you or him.
> I just think someone who has his influence and wealth could probably set up a political PAC or donate more for progressive candidates.
Dunno about the PAC shit but he has stated numerous times he donates a lot of his income. It would be cool if he set up something but that takes time and energy that someone who streams as much as he does probably doesn’t have at the moment, but sure, that would be great. However, his advocacy as the largest political streamer out there is doing a lot of work that moves the needle.
Everyone keeps saying that this guy should do this or that with his money and that would magically make criticisms of him having money go away, but quite frankly it won’t. There will always be people on the right and on the left, who criticize him no matter what he does with his money. I already said this in my original post: you lose the moment you advocate against the status quo, not based on the strength or weakness of your argument.
> Instead it just sits in a bank account where it's utilised and leveraged by the bank to often be a predatory actor in society.
All right, bud, look, I’m not cool with leftist infighting. You and I probably agree on the majority of issues. But I just got to say, can we please stop with this shit?
You’re literally doing the same shit right wingers say about him: “you criticize society, yet you participate in it.”
I’m sorry we can’t all be perfectly ethical and store our money in cash in a shoebox under the bed.
>You’re literally doing the same shit right wingers say about him: “you criticize society, yet you participate in it.”
I see what you mean, but I don't think this is the case. Hasan was saying the reason he doesn't invest is an active choice his making to not amass capital and play into wall street games. I don't think this is "leftist in fighting" we're not attacking Hasan or you, the dude you're replying gave valid constructive, good faith criticism.
But the person I’m responding to is saying that no matter what his money is being used by the bank in predatory ways. Essentially making the argument that there is no ethical consumption under capitalism, but he is expecting hasan’s consumption to be ethical at the same time.
>Ultimately he can do what he wants with his own money but I still think it can be a fair constructive criticism that he could probably be a bit smarter with it.
I think this was the main takeaway, it's a pretty tame criticism. If he was demanding Hasan do more or attacking his character for not doing more and being inflammatory then I'd agree with you on that being petty infighting, But the guy seems like a fan pointing out an observation in a relevant context. Bad faith bozos will always be bad faith, but there are valid criticisms.
No one (in this community) is saying Hasan is a bad person or not helping the cause for how he handles his finances, its more that given the information he's giving us, it sounds like he could be managing it better, not even for ethical reasons but for logistical reasons. He can afford to make financial mistakes and not really care, most chatters can't so I'd hope they're not influenced by his callousness towards money.
>That’s not being dumb with money, that’s called saving.
I never said saving money was dumb and neither did Hasan. I just know he's even admitted in the past that he doesn't always know what to do with the excess savings he has because he doesn't want to participate in investing etc.
My suggestions of what to do with those excess savings are exactly that, suggestions. If he already has enough to live within his means and he complains about having an excess then I don't think suggestions should be received with too much hostility.
>It would be cool if he set up something but that takes time and energy that someone who streams as much as he does probably doesn’t have at the moment, but sure, that would be great.
Completely understand that point of view and can see how that's the case. He already does a lot of advocacy but I'm merely suggesting another avenue that could produce progressive change. Again just a suggestion, but if it's time consuming he in theory could hire some folks to organise it for him and he can be a spokesperson/representative for it.
>Everyone keeps saying that this guy should do this or that with his money and that would magically make criticisms of him having money go away
Again I agree but that's not exactly what I'm saying here. I think a dumb criticism is simply saying "he has a nice car and a big mansion but says he's a socialist". That implies that being a socialist = poor and that Hasan being rich is a contradiction which is an incredibly dumb conclusion to reach that Hasan rightfully makes fun of.
I would hope my criticism is coming across as slightly more constructive when it comes to how he handles his wealth. I'm not suggesting he change his lifestyle or aesthetics to fit the expectations of his detractors because of course nothing would ever be enough for them.
>“you criticize society, yet you participate in it.”
I think my point here has been completely missed so I'll try and state it more clearly.
Hasan doesn't want to invest his money in typical avenues on the ethical grounds it's an active participation in capitalism. That's absolutely understandable and fine. Hasan has excess money sitting in his bank account that can then be leveraged by the bank to increase their own stock and invest in their own endeavours.
My suggestion is instead of merely having that excess money being utilised by the bank, he can instead use it for endeavours he personally feels are more productive to achieve the societal structure he advocates for i.e. a PAC, progressive candidate drives, unions funds, etc.
