I think it would help a lot of people who don't think there is a lot of theory or knowledge in this speech by Jeff Tucker should note that he's not giving it to a general audience who don't understand economics, hes giving to a crowd of people who already know and understand the economics he knows. So he doesn't really need to waste his time bashing socialism and giving theory and knowledge to back his statements...
Moreover, while the lecture is surely interesting, there are many flaws in Tucker's dramatic praise of the capitalist system, which border with outright propaganda. The explanations are utterly simplistic and don't mention the problems with such a system when those who have the money reach out to change the rules of the game. No discussion of marketing and advertising and the decline of the levels of educations, which in turn lower the scope of true "free choice" by the consumers, et cetera.
@HmND the explanation may be simple indeed but it's fairly simple as well to infere those questions you're dangling over out of it. If, like he said, free enterprise should be left on its own by interference by the state, then it's obvious that mega-rich corporations can't just change the rules of the game since that can only be achieved by coersion or through the state, wich's out of the market in the first place. Same thing for a private-based education in terms of quality and stuff.
The corruption of education can happen without influencing the government. In the current capitalist system, what prevents an oil company, for example -- that has an interest in denying its negative effect on the environment -- to fund a major university, effectively buying and skewing the unbiased academic education of many students to push its own agenda? And this is happening already. What I mean is, a society needs more than just self-interest in order to survive.
@HmND Well, we're not talking about the current state-capitalist system, but a free capitalist one. That said, what's the problem with a company funding a university if both of them agree with it? Precisely in the case of universities where the alumni are all capable adults? The institution would go on with its life and if a research or paper's just garbage because of false data then that's that, the judgement's up to their peers, not a preemptive intervention prohibiting the private funding.
@HmND "Society"'s a non-existent entity. Who has needs are people and I grant that economic self-interest may not be enough to fulfill those needs, but who's to say that just because someone needs something, then it's ok to use force and coersion to secure it? And who's to say that a pure capitalist society won't have philanthropy to cover those needs or at least most of them? From my point of view it's the anticapitalists that don't have faith in man's goodness, not the other way around.
Especially since most of the population seems to be acting irrationally, in contrast to what the economic system expects of them. But perhaps this conversation is not for here.
Strawmen abound in your comments, though you are at least more polite about it than most commenters.
The power to "change the rules" is itself incompatible with free enterprise. "Self-interest," depending on how you define it, is either axiomatically inherent in every human action, or completely immaterial to the definition of a free market. The same goes for "rationality", which means something different in the Misesian conception than in e.g. the assumptions of the Chicago -
You speak of buying academic opinion, and this is a plausible objection. So consider this: is Academia easier to buy when it is consolidated into one unionized body and its authority comes from official decree and sanction, or when it consists of a loose consensus of fiercely competitive, emergent authorities, each recognized based on the practical applicability of his doctrine to real-world problems, and its apparent correctness to other experts within his field?
everyone has a say in where and what will be produced. this is why it is (and was once upon a time) imperitive for people to have a formal liberal education from aristotle, locke, federalist papers, etc... i fortunately stumbled upon the complete collection and am working to read it without a teacher; however difficult, i am going to get through this. without freedom, i would die fighting to have it again.
@socialist123 Lol well there goes our whole argument! Dam Profit Loving Capitalists keeping the people down! If only the world had more centralization! Then we'd live in a utopia! Am I right guys!? (Feel free to tear my sarcasm to shreds)
2. As opposed to rationing via force? I'd like to think rationing through trade is a more adult manner to do this.
You're also ignoring the calculation problem (which all socialists do as they never seem to figure out what accounting is based on), and if you don't ignore it, you downplay it.
@ExquisiteDoom this is absolutely typical all westerners, as soon as you say 'socialism' they think violent repressive dictatorship-well communism wouldnt work in a dictatorship anyway.
and 'as it does in general' please make yourself more clear.
@ExquisiteDoom im a social democrat, i refuse to carry on this arguement. it is a waste of time as you are obviously so set in a brutish society that works for three out of three billion people.
@socialist123 That's funny because i'm accusing you of being dead set on socialism. You really should look at yourself before you accuse the other of something just to avoid passing for a hypocrite at the very least. "works for 3 out of 3 million people" Apparently, you were hiding under a rock when oil prices collapsed in the 1800's, and since oil was used for energy this is an especially important feat. But hey, it only "works for 3 out of 3 million people".
