Home » Video » ...

Hillsdale college economics major Videos

The Economics of Human Expertise

How can I find a “unicorn” – otherwise known as an ideal romantic partner? An humorous look at dating, romantic relationships and the overall economics of ...

User Comments

pj commented on 19 Feb 2015

I am going to get a lot of hate here, but this show is basically the "Ask Abby" column meets philosophy

pj commented on 19 Feb 2015

lol I just realized that Stef actually referenced Ask Abby in this show after listening further on :P

Mike Boulrice commented on 18 Feb 2015

Wow Stef just blew my mind when he said that by always taking initiative you will only find passive people in your life. As someone who's been involved in pickup for several years, having seduced more then my fair share of women, I've often been disappointed by the lack of intelligent independent women in the world. They all seemed to blur into a submissive mass that responds like automatons programmed in predictable ways. Perhaps by always being the initiator of interactions with women I have been selecting for the qualities I find distasteful in the opposite sex. Doing the opposite however feels backward like a chicken and the egg type of problem. I feel that if I don't initiate the interaction then it will never happen having been fairly passive in my first 21 years of life. I suppose the question is then how do you encourage other to take the initiative in an interaction without being pro-active yourself?

Tyler Durden commented on 03 Mar 2015

Funny you should make that correlation, as I think it may be correct. The person I connected with most on an intellectual level was the one that approached me first. This is something to think about...And to answer your second question, I think I have a partial solution. I would say to join as many social clubs/groups/causes as you can that pertain directly to your interests. Then, once you are in an environment populated with individuals of similar interests, taking the initiative could lead to better results. Or, even just to be yourself in that environment, you may find you are more likely to be approached by someone you are more compatible with. (Note* This is obviously affected on your geographic location, as the number of good matches will be directly affected by the net total of potential matches available)

DigiLychee commented on 19 Feb 2015

+Jacabo Blanco Damn bro, you nailed it. Thats exactly what I wanted to say. Exactly.There is no hope. I feel very demotivated after watching this video and knowing that the chance of finding a good woman is as much as zero percent.

Mike Boulrice commented on 18 Feb 2015

It seems even the intelligent women want to be treated as a woman in the traditional sense. They want to be dinned out and pursued, it's the vision of happiness that they have been sold. I want a woman I can climb the Himalayas with who will weather the storm and doesn't need me to save her even if I will do so willingly. I find that a lot of my relationships fail due to this dynamic. A girl wants me to pay for dinner, because she wants to know that I desire her. I don't want to pay for dinner because I want to know she desires me and not my money. I play down my wealth despite being independently wealthy, because it attracts the parasites. The silly thing is that if I met a woman who didn't demand that I pay for her time and affection that eventually I would because money means little to me, she would then have earned the right and it wouldn't be such a transactional experience.

Jacabo Blanco commented on 18 Feb 2015

Sounds similar to my struggle. I am a homebody. I don't like to drink or party. I want to find another woman that is like me, but if they r like me, they r also homebodies. So how the fuck does a homebody meet another homebody? Lol. And I could always go to the bar but that's where Ur gonna find virtueless sluts. Ahhh, life. Ain't it a bitch.

FutureFit commented on 18 Feb 2015

Maybe we need to join a volleyball team ha!

Daikini0 commented on 18 Feb 2015

I have to admit, I am somewhere between passive and initiative, but closer to passive, and I found inititive, intelligent women for myself in my lfie, I am pretty satisfied, especially with my current wife who is sometimes challenging to handle, but worths every minute of it.

imbored742 commented on 18 Feb 2015

"I speak for your penis" *-Stefan Molyneux* I lost it right here.

Scott Trahan commented on 19 Feb 2015

Funniest comment on the internet today!It's a literary reference/play on words. "I am the Lorax, I speak for the trees." //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lorax

Joseph Lacerenza commented on 18 Feb 2015

How would you then determine how skilled you are at something vs sucking at it? I would contest one must try "it"... I can assume I have no skill, at some task, but that is different all together. Even having skill at a task does not exclude one from sucking at it, yes? I would attest that one would need a measure of quantifying if MORE time should be allocated to some task, right? So, some type of mastery must have been attempted before a rating of "sucked at" can be affixed. Now, how much time should be allocated to what task, is up to you to determine.