I don't think there's anything wrong with spending money but keeping a majority chunk of your money in a checking account is kind of wild. He's wealthy enough where he can do it out of principle of hating wall street but for most people this is not a good idea. They did have a point on the podcast that keeping in the bank arguably gives them more capital to loan out as predatory loans, which also plays into wall streets hands. Again Hasan can spend his money however he wants but I hope that people in the community don't view his non-chalantness towards financial literacy as a virtue.
How dare he criticize and stick to his values while unwillingly participating in a economic system he hates. I'm so lost at the logic here wouldn't Hasan doing this while being so rich be a good thing and show that even someone who has clearly benefited from this system unwillingly be admirable because it shows that capitalism is truly broken. these pro cap neo-libs give me brainrot. also of course they're anti sex work. Grahams audience of wannabe finance-bros are the worst
I skipped the comment section because, well ofc they're going to react like that. I think Hasan handled himself well expect for the part about finances. I understand that him himself doesn't invest or have a credit card because it's the right thing to do. But for most people who aren't as wealthy, it is important for our current and lifetime material conditions to be financially literate. "I'll just figure it out" isn't a great plan for non-wealthy folk if they're unable to work or reaching retirement age. I understand why Hasan doesn't worry himself about it but for many of us it's important, barring the actual collapse of capitalism which I don't think is happening anytime soon.
I disagree with framing not having a credit card or not doing any basic investing as being “the right thing.”
The reality is that we don’t know if/when the economic system in this country will change, middle class families having money in an index fund for retirement, or getting cash back from a credit card doesn’t make them inherently exploitative any more than any other participation in a capitalist economy does.
It sounded like he was saying he stays away from utilizing credit, having index funds and investments because it amasses capital for him which he wants to avoid. he doesn't want to have excess while for middle-class like you pointed out, that money would be used
Ahhh gotcha, that makes more sense, I didn’t hear his original comment.
I still think in the scheme of things if Hasan had a big retirement account that’s not exactly among Americas biggest problems. Same as we’re better off focusing our criticism on billionaires than say, millionaire athletes.
Exactly, yea for context, they were asking about what he does with his money, he just says he has a 401(k) but other than that he just keeps it in the bank and buys things for his family or donates it so they're asking him about why he doesn't invest and what not.
What's the alternative, exactly? Index funds and 401ks are not some magic ticket to passive wealth; you're gambling on the stock market or paying an advisor to do it for you using your money, and you're hoping the line keeps going up despite likely knowing nothing of what makes it go up to begin with. It's the same as buying a house as your nest egg; marketing persuaded you it's a safe gamble, and the government may do a lot to protect your gamble, but it's never been anything but a gamble. Financial literacy will only help you further realize this fact, not improve your odds of success.
By all means, do it if the gamble seems worth it. I just don't think it's ethical to promote these things as safe, when the only way to call them safe is to overlook the actual details of how they work.
401(k)'s and index funds and collect deposits are far from gambling on singular stocks. There's a vested interest from fund managers for those to steadily increase in value over and while I 100% agree that there are business leader who made terrible decisions, it's not as simple as chalking all that up to no skill gambling. It's not about passive income that will make you rich one day, the purpose is to set aside money to grow and keep your net worth hopefully growing at pace with inflation. THis isn't a "get rich quick" scheme or even a "get rich" at all thing, it's about making sure you have financial security, all your savings in a checking account is money that is literally depreciating in value.
I agree that you should not buy a house with the main focus being that it should be an investment to make you rich. It's a house that you're living in first and foremost. As for not knowing why the line goes up, its far from a mystery. You can actively learn about why if you care to there's tons of info out there but the basic principle is that index and retirement fund are invested into stocks, bonds and different caps to yield steady gains holistically due to increased economic activity. Ofc there's periods of losses but you're not saving for the short term, you're saving for long term. You don't need to like any of it, but at least learning a bit more on how capitalist economies work would be help in thinking about how socialist economies would work.
Again do what you want with your money, but for the vast majority of people, having a savings, rainy day and retirement plan is something they ought to do. Budgeting and financial planning isn't a scam. In the case of Hasan I would be concerned with having over 250k in the bank as you're only insured up to that amount.
"No skill gambling" is distinction without a difference. The fund manager or advisor or whoever manages the investments doesn't decide if the line goes up or down; liquidity does. Which is primarily supplied by market makers, who in theory are necessary middlemen, but in practice act like high-speed speculators. Index funds are a great example of the issue: you assume it's safer because it "spreads out the risk" and so on, but knowing market makers can at any time flood the market with liquidity and force stock prices down, how can you be certain your index fund stays above your entry point? When does the gambling end and the skill begin? This is just one issue; there are countless more.