My dishwasher is low water/energy AND my detergent is phosphate free, but I have never had any problems with dirty dishes, when I hold up my glasses to the light they're spot free.
Great speaker, for anyone wanting to know more about the idea of capitalism. Too bad that pure idea, as any pure idea of governance, does not, nor cannot exist. As with any orthodox economist, Tucker assumes that humanity is an inherent self-maximizer and can make choices devoid of any morality. I wonder if he eats at McDonalds himself, if he thinks its so great. Yet, he has a wonderful point in explaining that the consumer is king in in the private sector, and practically serf in the public.
@RoyLennigan Sure its possible for us to reach something pure. Whether you believe in God or not. If you believe in Evolution, then we must eventually evolve into perfection. If you believe in God, then you believe that Christ will come and usher in the Millenium. A thousand years of perfect freedom and righteousness. Obviously a perfect freemarket system and a perfect government (or lack thereof) will exist at that time. Either way, theist or no, eventually humanity will embrace freedom.
@tazmaniainc The little details of how the state ruins lives are as important as grand economic theory. You say this talk provides little actual knowledge? How many of examples of state regulation ruining daily life can you name?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Getting enough to eat... not a problem anymore... Dude there are people starving in the world. And some of the starving people are working as slaves to supply your utopian wall mart with slave goods.
@fnyklr It is a lot less of a problem than it used to be....also the free market is the only way that the people who are in relatively poor economic conditions can hope to better their lot.
@fnyklr You'd probably also argue that we should punish corporations for outsourcing the so-called "slave labor" overseas and, if so, you'd be missing the cause and effect like the zombies he is talking about. Ask yourself why those people overseas are willing to work as "slaves" instead of the numerous other opportunities that you assume exist there and you'll quickly see that the free market and wal-mart are doing better at feeding these "slaves" than your precious state could possibly do.
@rba46 Just remember to first get people as far down in the dirt as possible before asking them if they would be happy to voluntarily accept a job in the international "free market". I suspect also many in the western world soon will be more willing to work as they slide further down in the dirt. Cheapening of labor is not just a third world problem.
@fnyklr The poor "slaves" don't have a great choice in their labor markets, but the ones that want to work and get a little more would certainly object to you (or Walmart) taking that choice away. Why don't you focus a little more on the other choices collectivist regimes take away from those same workers which have actually lead to being "down in the dirt" instead of blaming the only system that can lift them up? And I'll fight the push to collectivism here so I don't end up in that same dirt.
It's incredibly wasteful and stupid to throw food away just because it's not cosmetically perfect. Walmart employees are not even allowed to take overdue food home to feed to pets, or use as mulch or natural fertilizer in gardens. All of that food gets buried in a landfill. I'm a big fan of Jeff Tucker, but here he is dead wrong.
@pretorious700 I expect that the reason for sending that to landfills is the same reason restaurants have to throw food away rather than give it away, LAWS that say that's what they have to do.
@CurtHowland You are correct, and you can actually get arrested for taking food from dumpsters at supermarkets. Jeff Tucker apparently misses the statism in this arrangement.
@pretorious700 I disagree. Tucker isn't missing the point that the food, ONCE OFF THE SHELF, must be put in the trash by law.
What he is pointing out is that the food is being removed, which they don't have to do for any other reason than that people won't buy bruised and discolored produce.
The absurd inefficiency of the law forcing that food to be wasted I object to utterly. What food bank wouldn't love to get all that perfectly good bruised/past due food?
@pretorious700 - That's not an entirely accurate depiction, issuing a blanket statement that all that food gets buried in a landfill. It's also a non-sequitur. Walmart has no control over what the municipality does with its waste. Walmart does recycle a good portion of the cardboard it uses, as well as aluminum. Maybe this food waste is getting sorted and given to the municipality for composting.
@Slipknotyk06 I did a lot of volunteer work for organic recycling when I lived in the states, and of course I cannot speak for all municipalities, but where I lived (SE USA), it all went to landfills.