Jacabo Blanco commented on 18 Feb 2015

+Joseph Lacerenza eh idk about all that. I get your sentiment and all but "sucking" at something just means you are not skilled. It really has no relation to if you've tried mastering jt...

Joseph Lacerenza commented on 18 Feb 2015

I find it hard to say I suck at something I have never tried to master. Example, I suck at beer pong. This statement has the connotation that I had spent TIME/EFFORT trying to master said activity. If I did not spend time trying to master being a pick up artist, then I can not suck at it, right? If I never tried to master painting a picture, I can not then suck at painting.I can not "suck" at snowboarding if I do not try going down the ski hill with the board on my feet.I put the snowboard on my head and tried to go down the hill, man I suck at snowboarding! No, you do not suck at snowboarding, you were not attempting the task properly.Now, you can suck at beer pong ONLY if you spent any amount of effort trying to MASTER beer pong. I would say I suck at mastery, not beer pong, if I never tried to play the game to begin with.

Johndiego95 commented on 18 Feb 2015

46:16 Stefan

imbored742 commented on 18 Feb 2015

+Stefan Molyneux Thankfully no, it's still where it should be.

Stefan Molyneux commented on 18 Feb 2015

+imbored742 your penis?

Jonathan Roseland commented on 18 Feb 2015

To the first guy.. *Before you find your unicorn*, you need to *learn to dumb yourself down*, which sounds weird but developing the emotional intelligence of knowing when to banter, when to build rapport, when to break rapport, etc is what you are lacking. I'm very intellectual; I'm really passionate about history, philosophy, technology, health, entrepreneurship etc but if I try to talk to *attractive young girls* about these kinds of topics *they will lose interest in me so fast*! There's several simple, yet entertaining subjects that make for good conversation with attractive girls: Pets & animals Sexuality & kinks Her family & your family Travel experiences Cultural difference & foreign languages Fashion (what she is wearing, what you are wearing) Movies and books she likes Food & deserts Dancing & partying Booze & drugs Breaking the law, getting arrested, times you almost died, etc These are topics that actually move an awkward first date toward sex. Once you seduce them and \spike their oxytocin you can drone on about nerdy stuff over dinner all you want. Asking girls about philosophy on the first date is going to get you... well what you have been getting. *This is a lesson I learned the hard way as well, so I feel your pain!*

Joe11Blue commented on 12 Mar 2015

+DigiLychee Which is sort of what I was getting at.

DigiLychee commented on 19 Feb 2015

+Joe11Blue "So, we have to settle for boring and intellectually dull mates in other words."What the guy said is true. Only 0.001% of women will not be turned of by intellectual talk. After I watched this video I know one thing: your chance of finding a woman for other reasons than sex is practically ZERO.

Joe11Blue commented on 19 Feb 2015

+Jonathan RoselandYou're a transhumanist, that right there tells me everything I need to know. You don't value women, you only value the physical release.

Jonathan Roseland commented on 18 Feb 2015

+lowkeyhustle +Joe11Blue +Johndiego95 For the longest time I looked to women I dated as a source of intellectual stimulation and I was always disappointed and the kind of women on my intellectual level are honestly just not attractive. This is a place where learning 'game' in my second language and dating cross culturally really actually taught me a lot, in Spanish I don't have the capacity to discuss a complex topic, so I'm limited in content to simpler conversation, this taught me to banter and vibe more.My (mostly male friends) are people that I can debate philosophy or transhumanism with all I want. Now I just look to the women I date to satisfy my physical needs and to help me relax. I really think this is healthier.

Jacabo Blanco commented on 18 Feb 2015

+lowkeyhustle imo they don't necesarry need to be at Ur level but as long as they take an interest in what u r interested in, it is ok. You can tell when a woman is trying. My ex used to always try to add to our conversations about philosophy and the world. Alot of the times she didn't know what she was talking about, but the effort was there and that was enough for me. Idk maybe I just never been with a woman that was truly at my level.

lowkeyhustle commented on 18 Feb 2015

I mean, maybe go light on the intellectual subjects at first. But I'm a huge believer in qualifying women before actually seducing them. If you're just trying to date/fuck hot, stupid women, then sure - dumb yourself down. But if you want more, you're going to have to qualify them by bringing up topics you're interested in and seeing if they can keep up. Can't? Move on.