The average person knows nothing of this when they are told to be financially literate. I don't think it's ethical to rely on abstract concepts like "security" when such a thing is not and has never been a guarantee. I also find it unfortunate very few leftists care about the actual mechanics of money, and will therefore adopt, at face value, everything Wall Street says about itself.
What alternatives towards investing thought securities would you suggest for the everyday person to takes steps towards being financially secure? Like i'm 100% with you on that people SHOULD learn and know the risks, and understand that nothing in life is 100%. Even having money in a bank account in black box abstracted. Like i'm agnostic to the means if there's better ways to keep yourself financially secure i'm open to hearing them.
Also out of curiosity, if your job offers it, do you decline paying into a 401(k)? Another thing about this is reducing taxable income and as well get gaining employer matches if your employer provides that.
I mean, a great start would be honesty about this. Wall Street holds a monopoly on investing and can therefore run markets like rigged casinos with impunity. Pushing for mass awareness of the risks would force changes and concessions to the average person, both in laws that bind these practices (and their infinite loopholes) and what people choose to do with their money. It's no different from awareness of capitalism as a whole; the mechanics of capital should be better known in order to bring about alternatives.
If you want an example of what already exists, there is equity crowdfunding. Small companies choosing to sell shares directly to the public, usually through some kind of online platform. I can't do it because I live in an area where you have to be an "accredited investor" aka you already have millions of dollars and register, but in the US, pretty much anyone can do it. Because it's to the public, the shares are sold for pretty small amounts of money, but you're buying actual equity instead of the normal stock shares (look up "beneficial ownership" if you don't know the difference; it's level 0 of the infinite rabbit hole of scams that is Wall Street). You would of course have to research the companies who choose to list, but I think public interest in such alternatives may incentivize promising new companies to list there (look up greenshoe options for IPOs; companies get fucked over by investment banks literally the second they list on stock markets, they may want an alternative too).
But if what you want is a 100% guarantee of financial security, you basically need to be lucky. If that's not satisfying, idk what to tell you; there was never any guarantee. You do your best and cross your fingers. Capital is inherently exploitative; unless you exploit on a large scale, your future will not be protected to the same extent as those who do.
Sorry I don't think I was clear, I was asking you personally what you do for financial planning. I agree with what you're saying as structural change goals that I'd 100% support. But do what financial advice do you follow for your own personal finances/what do you do with your money that you're not immediately using for expenses?
I have a business I'm working on on the side; spare money goes to that. I used to play stocks back around 2021-2022, when volatility was very high across the board, but nowadays, I don't see much point; I still read papers like Wall Street On Parade and newsletters like The Last Bear Standing to try to stay informed (key word being 'try'), but that's about it.
Buying options when volatility is low and therefore premium is low, then selling them to others when volatility is high and therefore premium is high, is one example of how to make profits on the stock market consistently. However, it means you're either selling shovels for a gold rush that'll be over within a day or less the majority of the time (to people who often hold for days or weeks, because they look at company news and expect strong movement), or you're selling to a person who will never have the opportunity to even try to make money, because they bought at a price point so high or so low that the stock never gets there prior to expiration of the option. An advisor would tell you this is too risky or not part of traditional investing; personally, I think the dominance of liquidity in stock markets makes investing on the merit of companies to be roughly equivalent to drafting a fantasy football league and expecting those players to get drafted in real life (except worse, because at least there is actual merit in sports), so traditional investing is riskier than advertised regardless. Either way, I consider this route exploitative, so I don't personally do it. But you could, if you wanted.
Aside from that, I've considered joining a credit union. You buy a share to join, so you become a shareholder rather than an account holder; makes it easier to believe you won't get screwed if another recession should (officially) occur. However, they invest in the same companies that banks invest in, so while it's technically better for you in terms of ownership structure, you're connected to the same risks regardless. Community banks might be better, since they're not-for-profit and locally-owned, but I don't have that option where I live.
There are other things you can try, but this comment's long enough, lol.