@pretorious700 - Ya, but there are also cities like San Francisco that do have a municipal composting program. In addition (I know this is going to sound like backward logic to you) but even if it hits a landfill, what's to say it won't be recycled? Decaying matter emits methane that is captured at most landfill sites and used to generate electricity. I just personally don't see how landfills are horrible, because I know what goes into the planning of a landfill.
Tri sodium phosphate is also what was taken out of cloths soap that got them clean. If you get your cloths greasy working on your car a quarter cup along with your soap will get them clean.
@cchessmaster If one goes to Walmart to purchase this, do you know what department it is in? And, does one ask for tri-sodium phosphate or phosphorus?
@CurtHowland yeah, i think he's getting better at speaking to highschool kids. i remember him saying somewhere that he had a really hard time with it. but he's killing it with these kids.
@johnidavey I didn't know about the trouble. His first highschoolers talk went really well, but it was Tom Woods who got the standing ovation.
Jeffrey's comments about the running suit "someone ran 200 miles in this thing", were great. I thought it was interesting that he'd forgotten the word "spandex".
If it's all the same to you, I'd rather take a firm stand against Democracy, and the dumb, barbaric populism for which it stands.
Couching a good idea in the rhetoric of a bad but popular idea doesn't make ordinary people more receptive. It just makes them suspicious of your obvious deception, and lends the bad idea unearned credibility besides.
@PanzerDivisionBOM how could you stand against democracy? think about it. With a single leader, be he communist or a monarch or a fascist or whatever. Eventually through time one of your dictators/kings whatever you call him, will be an evil man, its inevitable. Only democracy has the werewithal to limit and restrain the actions of evil leaders. "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" and so, democracy is the only option.
@Porojukaha Poro stikes again with more nonsense. A Democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on what is for dinner. Think about that and do a quick wiki search of Democracy, Republics, Monarchs, Dictatorships and Constitutional governments.
@PanzerDivisionBOM lets say instead you are an anarchist. Well, a freemarket cannot exist in anarchy for there are certain things a government is absolutely necessary for. a sense of national solidarity, for one. A national army, to defend from other forces. A police force, which by the way no one in the long line of freemarket economists has ever found a way to privatize effectively. Also, government is necessary in order to have a court system wich is necessary to do justice.
@Porojukaha typical nonsense from someone who doesn't understand free markets or capitalism. Police, fire departments, schools and so forth can all be provided by private means. Even security and defense can be provided through private contracts. Something so complicated as a hospital or a bank can be run privately yet for some reason people like yourself think that without government securing our borders and defending our citizens would somehow be impossible without government.
A king does not have to be a good person, but at least he has not been selected for his high time preference and his propensity to connive and to appeal to dumb populism.
The king regards civil society as his inherited property, which could sustain him in his retirement and his posterity. To a politico, civil society is a commons, to which he has been granted temporary access at a high cost.
It's all the difference between a familial lumbermill and a slash-and-burn outfit. -
- I'm not going to fault your faith in the state. I really do think it comes down to differing entrepreneurial judgments.
That said, if you want to sway me, then you should show why the state which you advocate would not become another empire. What would you do different than, e.g. the US, and how would your safeguards persist over time against the inevitable workings of politics?
I am an anti-statist, because the least dissatisfactory answer I've found to that question is "competition".
@PanzerDivisionBOM lol. you need to check up on history. EVERY SINGLE GENOCIDE in HISTORY and most of the major atrocities were all perpetrated by kings. Most of them kings that the people loved in the beginning. . "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely."
I can think of at least a few particularly egregious democratic democides, but that's not the point.
I'm not saying that monarchy is so much better than democracy, that any conceivable monarchy is going to be better than any conceivable democracy. I'm saying that monarchy, all other things being equal, is better than democracy.
Monarchies have historically tended to exist in times and places with less accumulated capital and empathy (e.g. Africa and THE FRAKKING MIDDLE AGES). -
- Unless you think I'm also arguing for the destruction of 95% of all capital and a widespread return to more primitive child-rearing methods, then don't you think that's something your empirical examination should control for?
- I agree completely. Anti-statist, remember? But I'm not seeing a lot of restraint on the part of politicos the world over, and I'm still waiting for you to explain how there can exist any restriction on the power to abuse, which a monopolistic agency of law-making, defense and arbitration cannot override over time.