FutureFit commented on 18 Feb 2015

Well said! I couldn't agree more. However, once you have them emotionally invested, they never have a clue what you're talking about with true topics of interest. My goal now is to spark conversation upfront with unique and intellectual topics, if the female doesn't have interest then I just saved 3-4 months of time.

Johndiego95 commented on 18 Feb 2015

He was looking for a long term relationship, obviously the first thing you tell her probably shouldn't be about entrepreneurship, but I don't think you should dumb yourself down. I certainly wouldn't want a shallow chick as my partner, I want to date someone I can be proud of. I think you should always be yourself, but that's just me.

The JediBunny commented on 18 Feb 2015

Amen brother!

velvet01able commented on 18 Feb 2015

Agreed. Look at shows geared towards women. Even the fucking commercials for them are beyond retarded.

Joe11Blue commented on 18 Feb 2015

So, we have to settle for boring and intellectually dull mates in other words. I remember my feminist upbringing telling me that the men are the stupid ones ;-)

What is Economics?

Recorded with ScreenCastify (https://www.screencastify.com), the screen video recorder for Chrome.

A Crash Course in Economics

Get your pencils ready! I'm giving a crash course in economics. The economy is one big interlocking circle, but let's begin at the most important point. First there's ...

User Comments

FlatEarthHypothesis commented on 29 Mar 2013

(part 2) into DOE, farm subsidies, DOD, etc.; but you’re not interested in that- you’re only interested in your pathetic straw-man, so you can try to beat conservatives over the head with “why are you such a hypocrite”. That way you don’t have to face the ugliness in the mirror: your rabid hatred of other human beings, demonstrated in your comments. You are a small, pathetic wretch- but nothing new. Small wonder your party has slaughtered more people than all wars combined (Russia, China, Nazi).

FlatEarthHypothesis commented on 25 Mar 2013

You seem intelligent enough, and I agree with 99% of what you say- the problem is you've been lied to about the nature of socialism. As an ideal (ie as taught in schools) it does NOT exist. In practice (implemented) it has been the cause of more slaughter and horror than all wars combined!! 50 Million people killed in China & USSR each, 10 Million in Germany (ie Nat. *Socialism). Voting for liberals makes it worse, not better. THEY silence & demonize their opposition- seeds of the next genocide!

ymkamara420 commented on 24 Mar 2013

Wow so because Bernake says it, that means it is true. Despite all of the studies? From the St Louise Fed," We find no evidence that lenders increased subprime originations or altered pricing around the discrete eligibility cutoffs for the Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) affordable housing goals or the Community Reinvestment Act. Our results indicate that the extensive purchases of risky private-label mortgage-backed securities by the GSEs were not due to affordable housing mandates."

cw86342n commented on 24 Mar 2013

This is basic common sense. I don't even see how people can refute it. Demand drives the economy. Steve Jobs can make as many i-phones as he wants. If there is nobody to buy them, then it was all for naught. During the depression there was high supply but nobody could buy anything. We've tried supply side economics and it hasn't worked, yet we continue to act like it's going to work in a matter of time. I guess people who are against this video don't understand the idea of the money multiplier

FlatEarthHypothesis commented on 29 Mar 2013

You never asked the question. Only a libtard can define productive as "sending $ to fed gov". Your cherry picked stats are just a tired reuse of bigoted & biased MM talking points. Like a pseudo-scientist, you leave off major data points (like ND), claim that correlation = causation, then expect me to justify your flawed arg. You equate dense urban with sparse farm country, neglect population diffs and worst of all, lump all spending into a single bucket. I could break it down for you (part 1)

cadatoiva commented on 25 Mar 2013

So, if I understand correctly, if I as an individual lose my job (& run out of money), this will cause a massive chain reaction that will layoff the entire workforce of the world. Then with no jobs anywhere at all, everyone will starve because there is no food because no one can go to the store to buy food? You assume that nowhere in this chain is supply created before demand, but how did the caveman live with no money and no job? How was the first car invented since no one bought one before?

ymkamara420 commented on 24 Mar 2013

Did read "Debunking the CRA Myth – Again " from UNC? if you did you would now that the National Bureau of Economic Research study has long been debunked. Please read it. You don't even have to read the whole thing . Just pages 5 though 8. It won't take long I promise. The CRA was used to prevent red lining not give loans to people that can't afford them. If it did we would have had a housing bubble in the 80's and 90's. Also Research indicates only 6% of the high cost loans were under CRA.