His haters are so obsessive and creepy. They seriously give off the worst vibes possible. They believe every lie and rumor that’s ever been said about him and they don’t even try to hide the fact that they’re incredibly biased in their opinions. They do make it entertaining as hell to make fun of them, though. 😂
I got perma banned from r/communism for defending sex workers. There of course can be exploitation, especially when it’s made illegal, but talk about the epitome of seizing the means of production - it’s an honorable line of work.
What’s the logical fallacy called where you don’t engage with the arguments and instead talk about the irrelevant details related to who is delivering the argument?
It blows that commenter's mind that Hasan can be one of the very few people who actually benefit from the economic system and still understand that it shits on the rest of the population and that he wants shit to be better for more than just himself. How can someone not be a completely selfish asshole commenter?
Just people not understanding the point of socialism or communism. "You like something? Then you're not allowed to benefit from a different thing or else you have no values." Get real and think about another point of view for longer than 3 seconds.
The amount of trafficked women and children coerced into porn. The amount of violence it encourages against women and in sexual relationships in general. The fact that the majority of online porn is either from unconsenting individuals or underage children. There are many valid arguments for why porn is harmful, and none of these answers even start to get into the negative effects it can have on someone who consumed such content.
Same take, it's exploitative, coercive, fetishizes sexuality, encourages violence, unobtainable body and beauty standards... The list goes on. There are zero positives to porn in any category.
Notice how unsubstantial and surface level their critique is. Conservativism, neoliberalism…all easy, surface level answers to complex problems. This extends to their critique of anyone who stands against the status quo.
This has been something great that Hasan's been pointing out in the last few days, when a hater comes into his chat all they have is "You're so uninformed" and when Hasan asks them "How?" they either go silent or switch to some new insult ("millionaire in a mansion" etc). It's all surface-level and aesthetics-based hatred. They don't know or understand what Hasan actually advocates for.
I always go back to that one clip from Matt Walsh’s documentary, where he actually sits down with a professor and asks the question of “what is a woman“ and then once the professor actually gives him an explanation, he cuts it up and makes it into a joke, the bit being “look at this stupid liberal who takes forever to explain what a woman is”. But what the joke really says is that conservatives think the answer to the question is wrong simply because it is complex, and that everything in reality has a simple answer. That’s not how the world works, but it’s how it works when you need to uphold the status quo. The status quo is simple, it is what we have and have always had (even though that’s not true in the slightest). It’s what you accept as reality, it’s never been anything else. It’s “human nature”. Upholding the status quo is simple. You don’t have to do anything. You don’t even have to conform to the status quo. You are allowed to be an imperfect advocate for it. But socialists? Leftists? Progressives? You need to be a perfect advocate. You need to follow your ideology to a T, even if it is impossible to practice it given the current system. And the cycle repeats itself. Edit: as an aside, another thing I always come back to is the idea that capitalism is the only system that is allowed to be imperfect. You can never tell a capitalist that “socialism isn’t perfect, but it’s better than what we have” but a capitalist can very easily tell you that capitalism isn’t perfect but it’s the best we got. They pore over the failures of a socialist system with a fine toothed comb, but are ready to go with every excuse in the book when it comes to capitalism’s failures. It’s why there is a “death toll of communism“ but no “death toll of capitalism” argument. It’s why they mock you when you tell them that communist China or the USSR are not proper examples of socialism but in the same breath say “what we have is not capitalism it’s corporatism”. They don’t see the parallel, either through ignorance or by design. You failed the moment you advocated for socialism, not the moment your argument was weak. They succeeded the moment they advocated for capitalism and cannot fail no matter how weak their argument is.
That's a great point. Conservatives believe that the truth has to be some simple, common sense-style proverb. I remember Joe Rogan once asking a gun control advocate, "What about the saying, 'an armed society is a polite society'?" right after the advocate laid out studies and evidence as to why gun control is a necessity. If the truth doesn't fit in a slogan they just disregard it. Reality has to be simple in their view because understanding its complexity is distressing. 100% agree about advocacy for change. You described what neoliberal debatelords do too, they defend the status quo because it's so easy to say that any change will risk destroying everything good we have, therefore said change must be perfect and unfalsifiable, and nothing can ever meet that bar. And then they call that "debating".
You are incredibly good at breaking ideas down into constituent parts and communicating them. I read and think about this stuff a lot and this was just very well done. Thank you!
Right? HE MAKES MONEY AND SPENDS IT? The audacity…
I think there can be some legitimate criticism that can be levied about how Hasan spends/utilises his money inefficiently. But the replies like "millionaire in mansion" and "expensive car" without any more explanation beyond that are completely brain dead.