Comment removed
ChristianScientist1 1 week ago
if you poison rivers that will affect the environments in your neighborhood. that is one of the areas where it makes sense for government to step in.
konstiblum 2 weeks ago
This guy mumbles way too much..
idiotpolice50 1 month ago
I think it would help a lot of people who don't think there is a lot of theory or knowledge in this speech by Jeff Tucker should note that he's not giving it to a general audience who don't understand economics, hes giving to a crowd of people who already know and understand the economics he knows. So he doesn't really need to waste his time bashing socialism and giving theory and knowledge to back his statements...
philmickraken2 2 months ago
9 thumbs up for Tucker!!!!!!!
tgraham76 3 months ago
this guy is such a great story teller
JaguarSoundBlaster 3 months ago
Moreover, while the lecture is surely interesting, there are many flaws in Tucker's dramatic praise of the capitalist system, which border with outright propaganda. The explanations are utterly simplistic and don't mention the problems with such a system when those who have the money reach out to change the rules of the game. No discussion of marketing and advertising and the decline of the levels of educations, which in turn lower the scope of true "free choice" by the consumers, et cetera.
HmND 4 months ago
@HmND the explanation may be simple indeed but it's fairly simple as well to infere those questions you're dangling over out of it. If, like he said, free enterprise should be left on its own by interference by the state, then it's obvious that mega-rich corporations can't just change the rules of the game since that can only be achieved by coersion or through the state, wich's out of the market in the first place. Same thing for a private-based education in terms of quality and stuff.
popocake 4 months ago
@popocake
The corruption of education can happen without influencing the government. In the current capitalist system, what prevents an oil company, for example -- that has an interest in denying its negative effect on the environment -- to fund a major university, effectively buying and skewing the unbiased academic education of many students to push its own agenda? And this is happening already. What I mean is, a society needs more than just self-interest in order to survive.
HmND 4 months ago
@HmND Well, we're not talking about the current state-capitalist system, but a free capitalist one. That said, what's the problem with a company funding a university if both of them agree with it? Precisely in the case of universities where the alumni are all capable adults? The institution would go on with its life and if a research or paper's just garbage because of false data then that's that, the judgement's up to their peers, not a preemptive intervention prohibiting the private funding.
popocake 4 months ago
@HmND "Society"'s a non-existent entity. Who has needs are people and I grant that economic self-interest may not be enough to fulfill those needs, but who's to say that just because someone needs something, then it's ok to use force and coersion to secure it? And who's to say that a pure capitalist society won't have philanthropy to cover those needs or at least most of them? From my point of view it's the anticapitalists that don't have faith in man's goodness, not the other way around.
popocake 4 months ago
@popocake
Especially since most of the population seems to be acting irrationally, in contrast to what the economic system expects of them. But perhaps this conversation is not for here.
HmND 4 months ago
@HmND
Strawmen abound in your comments, though you are at least more polite about it than most commenters.
The power to "change the rules" is itself incompatible with free enterprise. "Self-interest," depending on how you define it, is either axiomatically inherent in every human action, or completely immaterial to the definition of a free market. The same goes for "rationality", which means something different in the Misesian conception than in e.g. the assumptions of the Chicago -
-
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 month ago
-
- school.
You speak of buying academic opinion, and this is a plausible objection. So consider this: is Academia easier to buy when it is consolidated into one unionized body and its authority comes from official decree and sanction, or when it consists of a loose consensus of fiercely competitive, emergent authorities, each recognized based on the practical applicability of his doctrine to real-world problems, and its apparent correctness to other experts within his field?
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 month ago
Comment removed
HmND 4 months ago
So who is this "Dr. Don W. Printz" who sponsored this speech? Couldn't find anything about him on Google.
HmND 4 months ago
Under Capitalism man exploits man. Under socialism, the reverse is true.
KyleSkullz 5 months ago
i dont believe in centralisation, im a localist. i love people like you, if only i had popcorn. i could watch you for hours!
there you go;ripped to shreds
socialist123 7 months ago
everyone has a say in where and what will be produced. this is why it is (and was once upon a time) imperitive for people to have a formal liberal education from aristotle, locke, federalist papers, etc... i fortunately stumbled upon the complete collection and am working to read it without a teacher; however difficult, i am going to get through this. without freedom, i would die fighting to have it again.