FlatEarthHypothesis commented on 30 Mar 2013

You might think that your continued crass remarks about the blood of soldiers makes you look edgy or something, but the reality is that it just makes you look like a cold-hearted bastard. There is nothing original or revolutionary about your hatred of people you don't understand- shows you as the small, bigoted worm you are. Keep right on doing what you're doing. It's refreshing to find a socialist who is honest about their disdain for humanity, instead of pretentiously claiming to "coexist".

FlatEarthHypothesis commented on 25 Mar 2013

"just moved to another state" - your stupidity is showing. Moving = an expensive proposition, doing it right you go to the cheapest environment possible, which libtards made sure was NOWHERE inside USA. Your logic is so flawed it's not worth responding to- *Of course* CA sends a lot in fed taxes! Thanks to hollywood & silicon valley they'd be the #9 world economy, AND YET their state budget is *SO* broken they put in massive tax hikes to make up the difference. Does it hurt to FAIL so badly?

ymkamara420 commented on 29 Mar 2013

" Only a libtard can define productive as...." The same way Romney defined the 47 percent of people that don't pay income taxes (most of which live in southern red states) as unproductive right? " into DOE, farm subsidies, DOD, etc" BINGO. We give you inbred clowns money to grow our food and your states are still some of the poorest in the nation (MS AL LA ). This is not only a liberal idea. I live in Maryland and many of my conservative friends would never live in states like WV,MS,....lol

AlaskaFinal commented on 24 Mar 2013

Um, did you mean to add a "did not" somewhere in there? Anyway, CRA lowered lending standards, as according to a study done last year by the National Bureau of Economic Research: sodahead . com/united-states/surprise-surprise---clintons-cra-regulations-clearly-led-to-risky-lending/question-3406623/?link=ibaf&q=&esrc=s You don't need a study to confirm this, just question what happens when the CRA tells banks to lend to people who they normally would not lend to because they can't afford it.

HIGHLANDKING1 commented on 24 Mar 2013

In the 1960's "Anti-racists" forced ALL and ONLY white countries to open their borders to non-white immigration. Then "Anti-racists" forced ALL and ONLY white people to "integrate" or face penalties for? being "naziswhowanttokill6millionjews." Now "Anti-racists" are calculating that ALL and ONLY white children will become minorities and eventually EXTINCT. If "Anti-racists" did this to ALL and ONLY black countries, it would be called a genocide. "Anti-racist" is a codeword for anti-white.

FlatEarthHypothesis commented on 29 Mar 2013

I am absolutely disgusted by the ongoing arrogance I see you spewing out. Liberal Arts!!?? That is your basis for your over inflated ego?! LOL!!! How does it feel to be the campus running joke? My favorite one: "What's the difference between a lib arts major and a park bench? ... A park bench can support a family!" Your anger makes more sense now- stuck in mom's basement, smoking pot, reflecting on what a failure your life is... Yeah, anyone would get angry in your position! What a coward.

AlaskaFinal commented on 23 Mar 2013

"a republican Myth" Yet Bernanke copped to it, by saying the CRA encouraged credit lenders to address "markets" they would have otherwised ignored. I can quote him if you want. The CRA lowered lending standards, that's a fact. The Crisis was a cross section of that, artificially low interest rates and GRE subsidization. It kept people buying housing through the 2000 recession, giving a false impression housing doesn't lose value as much as other assets, leading to overinvestment (bubble).

ymkamara420 commented on 29 Mar 2013

I never said California had the model economy. I just pointed out the fact that California is a productive state. (ie sends more money to the federal government) And most red states are not productive (ie get more money from the federal government) If every state kept their tax dollars over the last 20 years cali would have a surplus and the south would be a 3rd world nation.(not including texas) But you never answered the question, why do red states take more from the federal government?

FlatEarthHypothesis commented on 26 Mar 2013

Spoken like a true troll for the safety of mommy's basement. And to think you accused ME of using straw men! Someday when you get off pot, get a real job, and actually have to start PAYing taxes, we'll see if you're so enthusiastic about giving half of everything you earn over to the government. Since you seem to have drawn your lines at "California is a model economy" and "all conservatives are inbred welfare babies" it's fairly obvious that you're not looking for a serious conversation.