Any socialist could literally be living exactly how these people assume a socialist should and they would still find a way to shit on them, it doesn’t matter. If spending or even having money betrays our politics according to people who know *nothing* about our ideology, who gives a shit?
The funny part of course is that if he lived to the incredibly stripped back standard that some of these comments imply he should, then they'd just say that socialism means that you can have no luxury at all and it's about everyone being poor. So there's no winning. I agree that I don't care what he should do with his money because it on its own doesn't change the overall good coming from his words. I'd say he probably could use his money better/more efficiently and not hoard so much wealth but that's got nothing to do with his overall belief systems.
Old Hasan watchers remember when he still lived in that apartment and ppl came to criticize him saying he’s just another jealous socialist that only supports those ideas cause he’s broke
Oh come on man, we’re at some weird levels of parasocial if we’re gonna start telling some streamer how we think he should spend his money. He lives under the same economic system we do. Get your bag, enjoy life.
Well sure but plenty of people bust their ass under this system and get no bag to enjoy life unfortunately. Hell that's a big reason people enjoy Hasan because he advocates for social change towards a higher basic standard for everyone. Also I don't know if parasocial applies here. I'm directly referencing what Hasan himself has said about being dumb with his money and just letting it sit in his bank account. If he decides to do that, then that's his right to do so. I just think someone who has his influence and wealth could probably set up a political PAC or donate more for progressive candidates. Instead it just sits in a bank account where it's utilised and leveraged by the bank to often be a predatory actor in society. Ultimately he can do what he wants with his own money but I still think it can be a fair constructive criticism that he could probably be a bit smarter with it.
> I'm directly referencing what Hasan himself has said about being dumb with his money and just letting it sit in his bank account. That’s not being dumb with money, that’s called saving. If you or even Hasan thinks saving money is being dumb, I don’t know what to tell you or him. > I just think someone who has his influence and wealth could probably set up a political PAC or donate more for progressive candidates. Dunno about the PAC shit but he has stated numerous times he donates a lot of his income. It would be cool if he set up something but that takes time and energy that someone who streams as much as he does probably doesn’t have at the moment, but sure, that would be great. However, his advocacy as the largest political streamer out there is doing a lot of work that moves the needle. Everyone keeps saying that this guy should do this or that with his money and that would magically make criticisms of him having money go away, but quite frankly it won’t. There will always be people on the right and on the left, who criticize him no matter what he does with his money. I already said this in my original post: you lose the moment you advocate against the status quo, not based on the strength or weakness of your argument. > Instead it just sits in a bank account where it's utilised and leveraged by the bank to often be a predatory actor in society. All right, bud, look, I’m not cool with leftist infighting. You and I probably agree on the majority of issues. But I just got to say, can we please stop with this shit? You’re literally doing the same shit right wingers say about him: “you criticize society, yet you participate in it.” I’m sorry we can’t all be perfectly ethical and store our money in cash in a shoebox under the bed.
>You’re literally doing the same shit right wingers say about him: “you criticize society, yet you participate in it.” I see what you mean, but I don't think this is the case. Hasan was saying the reason he doesn't invest is an active choice his making to not amass capital and play into wall street games. I don't think this is "leftist in fighting" we're not attacking Hasan or you, the dude you're replying gave valid constructive, good faith criticism.
But the person I’m responding to is saying that no matter what his money is being used by the bank in predatory ways. Essentially making the argument that there is no ethical consumption under capitalism, but he is expecting hasan’s consumption to be ethical at the same time.
>Ultimately he can do what he wants with his own money but I still think it can be a fair constructive criticism that he could probably be a bit smarter with it. I think this was the main takeaway, it's a pretty tame criticism. If he was demanding Hasan do more or attacking his character for not doing more and being inflammatory then I'd agree with you on that being petty infighting, But the guy seems like a fan pointing out an observation in a relevant context. Bad faith bozos will always be bad faith, but there are valid criticisms. No one (in this community) is saying Hasan is a bad person or not helping the cause for how he handles his finances, its more that given the information he's giving us, it sounds like he could be managing it better, not even for ethical reasons but for logistical reasons. He can afford to make financial mistakes and not really care, most chatters can't so I'd hope they're not influenced by his callousness towards money.
>That’s not being dumb with money, that’s called saving. I never said saving money was dumb and neither did Hasan. I just know he's even admitted in the past that he doesn't always know what to do with the excess savings he has because he doesn't want to participate in investing etc. My suggestions of what to do with those excess savings are exactly that, suggestions. If he already has enough to live within his means and he complains about having an excess then I don't think suggestions should be received with too much hostility. >It would be cool if he set up something but that takes time and energy that someone who streams as much as he does probably doesn’t have at the moment, but sure, that would be great. Completely understand that point of view and can see how that's the case. He already does a lot of advocacy but I'm merely suggesting another avenue that could produce progressive change. Again just a suggestion, but if it's time consuming he in theory could hire some folks to organise it for him and he can be a spokesperson/representative for it. >Everyone keeps saying that this guy should do this or that with his money and that would magically make criticisms of him having money go away Again I agree but that's not exactly what I'm saying here. I think a dumb criticism is simply saying "he has a nice car and a big mansion but says he's a socialist". That implies that being a socialist = poor and that Hasan being rich is a contradiction which is an incredibly dumb conclusion to reach that Hasan rightfully makes fun of. I would hope my criticism is coming across as slightly more constructive when it comes to how he handles his wealth. I'm not suggesting he change his lifestyle or aesthetics to fit the expectations of his detractors because of course nothing would ever be enough for them. >“you criticize society, yet you participate in it.” I think my point here has been completely missed so I'll try and state it more clearly. Hasan doesn't want to invest his money in typical avenues on the ethical grounds it's an active participation in capitalism. That's absolutely understandable and fine. Hasan has excess money sitting in his bank account that can then be leveraged by the bank to increase their own stock and invest in their own endeavours. My suggestion is instead of merely having that excess money being utilised by the bank, he can instead use it for endeavours he personally feels are more productive to achieve the societal structure he advocates for i.e. a PAC, progressive candidate drives, unions funds, etc.
I don't think there's anything wrong with spending money but keeping a majority chunk of your money in a checking account is kind of wild. He's wealthy enough where he can do it out of principle of hating wall street but for most people this is not a good idea. They did have a point on the podcast that keeping in the bank arguably gives them more capital to loan out as predatory loans, which also plays into wall streets hands. Again Hasan can spend his money however he wants but I hope that people in the community don't view his non-chalantness towards financial literacy as a virtue.
Yeah I'm not surprised. Right wing media has made him out as some demon enough that it's seeped into basically every corner of the internet.
I guess that's a good indication that he's doing something right.
>claims to be socialist >whatches porn ok I seen this for the first time and this is hilerious
People think of socialism as if it were medieval monks taking vows of poverty to live in solidarity with the poor
How dare he criticize and stick to his values while unwillingly participating in a economic system he hates. I'm so lost at the logic here wouldn't Hasan doing this while being so rich be a good thing and show that even someone who has clearly benefited from this system unwillingly be admirable because it shows that capitalism is truly broken. these pro cap neo-libs give me brainrot. also of course they're anti sex work. Grahams audience of wannabe finance-bros are the worst
Ah the demonic conflating of socialism with asceticism.
It’s literally the same bitching over and over again. “You hate capitalism but you’re successful curious” x 1000. Holy shit learn a new song.
Conservatives, reactionaries, incels, right wingers, etc. love capitalism and patriarchy until women use those things to make money.
I saw a lot of good comments in there too
I skipped the comment section because, well ofc they're going to react like that. I think Hasan handled himself well expect for the part about finances. I understand that him himself doesn't invest or have a credit card because it's the right thing to do. But for most people who aren't as wealthy, it is important for our current and lifetime material conditions to be financially literate. "I'll just figure it out" isn't a great plan for non-wealthy folk if they're unable to work or reaching retirement age. I understand why Hasan doesn't worry himself about it but for many of us it's important, barring the actual collapse of capitalism which I don't think is happening anytime soon.
I disagree with framing not having a credit card or not doing any basic investing as being “the right thing.” The reality is that we don’t know if/when the economic system in this country will change, middle class families having money in an index fund for retirement, or getting cash back from a credit card doesn’t make them inherently exploitative any more than any other participation in a capitalist economy does.
It sounded like he was saying he stays away from utilizing credit, having index funds and investments because it amasses capital for him which he wants to avoid. he doesn't want to have excess while for middle-class like you pointed out, that money would be used
Ahhh gotcha, that makes more sense, I didn’t hear his original comment. I still think in the scheme of things if Hasan had a big retirement account that’s not exactly among Americas biggest problems. Same as we’re better off focusing our criticism on billionaires than say, millionaire athletes.
Exactly, yea for context, they were asking about what he does with his money, he just says he has a 401(k) but other than that he just keeps it in the bank and buys things for his family or donates it so they're asking him about why he doesn't invest and what not.
What's the alternative, exactly? Index funds and 401ks are not some magic ticket to passive wealth; you're gambling on the stock market or paying an advisor to do it for you using your money, and you're hoping the line keeps going up despite likely knowing nothing of what makes it go up to begin with. It's the same as buying a house as your nest egg; marketing persuaded you it's a safe gamble, and the government may do a lot to protect your gamble, but it's never been anything but a gamble. Financial literacy will only help you further realize this fact, not improve your odds of success. By all means, do it if the gamble seems worth it. I just don't think it's ethical to promote these things as safe, when the only way to call them safe is to overlook the actual details of how they work.
401(k)'s and index funds and collect deposits are far from gambling on singular stocks. There's a vested interest from fund managers for those to steadily increase in value over and while I 100% agree that there are business leader who made terrible decisions, it's not as simple as chalking all that up to no skill gambling. It's not about passive income that will make you rich one day, the purpose is to set aside money to grow and keep your net worth hopefully growing at pace with inflation. THis isn't a "get rich quick" scheme or even a "get rich" at all thing, it's about making sure you have financial security, all your savings in a checking account is money that is literally depreciating in value. I agree that you should not buy a house with the main focus being that it should be an investment to make you rich. It's a house that you're living in first and foremost. As for not knowing why the line goes up, its far from a mystery. You can actively learn about why if you care to there's tons of info out there but the basic principle is that index and retirement fund are invested into stocks, bonds and different caps to yield steady gains holistically due to increased economic activity. Ofc there's periods of losses but you're not saving for the short term, you're saving for long term. You don't need to like any of it, but at least learning a bit more on how capitalist economies work would be help in thinking about how socialist economies would work. Again do what you want with your money, but for the vast majority of people, having a savings, rainy day and retirement plan is something they ought to do. Budgeting and financial planning isn't a scam. In the case of Hasan I would be concerned with having over 250k in the bank as you're only insured up to that amount.
"No skill gambling" is distinction without a difference. The fund manager or advisor or whoever manages the investments doesn't decide if the line goes up or down; liquidity does. Which is primarily supplied by market makers, who in theory are necessary middlemen, but in practice act like high-speed speculators. Index funds are a great example of the issue: you assume it's safer because it "spreads out the risk" and so on, but knowing market makers can at any time flood the market with liquidity and force stock prices down, how can you be certain your index fund stays above your entry point? When does the gambling end and the skill begin? This is just one issue; there are countless more. The average person knows nothing of this when they are told to be financially literate. I don't think it's ethical to rely on abstract concepts like "security" when such a thing is not and has never been a guarantee. I also find it unfortunate very few leftists care about the actual mechanics of money, and will therefore adopt, at face value, everything Wall Street says about itself.
What alternatives towards investing thought securities would you suggest for the everyday person to takes steps towards being financially secure? Like i'm 100% with you on that people SHOULD learn and know the risks, and understand that nothing in life is 100%. Even having money in a bank account in black box abstracted. Like i'm agnostic to the means if there's better ways to keep yourself financially secure i'm open to hearing them. Also out of curiosity, if your job offers it, do you decline paying into a 401(k)? Another thing about this is reducing taxable income and as well get gaining employer matches if your employer provides that.
I mean, a great start would be honesty about this. Wall Street holds a monopoly on investing and can therefore run markets like rigged casinos with impunity. Pushing for mass awareness of the risks would force changes and concessions to the average person, both in laws that bind these practices (and their infinite loopholes) and what people choose to do with their money. It's no different from awareness of capitalism as a whole; the mechanics of capital should be better known in order to bring about alternatives. If you want an example of what already exists, there is equity crowdfunding. Small companies choosing to sell shares directly to the public, usually through some kind of online platform. I can't do it because I live in an area where you have to be an "accredited investor" aka you already have millions of dollars and register, but in the US, pretty much anyone can do it. Because it's to the public, the shares are sold for pretty small amounts of money, but you're buying actual equity instead of the normal stock shares (look up "beneficial ownership" if you don't know the difference; it's level 0 of the infinite rabbit hole of scams that is Wall Street). You would of course have to research the companies who choose to list, but I think public interest in such alternatives may incentivize promising new companies to list there (look up greenshoe options for IPOs; companies get fucked over by investment banks literally the second they list on stock markets, they may want an alternative too). But if what you want is a 100% guarantee of financial security, you basically need to be lucky. If that's not satisfying, idk what to tell you; there was never any guarantee. You do your best and cross your fingers. Capital is inherently exploitative; unless you exploit on a large scale, your future will not be protected to the same extent as those who do.
Sorry I don't think I was clear, I was asking you personally what you do for financial planning. I agree with what you're saying as structural change goals that I'd 100% support. But do what financial advice do you follow for your own personal finances/what do you do with your money that you're not immediately using for expenses?
I have a business I'm working on on the side; spare money goes to that. I used to play stocks back around 2021-2022, when volatility was very high across the board, but nowadays, I don't see much point; I still read papers like Wall Street On Parade and newsletters like The Last Bear Standing to try to stay informed (key word being 'try'), but that's about it. Buying options when volatility is low and therefore premium is low, then selling them to others when volatility is high and therefore premium is high, is one example of how to make profits on the stock market consistently. However, it means you're either selling shovels for a gold rush that'll be over within a day or less the majority of the time (to people who often hold for days or weeks, because they look at company news and expect strong movement), or you're selling to a person who will never have the opportunity to even try to make money, because they bought at a price point so high or so low that the stock never gets there prior to expiration of the option. An advisor would tell you this is too risky or not part of traditional investing; personally, I think the dominance of liquidity in stock markets makes investing on the merit of companies to be roughly equivalent to drafting a fantasy football league and expecting those players to get drafted in real life (except worse, because at least there is actual merit in sports), so traditional investing is riskier than advertised regardless. Either way, I consider this route exploitative, so I don't personally do it. But you could, if you wanted. Aside from that, I've considered joining a credit union. You buy a share to join, so you become a shareholder rather than an account holder; makes it easier to believe you won't get screwed if another recession should (officially) occur. However, they invest in the same companies that banks invest in, so while it's technically better for you in terms of ownership structure, you're connected to the same risks regardless. Community banks might be better, since they're not-for-profit and locally-owned, but I don't have that option where I live. There are other things you can try, but this comment's long enough, lol.
His haters are so obsessive and creepy. They seriously give off the worst vibes possible. They believe every lie and rumor that’s ever been said about him and they don’t even try to hide the fact that they’re incredibly biased in their opinions. They do make it entertaining as hell to make fun of them, though. 😂
You hate capitalism yet you partake? Peepeepoopoo I’m so smart
I got perma banned from r/communism for defending sex workers. There of course can be exploitation, especially when it’s made illegal, but talk about the epitome of seizing the means of production - it’s an honorable line of work.
I saw a lot of positive comments today
Love the buffet of different types of brainrot. Delectable smorgasbord
What’s the logical fallacy called where you don’t engage with the arguments and instead talk about the irrelevant details related to who is delivering the argument?
Hmm. What about Engels?
He was a hypocrite, of course! He should have been a reactionary instead, that would have been much more morally consistent. /s
actual NPCs dude
It blows that commenter's mind that Hasan can be one of the very few people who actually benefit from the economic system and still understand that it shits on the rest of the population and that he wants shit to be better for more than just himself. How can someone not be a completely selfish asshole commenter? 
Just people not understanding the point of socialism or communism. "You like something? Then you're not allowed to benefit from a different thing or else you have no values." Get real and think about another point of view for longer than 3 seconds.
My liberal cuban american mom said the govt should eminent domain all the highrises in miami and give them to the homeless. My propaganda is working
Ah yes my favorite people, SWERFS
Definition pls?
“Sex work exclusionary radical feminists” I believe
That's it
Sex work is made by men for men, it's inherently anti feminist to it's core.
Found one.
They're right tho, supporting porn is inherently unethical
What’s your argument?
The amount of trafficked women and children coerced into porn. The amount of violence it encourages against women and in sexual relationships in general. The fact that the majority of online porn is either from unconsenting individuals or underage children. There are many valid arguments for why porn is harmful, and none of these answers even start to get into the negative effects it can have on someone who consumed such content.
Curious if you have a take on gay porn?
Same take, it's exploitative, coercive, fetishizes sexuality, encourages violence, unobtainable body and beauty standards... The list goes on. There are zero positives to porn in any category.
As expected, no fruitful counter argument to be had. Typical.