ChavonnNishino 8 months ago
capitalism is mot liberty, the proletariat are owned by the bourgeosie
socialist123 8 months ago
@socialist123 you're hilarious!
TayoftheDead 8 months ago 3
@TayoftheDead what exactaly is so funny?
socialist123 8 months ago
@socialist123 Lol well there goes our whole argument! Dam Profit Loving Capitalists keeping the people down! If only the world had more centralization! Then we'd live in a utopia! Am I right guys!? (Feel free to tear my sarcasm to shreds)
S7JAY9 7 months ago
@socialist123 Define capitalism.
ExquisiteDoom 7 months ago
@ExquisiteDoom the private ownership of the means of production and other services.
this is supposed to:
1]increase competition, this is meant to give the public more choice and raise standards.
2]capitalists like the idea of goods for money, which is clever enough but limits peolpes access to things.
im sure there are a bunch of other things but i really dont give about tories like you
socialist123 7 months ago
@socialist123
1. And it does in general.
2. As opposed to rationing via force? I'd like to think rationing through trade is a more adult manner to do this.
You're also ignoring the calculation problem (which all socialists do as they never seem to figure out what accounting is based on), and if you don't ignore it, you downplay it.
ExquisiteDoom 7 months ago
@ExquisiteDoom this is absolutely typical all westerners, as soon as you say 'socialism' they think violent repressive dictatorship-well communism wouldnt work in a dictatorship anyway.
and 'as it does in general' please make yourself more clear.
socialist123 7 months ago
@socialist123 I could say that you are a typical easterner, as soon as we say capitalism they think repressive dictatorship.
Your initial criticism was just as vague, it would only be fair for you to elaborate as to how private ownership does not help on your two points.
You're acting like the opposite of the theory is true but without actual evidence or theory.
Tell me, how else do you ration goods without trade other than by force? Socialism/communism is pretty tribal behavior you know.
ExquisiteDoom 7 months ago
@ExquisiteDoom im a social democrat, i refuse to carry on this arguement. it is a waste of time as you are obviously so set in a brutish society that works for three out of three billion people.
m.s.hunter
socialist123 7 months ago
@socialist123 Anything to avoid a rational argument huh? Ok, whatever.
ExquisiteDoom 7 months ago
@ExquisiteDoom no, its simply a waste of time as you are so obviously set in capitalism, [which i repeat] works for 3 out of 3 million people
socialist123 6 months ago
@socialist123 That's funny because i'm accusing you of being dead set on socialism. You really should look at yourself before you accuse the other of something just to avoid passing for a hypocrite at the very least. "works for 3 out of 3 million people" Apparently, you were hiding under a rock when oil prices collapsed in the 1800's, and since oil was used for energy this is an especially important feat. But hey, it only "works for 3 out of 3 million people".
ExquisiteDoom 5 months ago
@socialist123 Please throw away your computer that gives you access to all the information in the world. Thanks.
mengelmoesNL 5 months ago
@socialist123 Please throw away your computer that gives you access to all the information in the world. Thanks.
mengelmoesNL 5 months ago
@socialist123 If you are soo against violence how do you think the government gets money for socialism?
I ll give you a hint not with better goods and services.
rodrigodet 4 days ago
Jeffery Tucker is so win.
mjs0686 8 months ago 6
"It was springtime... when this house emerged from the ground.."
Skyler827 9 months ago
My dishwasher is low water/energy AND my detergent is phosphate free, but I have never had any problems with dirty dishes, when I hold up my glasses to the light they're spot free.
theseriousaccount 9 months ago
Eating unhealthy fishes on shiny dishes doesn't make much sense
lamorinb 9 months ago
My dishwasher detergent says phosphate free :(.
GeminiK 9 months ago
That joke about the guy with the cobwebs on him made me laugh so hard I had to pause the video.
Equity213 9 months ago
Its exactly like the jetsons.
tetrahydroscope 9 months ago
I love Jeff Tucker, his lectures are among my absolute favorites.
PeterOfTheCosmos 9 months ago
Great speaker, for anyone wanting to know more about the idea of capitalism. Too bad that pure idea, as any pure idea of governance, does not, nor cannot exist. As with any orthodox economist, Tucker assumes that humanity is an inherent self-maximizer and can make choices devoid of any morality. I wonder if he eats at McDonalds himself, if he thinks its so great. Yet, he has a wonderful point in explaining that the consumer is king in in the private sector, and practically serf in the public.
RoyLennigan 9 months ago
@RoyLennigan Sure its possible for us to reach something pure. Whether you believe in God or not. If you believe in Evolution, then we must eventually evolve into perfection. If you believe in God, then you believe that Christ will come and usher in the Millenium. A thousand years of perfect freedom and righteousness. Obviously a perfect freemarket system and a perfect government (or lack thereof) will exist at that time. Either way, theist or no, eventually humanity will embrace freedom.
Porojukaha 9 months ago
@Porojukaha Evolution is not perfection. If it was, 97% of the organisms that have ever lived on this earth would not be extinct today.
mjuslen 9 months ago
this guy is awesome
dawgg981 9 months ago
We have a hard time with our dishes these days. Often we have to clean them twice.
Lifeblood086 9 months ago
Comment removed
Porojukaha 9 months ago
Great stuff!
modernfreestyle 9 months ago
The Customer Is Always Right.
CountArtha 9 months ago
this is one of the best talks on misesmedia
bobsacamano1 9 months ago
a lot of story telling, little accual knowledge
tazmaniainc 9 months ago
@tazmaniainc The little details of how the state ruins lives are as important as grand economic theory. You say this talk provides little actual knowledge? How many of examples of state regulation ruining daily life can you name?
truevoice08 9 months ago
Comment removed
tazmaniainc 9 months ago
plenty, but wouldn't be knowledge to state them and analyze them ?
instead of story telling your shopping trip ?
tazmaniainc 9 months ago
Wow. If this guy spoke at the highshool I went to it would be shut down due to parental complaints...
Such an inspirational speaker.
sharperguy 9 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Getting enough to eat... not a problem anymore... Dude there are people starving in the world. And some of the starving people are working as slaves to supply your utopian wall mart with slave goods.
fnyklr 9 months ago
@fnyklr It is a lot less of a problem than it used to be....also the free market is the only way that the people who are in relatively poor economic conditions can hope to better their lot.
RadiantMirage 9 months ago
@fnyklr You'd probably also argue that we should punish corporations for outsourcing the so-called "slave labor" overseas and, if so, you'd be missing the cause and effect like the zombies he is talking about. Ask yourself why those people overseas are willing to work as "slaves" instead of the numerous other opportunities that you assume exist there and you'll quickly see that the free market and wal-mart are doing better at feeding these "slaves" than your precious state could possibly do.
rba46 9 months ago
@rba46 Just remember to first get people as far down in the dirt as possible before asking them if they would be happy to voluntarily accept a job in the international "free market". I suspect also many in the western world soon will be more willing to work as they slide further down in the dirt. Cheapening of labor is not just a third world problem.
fnyklr 9 months ago
@fnyklr The poor "slaves" don't have a great choice in their labor markets, but the ones that want to work and get a little more would certainly object to you (or Walmart) taking that choice away. Why don't you focus a little more on the other choices collectivist regimes take away from those same workers which have actually lead to being "down in the dirt" instead of blaming the only system that can lift them up? And I'll fight the push to collectivism here so I don't end up in that same dirt.
rba46 9 months ago
@fnyklr It's not a problem anywhere there are free markets, as opposed to predatory states that loot the weak.
CountArtha 9 months ago
Come out of the closet Jeffrey.
scottvska 9 months ago
@scottvska He has at least one daughter and he's married, but he is amusingly fabulous.
032125 9 months ago 5
@032125 He kind of reminds me of Peewee Herman.
obtree 9 months ago
@032125 Tucker has four children.
truevoice08 2 months ago
@truevoice08 Ah. I knew he had a daughter because he mentions her in his excellent lecture on intellectual property.
032125 2 months ago
Always enjoy Mr. Tuckers lectures.
BachGuitar3 9 months ago 31
Jeff Tucker is the man.
anarchylogic 9 months ago
Economics is not a science, Mr. Tucker
orlingas 9 months ago
@orlingas He means economics is a social science.
richardcadbury 9 months ago 2
@orlingas Sure it is. It is a social science.
synestheticmonotony 9 months ago
Jeffrey Tucker never disappoints!
cjsoccer09 9 months ago
I love how he explains inventions like we have never heard them it is great!
f007scott 9 months ago 3
"They're killing us by feeding us, or whatever their theory is." Haha. XD
MissJemimaPuddleduck 9 months ago
It's incredibly wasteful and stupid to throw food away just because it's not cosmetically perfect. Walmart employees are not even allowed to take overdue food home to feed to pets, or use as mulch or natural fertilizer in gardens. All of that food gets buried in a landfill. I'm a big fan of Jeff Tucker, but here he is dead wrong.
pretorious700 9 months ago
@pretorious700 I expect that the reason for sending that to landfills is the same reason restaurants have to throw food away rather than give it away, LAWS that say that's what they have to do.
CurtHowland 9 months ago
@CurtHowland You are correct, and you can actually get arrested for taking food from dumpsters at supermarkets. Jeff Tucker apparently misses the statism in this arrangement.
pretorious700 9 months ago
@pretorious700 I disagree. Tucker isn't missing the point that the food, ONCE OFF THE SHELF, must be put in the trash by law.
What he is pointing out is that the food is being removed, which they don't have to do for any other reason than that people won't buy bruised and discolored produce.
The absurd inefficiency of the law forcing that food to be wasted I object to utterly. What food bank wouldn't love to get all that perfectly good bruised/past due food?
CurtHowland 9 months ago
@CurtHowland Yes, I see your point, but it's not clear in what he says if he is endorsing disposing of the food at that point.
pretorious700 9 months ago
@pretorious700 Indeed, I see what you mean.
CurtHowland 9 months ago
@pretorious700 - That's not an entirely accurate depiction, issuing a blanket statement that all that food gets buried in a landfill. It's also a non-sequitur. Walmart has no control over what the municipality does with its waste. Walmart does recycle a good portion of the cardboard it uses, as well as aluminum. Maybe this food waste is getting sorted and given to the municipality for composting.
Slipknotyk06 9 months ago
@Slipknotyk06 I did a lot of volunteer work for organic recycling when I lived in the states, and of course I cannot speak for all municipalities, but where I lived (SE USA), it all went to landfills.
pretorious700 9 months ago
@pretorious700 - Ya, but there are also cities like San Francisco that do have a municipal composting program. In addition (I know this is going to sound like backward logic to you) but even if it hits a landfill, what's to say it won't be recycled? Decaying matter emits methane that is captured at most landfill sites and used to generate electricity. I just personally don't see how landfills are horrible, because I know what goes into the planning of a landfill.
Slipknotyk06 9 months ago
@PressForFreedom lol
MissJemimaPuddleduck 9 months ago
The video stops playing at 30:07.
vakeraj 9 months ago
Tri sodium phosphate is also what was taken out of cloths soap that got them clean. If you get your cloths greasy working on your car a quarter cup along with your soap will get them clean.
cchessmaster 9 months ago
@cchessmaster If one goes to Walmart to purchase this, do you know what department it is in? And, does one ask for tri-sodium phosphate or phosphorus?
bradwatson7324 9 months ago
@bradwatson7324 TSP is available in the paint department. It is used to clean greasy walls before painting.
cchessmaster 9 months ago
Two steps of Logic ... LOL!
daviddalbylive 9 months ago
You have to burn the coating off the cord before splicing.
deadman12078 9 months ago
Every time Jeffrey Tucker speaks, I enjoy it more.
CurtHowland 9 months ago 38
@CurtHowland yeah, i think he's getting better at speaking to highschool kids. i remember him saying somewhere that he had a really hard time with it. but he's killing it with these kids.
johnidavey 9 months ago
@johnidavey I didn't know about the trouble. His first highschoolers talk went really well, but it was Tom Woods who got the standing ovation.
Jeffrey's comments about the running suit "someone ran 200 miles in this thing", were great. I thought it was interesting that he'd forgotten the word "spandex".
CurtHowland 9 months ago
I think the term Economic Democracy sounds better the Capitalism.
4li5t4ir 9 months ago 3
@4li5t4ir
If you have a dollar, you have a vote. What can be more democratic then that? Isnt what you are saying just another word for socialism?
Illyrien 9 months ago
@Illyrien
Exactly. Thats the point, that user was suggesting economic democracy was a better way of describing free market economics.
ghostbuddy 9 months ago
@4li5t4ir
If it's all the same to you, I'd rather take a firm stand against Democracy, and the dumb, barbaric populism for which it stands.
Couching a good idea in the rhetoric of a bad but popular idea doesn't make ordinary people more receptive. It just makes them suspicious of your obvious deception, and lends the bad idea unearned credibility besides.
Tu ne cede malis, as someone once said.
PanzerDivisionBOM 9 months ago
@PanzerDivisionBOM how could you stand against democracy? think about it. With a single leader, be he communist or a monarch or a fascist or whatever. Eventually through time one of your dictators/kings whatever you call him, will be an evil man, its inevitable. Only democracy has the werewithal to limit and restrain the actions of evil leaders. "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" and so, democracy is the only option.
Porojukaha 9 months ago
@Porojukaha Poro stikes again with more nonsense. A Democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on what is for dinner. Think about that and do a quick wiki search of Democracy, Republics, Monarchs, Dictatorships and Constitutional governments.
mjuslen 9 months ago
@PanzerDivisionBOM lets say instead you are an anarchist. Well, a freemarket cannot exist in anarchy for there are certain things a government is absolutely necessary for. a sense of national solidarity, for one. A national army, to defend from other forces. A police force, which by the way no one in the long line of freemarket economists has ever found a way to privatize effectively. Also, government is necessary in order to have a court system wich is necessary to do justice.
Porojukaha 9 months ago
@Porojukaha typical nonsense from someone who doesn't understand free markets or capitalism. Police, fire departments, schools and so forth can all be provided by private means. Even security and defense can be provided through private contracts. Something so complicated as a hospital or a bank can be run privately yet for some reason people like yourself think that without government securing our borders and defending our citizens would somehow be impossible without government.
mjuslen 9 months ago
@Porojukaha
A king does not have to be a good person, but at least he has not been selected for his high time preference and his propensity to connive and to appeal to dumb populism.
The king regards civil society as his inherited property, which could sustain him in his retirement and his posterity. To a politico, civil society is a commons, to which he has been granted temporary access at a high cost.
It's all the difference between a familial lumbermill and a slash-and-burn outfit. -
-
PanzerDivisionBOM 9 months ago
-
- I'm not going to fault your faith in the state. I really do think it comes down to differing entrepreneurial judgments.
That said, if you want to sway me, then you should show why the state which you advocate would not become another empire. What would you do different than, e.g. the US, and how would your safeguards persist over time against the inevitable workings of politics?
I am an anti-statist, because the least dissatisfactory answer I've found to that question is "competition".
PanzerDivisionBOM 9 months ago
@PanzerDivisionBOM lol. you need to check up on history. EVERY SINGLE GENOCIDE in HISTORY and most of the major atrocities were all perpetrated by kings. Most of them kings that the people loved in the beginning. . "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Porojukaha 9 months ago
@Porojukaha
I can think of at least a few particularly egregious democratic democides, but that's not the point.
I'm not saying that monarchy is so much better than democracy, that any conceivable monarchy is going to be better than any conceivable democracy. I'm saying that monarchy, all other things being equal, is better than democracy.
Monarchies have historically tended to exist in times and places with less accumulated capital and empathy (e.g. Africa and THE FRAKKING MIDDLE AGES). -
-
PanzerDivisionBOM 9 months ago
-
- Unless you think I'm also arguing for the destruction of 95% of all capital and a widespread return to more primitive child-rearing methods, then don't you think that's something your empirical examination should control for?
Also, that quote. -
-
PanzerDivisionBOM 9 months ago
-
- I agree completely. Anti-statist, remember? But I'm not seeing a lot of restraint on the part of politicos the world over, and I'm still waiting for you to explain how there can exist any restriction on the power to abuse, which a monopolistic agency of law-making, defense and arbitration cannot override over time.
PanzerDivisionBOM 9 months ago
@PanzerDivisionBOM
An armed population. Jefferson said it himself. Sure, it isn't as pleasant as anyone would like to hear, but it's really the only way.
jtoon200 9 months ago
I bet he bought those headphones for the interview with Stefan Molyneux.
MrGreeneggsnham 9 months ago 6