FlatEarthHypothesis commented on 25 Mar 2013

There is no such thing that socialism in practice. Sure, many good-intentioned people have attempted to implement it, but those efforts CREATED THE SLAUGHTERS THAT I REFRENCED!!! You talk about totalitarianism as though it can somehow be magically separated from socialism. The reality is that "to each.. from each..." REQUIRES an administrator who distributes, controls resources. And that person/group has absolute power over everyone else in the system-- Voilà! I give you totalitarianism.

ymkamara420 commented on 29 Mar 2013

Also any education is better then no education. So if the whole state of MS got art degrees I would be happy. As long as they are learning how to think, I am happy. " socialist leads to totalitarianism" No it does not dumbass. Norway, Sweden, Germany. U.K are not heading to totalitarianism any time soon. And dumbass Keynesian economics not going to lead us to a "murderous, destructive societies". It gave us the most growth this nation as ever seen (1945-1973) the golden age of capitalism

FlatEarthHypothesis commented on 25 Mar 2013

You're still letting your views about "what would happen if (blank)...?" be determined by the same liars who say that socialism is utopia! They are the snakes, whispering that if you would just give them everything and they will create a world were everyone is equal. This is a flat out lie, and it will end in a bloodbath if enough people obey. Want a great example of what I'm talking about- search youtube for J9HzwA7Oi6M. It's a short vid, but the guy is better at expressing it then I am.

thebigdust1 commented on 24 Mar 2013

Thom Hartmann is true to facts. The hideous myths the Reagan Era far right pushes to further fill their overloaded multi million dollar bank accounts while killing the middle class are the reasons dislikes exist on this incredibly epic video. Capitalism by itself will always lead to nothing more than huge monopolies, no competition on the supply side, and most of the money going to a very few super rich. We need a mix of Captialism & Socialism with government by the people as the referee

FlatEarthHypothesis commented on 24 Mar 2013

Socialistic policies *destroyed* Detroit and made it far more economical for businesses of all kinds (not just auto) to move elsewhere. You can try to deny it all you want, but you're just burying your head in the sand. Secondly, California is broke. It's not making the news anymore, but it's nonetheless still true. There is a mass exodus of all who aren't a part of the welfare state. Calling ANY Californian politician "Republican" is a joke, like calling Bloomberg a "typical repub." LOL

Huevon Huevonesky commented on 24 Mar 2013

Sorry to say something so hurtful to this nation full of indoctrinated ignorants. I agree that the video is far from being an excellent one. However when one reads such plenty of comments stemming from the same ignorant prejudice instilled by the elite in the masses, one loses much hope of awakening in the sheeples of this country. Go on slaves, sleeping the sleep of the unaware. Don't be afraid of your slaughter. When that time comes you will kiss obsequiously the hand of your butcher.

Ish Engle commented on 26 Mar 2013

Reagan, as ScubaNate3610 points out, did "raise" tax revenues, because, he knew how to compromise and Democrats would not allow passage of key legislation without a raise. He also dropped the tax rates while closing the loop-holes. If he had raised and closed the holes it would have had a devastating effect. Tax rates were around 70% when he took over (for highest brackets). They mostly paid much less because of the holes. He lowered the rate, closed the holes, thus increasing revenue.

FlatEarthHypothesis commented on 29 Mar 2013

Socialism is an apt description of what they implemented- centralized command-economies. Doesn't matter what they called themselves (but they DID). "totalitarian does not equal socialist" .. but socialist leads to totalitarianism. Just look at Stalin in Russia, Mao in China, Pol Pot in Cambodia, Jong IL in N Korea... do I need to keep going? With all of these examples of FAILED, murderous, destructive societies; and you're the dumbass who's advocating we start one here... What a moron!

Eric Bess commented on 10 Apr 2013

Even if you accept the premise of Kaynes that spending bolsters the economy, Kaynes himself (and Tom here) said that you had to reduce levels of spending and pay down the debt during prosperous years. Whether or not Kaynes's theories work is a matter for debate, but even if correct, there was a fatal flaw that once spending is increased, it hasn't been reduced. People aren't going to spend when the country is so far in debt that their is no confidence. We've applied Kayne too often.

Chapter 1 What is Economics (Economics Chapter 1.)

Paul Samuelson-Economics

Link for boards:

Link for your site:

Current link: