Thank you Mr. Williams... I also wish you were in the white house. Your simple explainations of how economics effects everyone is something that society should have a sharper focus on. And certainly should be taught in grade schools.
Read the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, the Federalist Papers, Bastiat's The Law. Know the history of USA or you can't support & defend it. Restore America 2012 Ron Paul RonPaul2012dotcom 1835 “Minute” on India written by Thomas Babington Macaulay; A government cannot be wrong in punishing fraud or force, but it is almost certain to be wrong if, abandoning its legitimate function, it tells private individuals that it knows their business better than they know it themselves.
Great video piece. Much truth. Too few Americans who understand and make the connections,...and far too many Americans who are "in line" for their government handout or check!!! Those who would pass our other person's money to the masses... have purchased the votes of millions!
But then whom should this income be returned to and how would it be reinvested? We don't have an answer. The problem of inequality is a complex one and I doubt that guaranteeing a universal right to merit based education would solve it. The reason that some of us spend our lives repaying our credit card bills while some of us own these credit card companies is the difference in our risk taking behavior. That's all there is to it.
Taxation was meant as a tool to redistribute the income earned by capitalists to ensure a more equitable income distribution. It was considered obvious that their income be inherited by their progeny resulting in a vicious cycle of preferential access to higher education and success as you say. Some suggest that after a capitalist dies his wealth should be returned back to the society.
i think he needs lessons in labor theory of value which says that it is only by stealing the surplus labor of his employees that a capitalist is able to realize his profits, say i work in a shoe factory for a day,then during first few hours of day i produce wealth that becomes my salary and the rest of the day i produce wealth that is pocketed by the capitalist. which may be considered the theft of my honest labor.
@comrade2011 you need a lesson in logic. if your work had the same value as the cost of the final shoe you would be making your own shoes, and not working in a factory.
@TlAg0 are u dumb? did u even understand what i was trying to say ? please do not try to argue with me again coz i have no patience for dimwitted poeple.
@comrade2011 Not so! You are completely ignoring the value of the tools purchased, the marketing and salesmanship, the storage facility, transportation costs, etc. There is far more to business than simply making an item! You may "earn your salary" with the first few shoes, but the rest pay for the business to operate. The owner "earns his salary" by running the business. His higher salary is due to higher investment as well as a higher skill required to run a successful business.
@jkalvin99 let us try and understand this, in first few hours i produce my salary, in next few hours i produce wealth that pays for machinery, storage,salesmnship etc, and the wealth produced in last few hours is appropriated by the capitalist.as to the "salary" of the capitalist,it is way too high. if i as worker get 1 unit money per shoe, she most probably makes 50. this is how it is in the real world.
@jkalvin99 also higher skills are generally acquired in expensive universities that only the filthy rich can afford. surely you do not believe that all the poor are in the state they are in because either because they are lazybones or dimwitted. many of them could have become equally skillful if they had the same educational opportunities, but in capitalism education is accessible only to the poor. first you deny me equal opportunity to learn and then you say anybody can succeed great!
@comrade2011 You are absolutely right. If only we had your system, nobody would have to be a trash man, work at mcdonalds, sweep floors, clean toilets or any of those jobs because everyone would be so well educated, those jobs would be beneath them. Oh, and we would all be mega rich and stil want to do whatever job we had. Stop being a troll dude.
@pensword5 some people would still do those jobs no doubt,but it would only be because they did not prove themselves to be as suited for better jobs than their peers, (even though they had the same sorts of educational opportunities),this is would be a drastic change from the present set up in which a janitors son ends up being a janitor and a wall street speculator's son end up being a successful finance expert mostly because they went to different kinds of schools.
@pensword5 this is why i believe that equitable educational opportunities for all is a necessity for any society for it to be able to claim that it is based on the principles of justice or merit. otherwise it remains a set up in which accident of birth/past accumulated privilege decides for most people the level of education they would be able to afford.we cant neglect the fact that the skills acquired during education in most cases decides how much an individual can achieve in his/her lifetime
@comrade2011 If only we had a system that the best and brightest in a publicly provided "basic" education system could get the chance to get that higher ed with something like, I dont know, maybe a "scholarship" Im tired of showing you the world around you. Your like a fish denying the existance of water, and your not worth anymore of my time.
@comrade2011 It is much more difficult to run a successful business than to make a shoe, hence the higher salary. Having a product is but a SMALL portion of successful business!! As for there being an inequality of opportunity, some of the greatest businessmen in American history started with nothing but a few matchsticks or some agricultural know-how. The rest was all them, not some fancy education. An education does not make someone successful. Never has and never will.
Honestly, I do believe MANY of them are there for those reasons. In fact, right now I am in that position right now, but I blame it on a lot of factors. I lost my job and the economic circumstances in my current area are very bad. Many (most) of those I see around me at my current level, however, are severely lacking in work ethic, intelligence, or skill set. I blame this on a combination of factors - THEMSELVES (FIRST), their parents, luck, and too much government interference.
@jkalvin99 but you are not paying attention to what caused the economic crises. wall street barons, invested too much money into financial speculation(which happens to be an unproductive activity as they try to make money out of money instead of producing anything of use for the society), and when the crisis came, who was hurt the most? people who had no idea about what was happening in the wall street. we live in world where circumstances beyond our control or vision affect our lives drasticaly
@comrade2011 Actually, I disagree. The cause was Fannie and Freddie nearly forcing loans an honest business would never have made. Countless Americans caused much of their own calamity but taking loans they never should have. Then of course there was dishonesty in how loans (that shouldn't have been made) were handled and peddled to foreigners. Should the gov't have stayed out of it, the loans wouldn't have been made, so where does the blame lay?
@jkalvin99 talking of who is to blame to for somebody's losing employment. well i do not at all believe that they themselves r to blame. firing somebody is like telling them that since you are not productive enough we cant pay for your livelihood.but tell me, do you seriously believe that these people cant contribute to the society through any sort of productive work? the truth is that while those who are employed slog 12 hrs a day, many others are told that their services r no longer required
@comrade2011 So lazy people are ENTITLED to take a salary for sub-par production? If you need your house cleaned and hire a cleaning person and they raid your fridge, take up residence and occasionally wash a dish, but nothing else, should you be REQUIRED to let her stay and freeload? Why should an employer be held to a different standard? A man (or woman) should be able to hold their own and get what they EARN.
@comrade2011 Also, So should the salaries of everyone be at risk, so that an employer can subsidize an employee who produces less, or is less necessary to the essentials of the business? This is the decision of a business owner. I once knew a guy who sold his truck because he couldn't tell people no when they asked to borrow it. If he owned a business he'd have to close the doors because he couldn't fire anyone. One person's salary shouldn't jeopardize everyone else's.
@jkalvin99 you say education does not make anybody successful, then can you explain why there is such a rush to study at top universities across the world. are all those people crazy. the truth is that barring a few exceptions the majority of successful people come from the top universities. and so long as it is possible to buy good education whether at school or at college level, this society will remain unjust.
@comrade2011 People do silly things everyday. Sure an education can help, but is not required! You can point to many who have succeeded because of their education. I can point you to innumerable people who have jobs completely unrelated to their degree. I believe success has more to do with a persons raising than their education. The graduating classes of those top universities are full of failures.
@jkalvin99 you say that most businessmen started small,but is it really so? i can give you relevant statistics that would prove that most businessmen in fact inherited their wealth. there are only a very few exceptions, but they are projected by the media as though they represent what happens in our society in general. in reality most people are unable to raise themselves from the social station they are born in, even if the are talented or hardworking.
@comrade2011 I didn't say that most businessmen start small. I said some of the most successful did. However, yes most of them do start small since the large majority of businesses are small businesses; look up the statistics. This nation was founded by people who started with very little. They were entrepreneurs. Things were hard then; they are hard now. There was government intervention then (Britain); there's government intervention now. Getting rid of the intervention brought more success!
@comrade2011 Wow!! You said.."he needs lessons in labor theory of value which says that it is only by STEALING the surplus labor of his employees..." I'm pretty sure when you agree to work for "X", and you recieve "X" for your work, it would not be theft. Are you sure you understand theft? And didnt you, your employer, and the consumer all come out better? If you can do a better job producing than your boss, start your own company, make more money than you do now, and pay your people more
i think he needs lessons in labor theory of value which says that it is only by stealing the surplus labor of his employees that a capitalist is able to realize his profits, say i work in a shoe factory for a day,then during first few hours of day i produce wealth that becomes my salary and the rest of the day i produce wealth that is pocketed by the capitalist. which may be considered the theft of my honest labor.
this man is a patriot. Too bad so many blacks are less about liberty and more about government take over, so they use the race card as a tool to attack the libertarians :-(
@hennypenny247 Mr. Cain is a Corporatist... used to be Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and took 25 to 30 million dollars from 500 employees. Google Herman Cain Aquila.
@benandreas369 ok i just googled.. thanks know i know herman cain really was a madman....rachel maddow whether anybody likes her or not did a good piece on how the billionaire koch brothers own herman cain as well..
No, this hyar type of thin' is at th' co'e of intertainment. Audiences haf been intertained by animals eatin' varmints, varmints fallin' fum skyscrapers, all so'ts of sex on display, inackments of all so'ts of unlawful, unhealthy, risky, immo'al behavio'
Walter Williams - one of the most brilliant men of modern America - why isn't he running those morons that destroy our country out of the WH? Between him and Thomas Sowell - love them both for who they are.
Fine. Eliminate taxation and regulation, and then we have free enterprise. Till then we have slavery. Take away the welfare that politicians, teachers, and all gov workers receive and then we can talk about free enterprise. If the president gets welfare, then everyone else should too, and get JUST AS MUCH! PS- TS is knowledgeable, in a way, but he is an off-shade of brown, not black. Some people are more equal than others.
@andrewthejones : Plus... I think your explanation of "dollars" is way better than W.E.W. I'll quote you: "Every dollar represents a certain amount of labor."
W.E.W. analogy about the grocer questioning whether you've served your fellow man or not before he sells you the groceries is dumb and reeks of socialism to me. But that's just my opinion. W.E.W. logic is intact... his analogies are not.
The analogy is fine, your problem is with a terminology far more expansive in reach than this analogy.
Have you ever seen a sign that read: thank you for your service?
The sign is ofcourse referring to the fact that i have "given them service" (another common phrase ) or in other words, allowed them to "serve" me.
I know there are groups of people that worship the notion of selfishness and see Free Enterprise as nothing but an expression of this but the term fits.
@Aphoresis : It's not the best terminology! "serving" has a general and wide range of definitions.. but it's mostly used referring to charity and helping.. which is GREAT! I love helping people. But that's not the basis of why people set up businesses. He makes it sound like the sole purpose for owning 100's of acres of corn is to help people. Business' are for products that can be traded for other products or labor... that's all. There's no altruism involved. But altruism is totally cool.
@freezazoid serving is not part of the businesses direct intention it happens irrespective of whether the individuals that compromise a business want to serve thier fellow man or not. it is not the intention but it is nevertheless the outcome. you must have done something for those dollars.
@freezazoid and if you just inherited those dollars then your father must have done something for those dollars. perhaps dad was a bum then grandpa must have done something for those dollars. If you won the money playing the lotto then you made a high risk investment of about 7 dollars that has the probability of resulting in you losing your entire 7 dollar investment and fortunately you didn't. Should we bemoan that individuals good fortune.
@aussieconservative : You're missing the point: "serving ones fellow man" isn't the main motivation behind econ. You don't start a business to help people... charity work is done that way. You start business' so you can make profit. People getting "served" is the natural bi-product of wanting to increase your income or assets. "serving people" is for slaves. selling your labor and ideas is for the businessman. why would anyone even want to look at it like you're "serving people"?
@freezazoid this is a classical example of the bastardisation of the English language. To SERVE is; to be in the service of; work for OR to be useful or of service to; help. the term itself does not imply slavery indeed in the examples used it implies payment. I mow your lawn - service rendered, repair your roof - service rendered or teach your children economics - service rendered and in turn you give me dollars - payment rendered. indeed why would anyone make the presumption this is greed.
@aussieconservative : the problem is: Webster's isn't the final word... it gives you direction to how the word has been used in the past. More commonly the word "serve" connotes and brings on imagery of charity or slavery... you're right not always. but w.e.w. even said something like.. "your grocer will ask if you've served your fellow man before he sells groceries".... that's ridiculous... A dollar is not a certificate of serving ones fellow man. it's a certificate of work/assets/value
@freezazoid You have been shown both by reference to extremely common everyday language and even English lexicons that the term "Service" fits what it is Williams is describing here. If you want to maintain your case you must offer evidence that proves that "Service" is used preeminently today to refer to Charity or Slavery, a task which i believe will be difficult.
@Aphoresis : not just the word "service". I probably never would have noticed if he'd just said that. It's the "serve ones fellow man" that bugged me. And besides that, he even says that the grocer wont sell to you unless you've served your fellow man. I could steal a bunch of money and go into the shop and buy stuff... I did the OPPOSITE of serving my fellow man, and the grocer still will except the money. You know why? BECAUSE IT'S NOT A FREAKIN CERTIFICATE OF SERVING YOUR FELLOW MAN!
@freezazoid Umm, This argument is not an argument against money being produced by serving one's fellow man, it is an argument against the idea that money is a certificate of ANYTHING..
If we said that money was a certificate of "work" or "earning", it would be just as easily falsified by the occurence of finding money on the ground, or being given money.
@freezazoid his point was that in a free society absent of government force a person would be forced to produce something or provide a service in order to get any income in the first place. You could go steal it from someone but it is immoral and reason to be put in jail.
@cooks1234 Your argument is irrational, it's not the issue being discussed. The discussion is about the core ideals of economics, and the core logic behind what economics is all about. So to talk about the benefits of trading coconuts are the premises for the argument; you're attempting to add an unideal situation (crime) into the hypothesis. That is irrational, to inject the possibility of theft into an argument about virtues of economic trade.
One of my professors in college indoctrinated the class about wealth redistribution on a daily basis. When I challenged him on it he looked at me as if I was crazy.
@WilliamBrothers, Thomas Sowell said it was like trying to convince the Godfather that crime doesn't pay.
He's a university professor that makes a living selling these ideas of wealth distribution. The fact that the ideas could be wrong is just so strange and offensive to him.
Respect your comments and however just because men make law's it by no mean's or..implies..That we have a duty OR obligation.as free citizens.. as GOD determined...and in creating us His People ..That God who created .us..That people.Have .too abide by anything that a man..or human...summrises..
williams says about the guy trying to buy beer from the store owner: "you're making a claim on what your fellow man produced". No he's not! "you're asking him to serve you"... NO HE"S NOT! He's making a bid on a product. A bid means he's saying I'll trade you this ammount of product for you're amount of product. If the guy selling the beer agrees to take the paper money... IT's A DEAL! there's no slavery or subserviance involved.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I don't like his analogy of "serving ones fellow man". If I guy gathers a shitload of coconuts on an island and has more than he needs to eat.. he can sell those off. How was he ever serving anyone but himself? He became a master at gathering coconuts and now can trade them for another product that someone else has become a master at attaining. They both win, and they both were serving their own wants and needs. There's no "serving the fellow man" business in the transaction.
@freezazoid Without the production of coconuts, they would not be available in the marketplace. If there is a demand for coconuts, it serves one's fellow man by simply making them available as an option for trade. The desires of the coconut lover are now addressed. Make no mistake, serving one's fellow man is only the effect of capitalism and free trade, not necessarily the intention.
This might be a question of semantics. I do agree with what you're saying - the man who gathers coconuts, serves food, sells cars, etc is working in HIS OWN BEST INTEREST. He's not doing it out of charity, goodwill, etc.
However - as a result of his actions, he makes available goods and services which might not otherwise exists. WIlliams is talking about the "invisible hand" or how people's "self serving" actions end up helping others automatically.
@LibertyPen Agreed. The natural danger to promoting service of fellow man is that such references have become a matter of government coercing people, in our day. Yet, a mutually voluntary trade between two people is service to both but the emphasis must be on the voluntary part as much as it is on the service part. And to the video; Williams is fantastic. We need intellect of his sort to be far more prominently displayed.
"and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was not part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it."
@MrGrevy His true intention is a genuine concern for people. That's good economics. Look at the basic language of economics: the production and trade of goods and services. Goods, meaning products, but they're called 'goods' as in something that is good. And services, as in to serve one's fellow man. Our most basic nature is described by economics, what we demand, and what we make, and what we buy and what we consume. Normative economics teaches the virtues of competitive industry.
@LibertyPen furthermore shitload of coconuts is not going to result in a high price. The fact that there is such a high supply means that others will also have coconuts and there will be competition in the market. You also didn't define the product that the other guy is selling. it could be a diamond dealer. if he is trying to buy diamonds with coconuts he will definitely be 'serving his fellow man'. i see no real flaws in walter williams analysis but i see plenty here.
@freezazoid You are confusing the word "serve" with the word "give"!!!
For example, a waiter in a restaurant "serves" you food - but he does not "give" you food - you ultimately have to pay for it! This is true with all economic relationships and the benefit to society is enormous.
Now, there IS a role for pure giving - it's called charity. But that is the exception, not the rule. "Service" is something we PERFORM for one another in exchange for COMPENSATION.
@utube9000 : yes, also a guy serves tennis balls and gets paid for it. Economically if there's a free market no one is serving others. You came up with a profession where the term happens to be used. But not in the literally sense of the word "servant". It's a dirty word that suggests force so I don't like it. If you take my original example. If I can gather coconuts then I can trade them for goods. Nothing but my hard work can get me everything I need. it's not serving but service.
@whitepaladin1959 : you have no comment or ideas? all you can say is you're stupid? haha... you're the one that sounds like a moron. I'll have an econ. debate with you any time bro. Why don't you explain why I'm stupid, and then I'll obliterate your argument.
@freezazoid You're confusing the word "serving." The coconut gatherer "serves" someone coconuts (gives it to them). And the person serves him (gives him something). And they both serve their own needs (attain values that further their life).
You're thinking he means giving someone something without any payment in return like a servant.
@petepittsburgh I'm not confusing anything. Historically the word "serve" has connotations of slavery, and charity. Yes it can connote other things, but it's not the best word in a free market system. It doesn't always apply, like if I had a farm and was totally self sufficiant, grew my own food and made my own power... I'm not serving anyone except myself. And if I have a surplus of veggies and trade them to a neighbor for something, I'm not serving the neighbor! serve is not the right word.
@freezazoid You knew when you wrote your comment that he was serving the neighbors need for coconuts. But you didn't say that the word was unclear, you said Williams was wrong about his theory. You lied. You should've said "I know what Williams means but I don't think its the best choice of words." But you wouldn't have gotten so much attention would you?
@freezazoid According to you, it's impossible for people to serve other people, yet you also say it's possible for people to serve themselves. But if you say service connotes either slavery or charity, then according to your argument you say people can be charitable to themselves, or they can enslave themselves. Sir, you are wrong in everything you say on this subject. And I don't mean to disrespect you, only defend the beautiful discipline of economics. Please reevaluate your words.
@DOHC2L : when did I ever say it was impossible to serve other people? Never... I just don't think that free trade is "serving" to others.
2nd point, this is strictly a semantics argument that I've been making from the beginning. And I stand by my point that W.E.W. choice of words is not the best to explain economics.
3rd: you're whole business about enslaving oneself because they serve themselves doesn't even make sense. Serving others out of force is slavery, serving oneself is not
@freezazoid I'm going to answer in multiple replies. Point 1: Look at what you said to me: "I just don't think that free trade is "serving" to others." See, you just contradicted yourself again. "I just don't think that free trade is "serving" to others." = "It's impossible to serve other people." In your own words, you deny it, then claim you didn't say it. Please stop claiming semantics only to escape legitimate criticism. I argue semantics correctly, you do not.
@freezazoid You are a word terrorist. Semantics is not a cheap excuse to deny meaning, semantic arguments ought to make arguments clearer, easier to understand, and take complexity to simplicity. You do the opposite, and because you are not an authentic linguist, you're trying so hard to be right that you construct totally invalid arguments and use irrational reasoning to justify your stated denial of Mr. William's comments. Stop doing that, you only make more and more absurd statements.
@freezazoid On your third point, do not confuse your own words as my beliefs; I used your own words to show how they conclude to absurdity. Now you're saying I'm the one not making sense, because the argument you made first and that I had repeated. Now you are locked into your own paradox. The technique I used is called reduction-to-absurdity. By using your own arguments to show they are wrong, that does not mean I believe them. So your third point is a progression of that paradox.
@freezazoid On your first point, an analogy: If you say two plus two, and nothing more; according to you, you meant four. You can't say two plus two and then claim you didn't mean four just because you didn't type four. Most of your comments are saying it's impossible for people to serve others, you just didn't type it directly, but it's very obvious that's the thrust of your arguments. Because you're arguing against Mr. William's reasoning, it's tantamount to denying his conclusion... TBC
Because you're arguing against Mr. William's reasoning, it's tantamount to denying his conclusion: that free trade is not just self-serving, but is also serving to others. Thus, you said it was impossible.
@freezazoid One last point, notice how much I've criticized your arguments? They're so absurd they invite criticism. Contrast that with your three "points" you wrote to me; none of your "points" contains legitimate criticism, they're just cheap denials, assertions with no stated meanings refuting my criticism of you. If you were arrested and put on trial for some crime, wouldn't you say more than "I didn't do it." Nothing you said to me refuted my reasoning, so tell me how I am wrong?
@freezazoid You said: "this is strictly a semantics argument that I've been making from the beginning. And I stand by my point that W.E.W. choice of words is not the best to explain economics."
So what word(s) would you prefer? I challenge you to reword his argument and then demonstrate the semantic differences between your wording and what Mr. Williams. I doubt you'd be able to without distorting his argument. The gauntlet has been thrown at you.
@DOHC2L : well first off I would exchange the term "certificates of performance" with the term "certificates of worth" or "certificates of value". But even that wouldn't quite be right because the USD or any other fiat currency doesn't hold intrinsic value. Under a gold standard though, you could say money is "a certificate of worth"... Money is simply matter in some form that someone wants. A piece of shit could be money if someone wanted it (I'm sure angie jolie's shit would sell on ebay)
@freezazoid Sure there is, his mastery at gathering coconuts provided a greater number of coconuts than there would have been without him. His motivation may have been for his own betterment, but all are better off - and that is what was meant by serving ones fellow man. He provided a service, but that does not mean he went unrewarded.
@ToddAldrich : Nope not true. What if "coconut guy" wanted to keep all the coconuts to himself? What if he was a dumbass that didn't even realize he could trade them for other goods? Or go back to my wilderness scenario: what if he decided to live somewhere in montana away from everyone, surviving on his own food and own labor? The "serving ones fellow man" not only reeks of charity and religion, but it DOESN'T ALWAYS APPLY as I've just illustrated.
@freezazoid The serving part is not in the collection of the coconuts, it is in the offering them to others. The fact that he profits does not mean he is not providing a service. In fact, I would argue that the results of that profit ALSO serves his fellow man - provided he doesn't hoard it.
You seem to be hung up on some anti-religion kick and for no good reason.
@ToddAldrich Again... there's plenty of people that live in the world on their own and grown their own food and make their own shelter. So the rule of "serving" doesn't always apply. And yes, serving is a dirty word to me. I'm a big Ayn Rand fan and Milton Friedman fan and Ron Paul fan... I'm sure they'd all agree with me.
@freezazoid Never said it always applies. Just that it does here. I can say for a fact that Friedman would have no trouble with the word in ANY context, I don't believe that Paul would take issue either although I cannot say this as fact, Ayn would in some instances but not in the context it is meant here. "Serve" has multiple definitions and the altruistic one is not the only meaning. If you dislike religion that is your choice, but bringing it up here, where it is not germane, is silly.
@freezazoid You are constructing an argument that strictly deny the possibility of trade, then using that argument to deny an argument about the benefits of trade. But if your argument is not relevant to trade, how do you suppose you can use your argument to refute what is not relevant to your argument? Weak arguments are weak if they have little relevancy. But if there is zero relevancy, the argument is said to be absurd. Accordingly, your argument is absurd.
@freezazoid Your arguments are absurd. There are two forms of reasoning that you need to be aware of. Positivism = Saying how things are. Normative = Saying how things ought to be. It is not reasonable to argue positivism against normative arguments, else how are we ever to make the world how it ought to be? And your wilderness scenario cannot apply, because if that person isn't trading then of course he's not servicing his fellow man. That argument is what is called an absurd argument.
@freezazoid Do you know what a coconut tastes like? Have you ever picked coconuts? I've never picked a coconut in my life but I have eaten it, and that is what makes trade beneficial for everyone. Someone else labored to pick the coconuts, but I got to eat them. That is a service, and I had to pay for that service, so I had to give up some money, money I had earned for the service I performed for other people in my own job. Also, analogy is not argument, analogy allows argument to be stated
@freezazoid you may not like the analogy of "serving ones fellow man" and think the coconut scenario illustrates self serving actions, but if no one wanted a coconut you'd just have a guy with alot of coconuts because he didn't have a product that served a need of his fellow man.
@latrans67 : If no one wanted a coconut? You're missing the point... Coconut was just meant to represent something that people want... it's an analogy. Even if you were to take it literally it makes no difference. So no one wants his coconuts. So he has plenty of food for himself. What's your point?
@freezazoid Is this a problem of reading comprehension? Did I not state if you do not have a product that serves a need of your fellow man you get nothing for it? My point is that capitalism is about serving a need of someone else that results in making money, if you serve no need they do not give you money. Think of it as a barter system, it doesn't matter how much you want his item if he doesn't want yours. The financial system is just a complex barter, but you have to serve a need.
@latrans67 : no capitalism is about serving oneself... and if you do that a byproduct is that others get what they want to (also by serving themselves.) When I'm hungry I don't first think "how can I serve my fellow man... and maybe this will get me food". No I think "how do I get food". you have it backwards. Someone else getting service from me is just a byproduct of capitalism.
@freezazoid No - that's the attitude of a non-capitalist against capitalism by equating achievement with self-service. I own 2 businesses. I used to own 4. EVERY endeavor I've ever undertook was on the idea that society (my community) would benefit from the products that I produced. My first business was a farm. I can assure you that I never thought of my bottom-line when I inspected the insects and parasites that threatened my crops. I thought of the PRODUCTS that were threatened by them.
@BBCater : Umm yeah... if you didn't inspect the veggies for insects you'd be known as selling a bad product. but you didn't do that because you wanted to continue selling your product... you did it for moral purposes. Fine, in a free market you can do that. Most people sell great products because they make money selling great products. And when did I ever say I wanted the gov. to get involved in business?
@freezazoid : I honestly don't get why everyone's hating on me. I'm a big fan of W.E.W. I just think his analogy is off. Economics doesn't revolve around "Serving Ones Fellow Man". Adam Smith would agree with me, Milton Friedman would agree, Ayn Rand would agree, Hayek and the whole Austrian School of Econ. would agree and any good economist would agree. The beautiful part about it is our fellow man DOES get help in a "self serving" business environment. It's a wonderful bi-product.
@freezazoid You use "book logic" to justify a position against something you've never tried. Honestly - with your mentality, I wouldn't WANT you owning a business. You're so obviously selfish and self-serving that you suppose everyone else is JUST LIKE YOU.
Drop your jaded, hate-your-parents attitude, and realize that your NEIGHBOR has FAR MORE interest in your well-being than your local politician does... even if he's an asshole. Trust in government is a lack of self-determination - period.
he served his fellow man indirectly by laboring for the surplus coconuts. The ones in the market who want the coconuts don't have to work for them directly, someone has already worked for them. A common exchange of currency is trading labor for labor. Every dollar represents a certain amount of labor.
@andrewthejones EXACTLY!!!!! Finally someone who gets what i'm saying. The "serving ones fellow man" is an indirect consequence of wanting to trade your goods/services with others. "Laboring to trade" is a FINE term.... I personally as a laissez-faire capitalist don't like the term "serving ones fellow man". It sounds like altruism. I'm all for charity and serving people.... I just don't think that's what free-trade is all about. I've taken a lot of shit for not liking W.E.W. wording.
Statism is driving the economy underground. In California a fourth of the economy is now underground because of insane taxation. Barter is returning, we are devolving, thanks to statism.
@econogate We don't need Walter Williams or Thomas Sowell as presidents. All we need is enough people reading those writers books and thinking about things, and voting accordingly. Then power-hungry politicians will have to do the right things to get elected. Education is the key!
capitalism is force. makes perfect sense, just look at wal-mart and how it arms all of its employees with weapons and forces us to buy stuff from wal-mart.
monte talking legal and illegal immigrant. We're losing 3-4,000,000 jobs per year and bringing in circa the same number of immigrinti--now there are your Dept. of Labor and the INS at work for the "American people."
"Human productivity" now plays a minor role in the U.S. economy. Instead of paying a Pennsylvanian $15/hr to produce a Hershey's Kiss, the company is now paying a Mexican $15/week to do the same thing. When that Mexican realizes he can fashion a handsome life for his family & him by sneaking to the U.S. (pre-arranged by the RCC or a Protestant Church), he can get SSI, DPA, Food Stamp, WIC, AFDC, HUD-aid, Fuel Stamp, full medical & drug coverage, the "theft" begins anew. "Ain't that America?"
If I am a street bread-vendor, I will usually sell enougfh breads to get by as things remain static . But if I'm selling tee-vees on the street, I can only survive if the population continues to grow unchecked so that there are more housing starts, growth and suburbs so that folq need new tee-vees. You people can call that "Capitalism." But a few of us call it Madness.
"But if I'm selling tee-vees on the street, I can only survive if the population continues to grow unchecked" Right because everyone buys one TV and that's it for life. Thank god they don't break and technology doesn't improve to the point where old models are replaced right? That is of course ignoring the fact that if you sell street TVs for a living you aren't exactly making yourself valuable to the job market and if you can't be bothered to improve yourself why should anyone care?
Let's see: in 2009, U.S. universities graduated 2,000 MSWs but there were only 180 openings for MSWs. Guess how many wound up selling street-breads and 'tee-wees.
@lumpagogo No topic switching there. Getting a degree in social work is not improving yourself. They are worthless because social work has no value. Might as well get a degree in African American Studies. I can tell you what my CIS degree is worth, 35,000 more a year than I was earning without it.
Certificates of performance. It's a concept lost on too many people today.
iwontreadyourreply 2 weeks ago
i hate the music i quit watching
ArgentDawn55 3 weeks ago
@ArgentDawn55 you wouldn't have liked the lecture anyway. it required thinking. btw, do you pick your reading based on how pretty the cover is?
fzqlcs 3 weeks ago
the stupid music ruined it
ArgentDawn55 3 weeks ago
Play It In The White House!!!
Homburg 1 month ago
Paul/Williams 2012
sodafountan 1 month ago
paul/williams pass it on
monjiaitaly 1 month ago
Thank you Mr. Williams... I also wish you were in the white house. Your simple explainations of how economics effects everyone is something that society should have a sharper focus on. And certainly should be taught in grade schools.
beelzabubba 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Read the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, the Federalist Papers, Bastiat's The Law. Know the history of USA or you can't support & defend it. Restore America 2012 Ron Paul RonPaul2012dotcom 1835 “Minute” on India written by Thomas Babington Macaulay; A government cannot be wrong in punishing fraud or force, but it is almost certain to be wrong if, abandoning its legitimate function, it tells private individuals that it knows their business better than they know it themselves.
possumpistol 2 months ago
Great video piece. Much truth. Too few Americans who understand and make the connections,...and far too many Americans who are "in line" for their
government handout or check!!! Those who would pass our other person's money to the masses... have purchased the votes of millions!
wfmcfp1 3 months ago
Great video piece. Much truth. Too few Americans who understand and make the connections,...and far too many Americans who are "in line" for their government handout or check!!! Those who would pass our other person's money to the masses... have purchased the votes of millions!
wfmcfp1 3 months ago
We need this man's teachings to go viral, immediately! I say we use utilize our social networks!
samilehm 4 months ago
We need this man's teachings to go viral, now! I like the Cain / Williams teaming up idea!
samilehm 4 months ago
Wow, I can't believe I haven't heard of this guy until today....I'm only half way through, but everything he is saying is pure gold.
cschopf 5 months ago
Walter is the man!
Platewarp 5 months ago
How about Paul / Williams 2012 ?
seppsters 6 months ago 7
Music is annoyingly loud, Walter is great.
riverstrat 6 months ago 2
The more money people have the more freedom they'll have to live their own lives the way they want to. And be less dependent on government.
FRSFreeStateNow 6 months ago
Walter you are truly brilliant. I only wish more people could be enlightened by you.
adulby 7 months ago
Walter Williams is a great man.
kbdkbd99 7 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
HI I just posted a great story about welfare reform at onegirlsstand.blogspot.com check it out! check out and comment on what you think!!
youngsereneful 7 months ago
How come when someone says to me "you got served" I always end up in court?
NegaDevin 7 months ago 3
But then whom should this income be returned to and how would it be reinvested? We don't have an answer. The problem of inequality is a complex one and I doubt that guaranteeing a universal right to merit based education would solve it. The reason that some of us spend our lives repaying our credit card bills while some of us own these credit card companies is the difference in our risk taking behavior. That's all there is to it.
9parag 8 months ago
Taxation was meant as a tool to redistribute the income earned by capitalists to ensure a more equitable income distribution. It was considered obvious that their income be inherited by their progeny resulting in a vicious cycle of preferential access to higher education and success as you say. Some suggest that after a capitalist dies his wealth should be returned back to the society.
9parag 8 months ago
Comment removed
9parag 8 months ago
i think he needs lessons in labor theory of value which says that it is only by stealing the surplus labor of his employees that a capitalist is able to realize his profits, say i work in a shoe factory for a day,then during first few hours of day i produce wealth that becomes my salary and the rest of the day i produce wealth that is pocketed by the capitalist. which may be considered the theft of my honest labor.
comrade2011 9 months ago
@comrade2011 you need a lesson in logic. if your work had the same value as the cost of the final shoe you would be making your own shoes, and not working in a factory.
TlAg0 9 months ago
@TlAg0 are u dumb? did u even understand what i was trying to say ? please do not try to argue with me again coz i have no patience for dimwitted poeple.
comrade2011 9 months ago
@comrade2011 Not so! You are completely ignoring the value of the tools purchased, the marketing and salesmanship, the storage facility, transportation costs, etc. There is far more to business than simply making an item! You may "earn your salary" with the first few shoes, but the rest pay for the business to operate. The owner "earns his salary" by running the business. His higher salary is due to higher investment as well as a higher skill required to run a successful business.
jkalvin99 9 months ago
@jkalvin99 let us try and understand this, in first few hours i produce my salary, in next few hours i produce wealth that pays for machinery, storage,salesmnship etc, and the wealth produced in last few hours is appropriated by the capitalist.as to the "salary" of the capitalist,it is way too high. if i as worker get 1 unit money per shoe, she most probably makes 50. this is how it is in the real world.
comrade2011 9 months ago
@jkalvin99 also higher skills are generally acquired in expensive universities that only the filthy rich can afford. surely you do not believe that all the poor are in the state they are in because either because they are lazybones or dimwitted. many of them could have become equally skillful if they had the same educational opportunities, but in capitalism education is accessible only to the poor. first you deny me equal opportunity to learn and then you say anybody can succeed great!
comrade2011 9 months ago
@comrade2011 You are absolutely right. If only we had your system, nobody would have to be a trash man, work at mcdonalds, sweep floors, clean toilets or any of those jobs because everyone would be so well educated, those jobs would be beneath them. Oh, and we would all be mega rich and stil want to do whatever job we had. Stop being a troll dude.
pensword5 9 months ago
@pensword5 some people would still do those jobs no doubt,but it would only be because they did not prove themselves to be as suited for better jobs than their peers, (even though they had the same sorts of educational opportunities),this is would be a drastic change from the present set up in which a janitors son ends up being a janitor and a wall street speculator's son end up being a successful finance expert mostly because they went to different kinds of schools.
comrade2011 8 months ago
@pensword5 this is why i believe that equitable educational opportunities for all is a necessity for any society for it to be able to claim that it is based on the principles of justice or merit. otherwise it remains a set up in which accident of birth/past accumulated privilege decides for most people the level of education they would be able to afford.we cant neglect the fact that the skills acquired during education in most cases decides how much an individual can achieve in his/her lifetime
comrade2011 8 months ago
@comrade2011 If only we had a system that the best and brightest in a publicly provided "basic" education system could get the chance to get that higher ed with something like, I dont know, maybe a "scholarship" Im tired of showing you the world around you. Your like a fish denying the existance of water, and your not worth anymore of my time.
pensword5 8 months ago
@comrade2011 It is much more difficult to run a successful business than to make a shoe, hence the higher salary. Having a product is but a SMALL portion of successful business!! As for there being an inequality of opportunity, some of the greatest businessmen in American history started with nothing but a few matchsticks or some agricultural know-how. The rest was all them, not some fancy education. An education does not make someone successful. Never has and never will.
jkalvin99 8 months ago
Honestly, I do believe MANY of them are there for those reasons. In fact, right now I am in that position right now, but I blame it on a lot of factors. I lost my job and the economic circumstances in my current area are very bad. Many (most) of those I see around me at my current level, however, are severely lacking in work ethic, intelligence, or skill set. I blame this on a combination of factors - THEMSELVES (FIRST), their parents, luck, and too much government interference.
jkalvin99 8 months ago
@jkalvin99 but you are not paying attention to what caused the economic crises. wall street barons, invested too much money into financial speculation(which happens to be an unproductive activity as they try to make money out of money instead of producing anything of use for the society), and when the crisis came, who was hurt the most? people who had no idea about what was happening in the wall street. we live in world where circumstances beyond our control or vision affect our lives drasticaly
comrade2011 8 months ago
@comrade2011 Actually, I disagree. The cause was Fannie and Freddie nearly forcing loans an honest business would never have made. Countless Americans caused much of their own calamity but taking loans they never should have. Then of course there was dishonesty in how loans (that shouldn't have been made) were handled and peddled to foreigners. Should the gov't have stayed out of it, the loans wouldn't have been made, so where does the blame lay?
carpenter4c 8 months ago
@jkalvin99 talking of who is to blame to for somebody's losing employment. well i do not at all believe that they themselves r to blame. firing somebody is like telling them that since you are not productive enough we cant pay for your livelihood.but tell me, do you seriously believe that these people cant contribute to the society through any sort of productive work? the truth is that while those who are employed slog 12 hrs a day, many others are told that their services r no longer required
comrade2011 8 months ago
@comrade2011 So lazy people are ENTITLED to take a salary for sub-par production? If you need your house cleaned and hire a cleaning person and they raid your fridge, take up residence and occasionally wash a dish, but nothing else, should you be REQUIRED to let her stay and freeload? Why should an employer be held to a different standard? A man (or woman) should be able to hold their own and get what they EARN.
carpenter4c 8 months ago
@comrade2011 Also, So should the salaries of everyone be at risk, so that an employer can subsidize an employee who produces less, or is less necessary to the essentials of the business? This is the decision of a business owner. I once knew a guy who sold his truck because he couldn't tell people no when they asked to borrow it. If he owned a business he'd have to close the doors because he couldn't fire anyone. One person's salary shouldn't jeopardize everyone else's.
carpenter4c 8 months ago
@jkalvin99 you say education does not make anybody successful, then can you explain why there is such a rush to study at top universities across the world. are all those people crazy. the truth is that barring a few exceptions the majority of successful people come from the top universities. and so long as it is possible to buy good education whether at school or at college level, this society will remain unjust.
comrade2011 8 months ago
@comrade2011 People do silly things everyday. Sure an education can help, but is not required! You can point to many who have succeeded because of their education. I can point you to innumerable people who have jobs completely unrelated to their degree. I believe success has more to do with a persons raising than their education. The graduating classes of those top universities are full of failures.
carpenter4c 8 months ago
@jkalvin99 you say that most businessmen started small,but is it really so? i can give you relevant statistics that would prove that most businessmen in fact inherited their wealth. there are only a very few exceptions, but they are projected by the media as though they represent what happens in our society in general. in reality most people are unable to raise themselves from the social station they are born in, even if the are talented or hardworking.
comrade2011 8 months ago
@comrade2011 I didn't say that most businessmen start small. I said some of the most successful did. However, yes most of them do start small since the large majority of businesses are small businesses; look up the statistics. This nation was founded by people who started with very little. They were entrepreneurs. Things were hard then; they are hard now. There was government intervention then (Britain); there's government intervention now. Getting rid of the intervention brought more success!
carpenter4c 8 months ago
@comrade2011 Wow!! You said.."he needs lessons in labor theory of value which says that it is only by STEALING the surplus labor of his employees..." I'm pretty sure when you agree to work for "X", and you recieve "X" for your work, it would not be theft. Are you sure you understand theft? And didnt you, your employer, and the consumer all come out better? If you can do a better job producing than your boss, start your own company, make more money than you do now, and pay your people more
pensword5 9 months ago
i think he needs lessons in labor theory of value which says that it is only by stealing the surplus labor of his employees that a capitalist is able to realize his profits, say i work in a shoe factory for a day,then during first few hours of day i produce wealth that becomes my salary and the rest of the day i produce wealth that is pocketed by the capitalist. which may be considered the theft of my honest labor.
comrade2011 9 months ago
I love this guy!!! He is a gentleman of the old stamp. We need more people like him.
eyeswideopen1993 9 months ago
this man is a patriot. Too bad so many blacks are less about liberty and more about government take over, so they use the race card as a tool to attack the libertarians :-(
sharinganclan213 10 months ago
Sowell / Williams 2012 Pass it on!
YisraelinDiaspora 11 months ago 37
@YisraelinDiaspora
Or Herman Cain could put them in his Cabinet to dismantle the nanny state.
hennypenny247 7 months ago
@hennypenny247 Mr. Cain is a Corporatist... used to be Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and took 25 to 30 million dollars from 500 employees. Google Herman Cain Aquila.
benandreas369 3 months ago
@benandreas369 whoops
sniped101 3 months ago in playlist sniped101's favorites
@benandreas369 ok i just googled.. thanks know i know herman cain really was a madman....rachel maddow whether anybody likes her or not did a good piece on how the billionaire koch brothers own herman cain as well..
hapz3000 2 months ago
what a quote at the end! Simply marvelous!
daPlumber702 11 months ago
Brother Walter E. Williams. We all solute your words of Wisdom. Thank You.
robertquentincobb 1 year ago 2
@robertquentincobb
Yes, indeed Dr. Williams take a bow !
DandDskeeto 1 year ago
No, this hyar type of thin' is at th' co'e of intertainment. Audiences haf been intertained by animals eatin' varmints, varmints fallin' fum skyscrapers, all so'ts of sex on display, inackments of all so'ts of unlawful, unhealthy, risky, immo'al behavio'
loonmaniac 1 year ago
Walter Williams - one of the most brilliant men of modern America - why isn't he running those morons that destroy our country out of the WH? Between him and Thomas Sowell - love them both for who they are.
gralith 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gralith You said it !
- why isn't he running those morons that destroy our country out of the WH?
We aren't smart enough to elect him.
DandDskeeto 1 year ago
Mr. Williams.... I wish you were in the White House....
dluff 1 year ago 29
@dluff
I could not agree with you more !
DandDskeeto 1 year ago
@dluff Here, here!
TomGetty88 8 months ago
@dluff Me too, rather than OBAMA.
UCSDEngineerDoctor 8 months ago
@dluff To smart to do that!
walt7500 6 months ago
Fine. Eliminate taxation and regulation, and then we have free enterprise. Till then we have slavery. Take away the welfare that politicians, teachers, and all gov workers receive and then we can talk about free enterprise. If the president gets welfare, then everyone else should too, and get JUST AS MUCH! PS- TS is knowledgeable, in a way, but he is an off-shade of brown, not black. Some people are more equal than others.
geehuckwow 1 year ago
@andrewthejones : Plus... I think your explanation of "dollars" is way better than W.E.W. I'll quote you: "Every dollar represents a certain amount of labor."
W.E.W. analogy about the grocer questioning whether you've served your fellow man or not before he sells you the groceries is dumb and reeks of socialism to me. But that's just my opinion. W.E.W. logic is intact... his analogies are not.
freezazoid 1 year ago
@freezazoid
The analogy is fine, your problem is with a terminology far more expansive in reach than this analogy.
Have you ever seen a sign that read: thank you for your service?
The sign is ofcourse referring to the fact that i have "given them service" (another common phrase ) or in other words, allowed them to "serve" me.
I know there are groups of people that worship the notion of selfishness and see Free Enterprise as nothing but an expression of this but the term fits.
Aphoresis 1 year ago
@Aphoresis : It's not the best terminology! "serving" has a general and wide range of definitions.. but it's mostly used referring to charity and helping.. which is GREAT! I love helping people. But that's not the basis of why people set up businesses. He makes it sound like the sole purpose for owning 100's of acres of corn is to help people. Business' are for products that can be traded for other products or labor... that's all. There's no altruism involved. But altruism is totally cool.
freezazoid 1 year ago
@freezazoid serving is not part of the businesses direct intention it happens irrespective of whether the individuals that compromise a business want to serve thier fellow man or not. it is not the intention but it is nevertheless the outcome. you must have done something for those dollars.
aussieconservative 1 year ago
@freezazoid and if you just inherited those dollars then your father must have done something for those dollars. perhaps dad was a bum then grandpa must have done something for those dollars. If you won the money playing the lotto then you made a high risk investment of about 7 dollars that has the probability of resulting in you losing your entire 7 dollar investment and fortunately you didn't. Should we bemoan that individuals good fortune.
aussieconservative 1 year ago
@aussieconservative : You're missing the point: "serving ones fellow man" isn't the main motivation behind econ. You don't start a business to help people... charity work is done that way. You start business' so you can make profit. People getting "served" is the natural bi-product of wanting to increase your income or assets. "serving people" is for slaves. selling your labor and ideas is for the businessman. why would anyone even want to look at it like you're "serving people"?
freezazoid 1 year ago
@freezazoid this is a classical example of the bastardisation of the English language. To SERVE is; to be in the service of; work for OR to be useful or of service to; help. the term itself does not imply slavery indeed in the examples used it implies payment. I mow your lawn - service rendered, repair your roof - service rendered or teach your children economics - service rendered and in turn you give me dollars - payment rendered. indeed why would anyone make the presumption this is greed.
aussieconservative 1 year ago
@aussieconservative : the problem is: Webster's isn't the final word... it gives you direction to how the word has been used in the past. More commonly the word "serve" connotes and brings on imagery of charity or slavery... you're right not always. but w.e.w. even said something like.. "your grocer will ask if you've served your fellow man before he sells groceries".... that's ridiculous... A dollar is not a certificate of serving ones fellow man. it's a certificate of work/assets/value
freezazoid 1 year ago
@freezazoid You have been shown both by reference to extremely common everyday language and even English lexicons that the term "Service" fits what it is Williams is describing here. If you want to maintain your case you must offer evidence that proves that "Service" is used preeminently today to refer to Charity or Slavery, a task which i believe will be difficult.
Aphoresis 1 year ago
@Aphoresis : not just the word "service". I probably never would have noticed if he'd just said that. It's the "serve ones fellow man" that bugged me. And besides that, he even says that the grocer wont sell to you unless you've served your fellow man. I could steal a bunch of money and go into the shop and buy stuff... I did the OPPOSITE of serving my fellow man, and the grocer still will except the money. You know why? BECAUSE IT'S NOT A FREAKIN CERTIFICATE OF SERVING YOUR FELLOW MAN!
freezazoid 1 year ago
@freezazoid Umm, This argument is not an argument against money being produced by serving one's fellow man, it is an argument against the idea that money is a certificate of ANYTHING..
If we said that money was a certificate of "work" or "earning", it would be just as easily falsified by the occurence of finding money on the ground, or being given money.
Aphoresis 1 year ago
@freezazoid his point was that in a free society absent of government force a person would be forced to produce something or provide a service in order to get any income in the first place. You could go steal it from someone but it is immoral and reason to be put in jail.
leinad576 11 months ago
wait sometimes those certificate(money)could have been stolen.which technically that person didnt serve his fellowman.just saying
cooks1234 1 year ago
@cooks1234 Your argument is irrational, it's not the issue being discussed. The discussion is about the core ideals of economics, and the core logic behind what economics is all about. So to talk about the benefits of trading coconuts are the premises for the argument; you're attempting to add an unideal situation (crime) into the hypothesis. That is irrational, to inject the possibility of theft into an argument about virtues of economic trade.
DOHC2L 1 year ago
One of my professors in college indoctrinated the class about wealth redistribution on a daily basis. When I challenged him on it he looked at me as if I was crazy.
WilliamBrothers 1 year ago
@WilliamBrothers, Thomas Sowell said it was like trying to convince the Godfather that crime doesn't pay.
He's a university professor that makes a living selling these ideas of wealth distribution. The fact that the ideas could be wrong is just so strange and offensive to him.
imre1000 1 year ago
I'm willing to plump down 75$ to listen to you speak Mr. Williams,,, Thank you!
bjarnet3 1 year ago
This man should be president, and judge Napolitano should be chief justice of the supreme court.
Gearhe1d 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Respect your comments and however just because men make law's it by no mean's or..implies..That we have a duty OR obligation.as free citizens.. as GOD determined...and in creating us His People ..That God who created .us..That people.Have .too abide by anything that a man..or human...summrises..
trianglepoints 1 year ago
williams says about the guy trying to buy beer from the store owner: "you're making a claim on what your fellow man produced". No he's not! "you're asking him to serve you"... NO HE"S NOT! He's making a bid on a product. A bid means he's saying I'll trade you this ammount of product for you're amount of product. If the guy selling the beer agrees to take the paper money... IT's A DEAL! there's no slavery or subserviance involved.
freezazoid 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I don't like his analogy of "serving ones fellow man". If I guy gathers a shitload of coconuts on an island and has more than he needs to eat.. he can sell those off. How was he ever serving anyone but himself? He became a master at gathering coconuts and now can trade them for another product that someone else has become a master at attaining. They both win, and they both were serving their own wants and needs. There's no "serving the fellow man" business in the transaction.
freezazoid 1 year ago
@freezazoid Without the production of coconuts, they would not be available in the marketplace. If there is a demand for coconuts, it serves one's fellow man by simply making them available as an option for trade. The desires of the coconut lover are now addressed. Make no mistake, serving one's fellow man is only the effect of capitalism and free trade, not necessarily the intention.
LibertyPen 1 year ago 34
This might be a question of semantics. I do agree with what you're saying - the man who gathers coconuts, serves food, sells cars, etc is working in HIS OWN BEST INTEREST. He's not doing it out of charity, goodwill, etc.
However - as a result of his actions, he makes available goods and services which might not otherwise exists. WIlliams is talking about the "invisible hand" or how people's "self serving" actions end up helping others automatically.
utube9000 1 year ago
@LibertyPen Agreed. The natural danger to promoting service of fellow man is that such references have become a matter of government coercing people, in our day. Yet, a mutually voluntary trade between two people is service to both but the emphasis must be on the voluntary part as much as it is on the service part. And to the video; Williams is fantastic. We need intellect of his sort to be far more prominently displayed.
YtseWolf7 1 year ago
"and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was not part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it."
Adam Smith
Capitalism is voluntary exchange.
Nintendomanwill 1 year ago
@LibertyPen Then why does he try to gild his true intentions and make it sound as if he is magnanimous and genuinely concerned for people?
MrGrevy 1 year ago
@MrGrevy His true intention is a genuine concern for people. That's good economics. Look at the basic language of economics: the production and trade of goods and services. Goods, meaning products, but they're called 'goods' as in something that is good. And services, as in to serve one's fellow man. Our most basic nature is described by economics, what we demand, and what we make, and what we buy and what we consume. Normative economics teaches the virtues of competitive industry.
DOHC2L 1 year ago
@LibertyPen furthermore shitload of coconuts is not going to result in a high price. The fact that there is such a high supply means that others will also have coconuts and there will be competition in the market. You also didn't define the product that the other guy is selling. it could be a diamond dealer. if he is trying to buy diamonds with coconuts he will definitely be 'serving his fellow man'. i see no real flaws in walter williams analysis but i see plenty here.
aussieconservative 1 year ago
@freezazoid You are confusing the word "serve" with the word "give"!!!
For example, a waiter in a restaurant "serves" you food - but he does not "give" you food - you ultimately have to pay for it! This is true with all economic relationships and the benefit to society is enormous.
Now, there IS a role for pure giving - it's called charity. But that is the exception, not the rule. "Service" is something we PERFORM for one another in exchange for COMPENSATION.
utube9000 1 year ago
@utube9000 : yes, also a guy serves tennis balls and gets paid for it. Economically if there's a free market no one is serving others. You came up with a profession where the term happens to be used. But not in the literally sense of the word "servant". It's a dirty word that suggests force so I don't like it. If you take my original example. If I can gather coconuts then I can trade them for goods. Nothing but my hard work can get me everything I need. it's not serving but service.
freezazoid 1 year ago
@freezazoid
gee are you stupid
whitepaladin1959 1 year ago
@whitepaladin1959 : you have no comment or ideas? all you can say is you're stupid? haha... you're the one that sounds like a moron. I'll have an econ. debate with you any time bro. Why don't you explain why I'm stupid, and then I'll obliterate your argument.
freezazoid 1 year ago
@freezazoid You're confusing the word "serving." The coconut gatherer "serves" someone coconuts (gives it to them). And the person serves him (gives him something). And they both serve their own needs (attain values that further their life).
You're thinking he means giving someone something without any payment in return like a servant.
petepittsburgh 1 year ago
@petepittsburgh I'm not confusing anything. Historically the word "serve" has connotations of slavery, and charity. Yes it can connote other things, but it's not the best word in a free market system. It doesn't always apply, like if I had a farm and was totally self sufficiant, grew my own food and made my own power... I'm not serving anyone except myself. And if I have a surplus of veggies and trade them to a neighbor for something, I'm not serving the neighbor! serve is not the right word.
freezazoid 1 year ago
@freezazoid You knew when you wrote your comment that he was serving the neighbors need for coconuts. But you didn't say that the word was unclear, you said Williams was wrong about his theory. You lied. You should've said "I know what Williams means but I don't think its the best choice of words." But you wouldn't have gotten so much attention would you?
petepittsburgh 1 year ago
@freezazoid According to you, it's impossible for people to serve other people, yet you also say it's possible for people to serve themselves. But if you say service connotes either slavery or charity, then according to your argument you say people can be charitable to themselves, or they can enslave themselves. Sir, you are wrong in everything you say on this subject. And I don't mean to disrespect you, only defend the beautiful discipline of economics. Please reevaluate your words.
DOHC2L 1 year ago
@DOHC2L : when did I ever say it was impossible to serve other people? Never... I just don't think that free trade is "serving" to others.
2nd point, this is strictly a semantics argument that I've been making from the beginning. And I stand by my point that W.E.W. choice of words is not the best to explain economics.
3rd: you're whole business about enslaving oneself because they serve themselves doesn't even make sense. Serving others out of force is slavery, serving oneself is not
freezazoid 1 year ago
Comment removed
DOHC2L 1 year ago
Comment removed
DOHC2L 1 year ago
@freezazoid I'm going to answer in multiple replies. Point 1: Look at what you said to me: "I just don't think that free trade is "serving" to others." See, you just contradicted yourself again. "I just don't think that free trade is "serving" to others." = "It's impossible to serve other people." In your own words, you deny it, then claim you didn't say it. Please stop claiming semantics only to escape legitimate criticism. I argue semantics correctly, you do not.
To be continued...
DOHC2L 1 year ago
@freezazoid You are a word terrorist. Semantics is not a cheap excuse to deny meaning, semantic arguments ought to make arguments clearer, easier to understand, and take complexity to simplicity. You do the opposite, and because you are not an authentic linguist, you're trying so hard to be right that you construct totally invalid arguments and use irrational reasoning to justify your stated denial of Mr. William's comments. Stop doing that, you only make more and more absurd statements.
DOHC2L 1 year ago
@freezazoid On your third point, do not confuse your own words as my beliefs; I used your own words to show how they conclude to absurdity. Now you're saying I'm the one not making sense, because the argument you made first and that I had repeated. Now you are locked into your own paradox. The technique I used is called reduction-to-absurdity. By using your own arguments to show they are wrong, that does not mean I believe them. So your third point is a progression of that paradox.
DOHC2L 1 year ago
@freezazoid On your first point, an analogy: If you say two plus two, and nothing more; according to you, you meant four. You can't say two plus two and then claim you didn't mean four just because you didn't type four. Most of your comments are saying it's impossible for people to serve others, you just didn't type it directly, but it's very obvious that's the thrust of your arguments. Because you're arguing against Mr. William's reasoning, it's tantamount to denying his conclusion... TBC
DOHC2L 1 year ago
@freezazoid (TBC = To be continued)
Because you're arguing against Mr. William's reasoning, it's tantamount to denying his conclusion: that free trade is not just self-serving, but is also serving to others. Thus, you said it was impossible.
DOHC2L 1 year ago
@freezazoid One last point, notice how much I've criticized your arguments? They're so absurd they invite criticism. Contrast that with your three "points" you wrote to me; none of your "points" contains legitimate criticism, they're just cheap denials, assertions with no stated meanings refuting my criticism of you. If you were arrested and put on trial for some crime, wouldn't you say more than "I didn't do it." Nothing you said to me refuted my reasoning, so tell me how I am wrong?
DOHC2L 1 year ago
@freezazoid You said: "this is strictly a semantics argument that I've been making from the beginning. And I stand by my point that W.E.W. choice of words is not the best to explain economics."
So what word(s) would you prefer? I challenge you to reword his argument and then demonstrate the semantic differences between your wording and what Mr. Williams. I doubt you'd be able to without distorting his argument. The gauntlet has been thrown at you.
Else continue upward your slippery slope
DOHC2L 1 year ago
@DOHC2L : well first off I would exchange the term "certificates of performance" with the term "certificates of worth" or "certificates of value". But even that wouldn't quite be right because the USD or any other fiat currency doesn't hold intrinsic value. Under a gold standard though, you could say money is "a certificate of worth"... Money is simply matter in some form that someone wants. A piece of shit could be money if someone wanted it (I'm sure angie jolie's shit would sell on ebay)
freezazoid 1 year ago
@freezazoid Sure there is, his mastery at gathering coconuts provided a greater number of coconuts than there would have been without him. His motivation may have been for his own betterment, but all are better off - and that is what was meant by serving ones fellow man. He provided a service, but that does not mean he went unrewarded.
ToddAldrich 1 year ago
@ToddAldrich : Nope not true. What if "coconut guy" wanted to keep all the coconuts to himself? What if he was a dumbass that didn't even realize he could trade them for other goods? Or go back to my wilderness scenario: what if he decided to live somewhere in montana away from everyone, surviving on his own food and own labor? The "serving ones fellow man" not only reeks of charity and religion, but it DOESN'T ALWAYS APPLY as I've just illustrated.
freezazoid 1 year ago
@freezazoid The serving part is not in the collection of the coconuts, it is in the offering them to others. The fact that he profits does not mean he is not providing a service. In fact, I would argue that the results of that profit ALSO serves his fellow man - provided he doesn't hoard it.
You seem to be hung up on some anti-religion kick and for no good reason.
ToddAldrich 1 year ago
@ToddAldrich Again... there's plenty of people that live in the world on their own and grown their own food and make their own shelter. So the rule of "serving" doesn't always apply. And yes, serving is a dirty word to me. I'm a big Ayn Rand fan and Milton Friedman fan and Ron Paul fan... I'm sure they'd all agree with me.
freezazoid 1 year ago
@freezazoid Never said it always applies. Just that it does here. I can say for a fact that Friedman would have no trouble with the word in ANY context, I don't believe that Paul would take issue either although I cannot say this as fact, Ayn would in some instances but not in the context it is meant here. "Serve" has multiple definitions and the altruistic one is not the only meaning. If you dislike religion that is your choice, but bringing it up here, where it is not germane, is silly.
ToddAldrich 1 year ago
@freezazoid You are constructing an argument that strictly deny the possibility of trade, then using that argument to deny an argument about the benefits of trade. But if your argument is not relevant to trade, how do you suppose you can use your argument to refute what is not relevant to your argument? Weak arguments are weak if they have little relevancy. But if there is zero relevancy, the argument is said to be absurd. Accordingly, your argument is absurd.
DOHC2L 1 year ago
@freezazoid Your arguments are absurd. There are two forms of reasoning that you need to be aware of. Positivism = Saying how things are. Normative = Saying how things ought to be. It is not reasonable to argue positivism against normative arguments, else how are we ever to make the world how it ought to be? And your wilderness scenario cannot apply, because if that person isn't trading then of course he's not servicing his fellow man. That argument is what is called an absurd argument.
DOHC2L 1 year ago
@freezazoid the very act of making coconuts available to be purchased, is a service to your fellow man.
HandyMan101 1 year ago
@HandyMan101 : wrong... not if one were to consume his own coconuts.
freezazoid 1 year ago
@freezazoid Do you know what a coconut tastes like? Have you ever picked coconuts? I've never picked a coconut in my life but I have eaten it, and that is what makes trade beneficial for everyone. Someone else labored to pick the coconuts, but I got to eat them. That is a service, and I had to pay for that service, so I had to give up some money, money I had earned for the service I performed for other people in my own job. Also, analogy is not argument, analogy allows argument to be stated
DOHC2L 1 year ago
@freezazoid you may not like the analogy of "serving ones fellow man" and think the coconut scenario illustrates self serving actions, but if no one wanted a coconut you'd just have a guy with alot of coconuts because he didn't have a product that served a need of his fellow man.
latrans67 1 year ago
@latrans67 : If no one wanted a coconut? You're missing the point... Coconut was just meant to represent something that people want... it's an analogy. Even if you were to take it literally it makes no difference. So no one wants his coconuts. So he has plenty of food for himself. What's your point?
freezazoid 1 year ago
@freezazoid Is this a problem of reading comprehension? Did I not state if you do not have a product that serves a need of your fellow man you get nothing for it? My point is that capitalism is about serving a need of someone else that results in making money, if you serve no need they do not give you money. Think of it as a barter system, it doesn't matter how much you want his item if he doesn't want yours. The financial system is just a complex barter, but you have to serve a need.
latrans67 1 year ago
@latrans67 : no capitalism is about serving oneself... and if you do that a byproduct is that others get what they want to (also by serving themselves.) When I'm hungry I don't first think "how can I serve my fellow man... and maybe this will get me food". No I think "how do I get food". you have it backwards. Someone else getting service from me is just a byproduct of capitalism.
freezazoid 1 year ago
@freezazoid No - that's the attitude of a non-capitalist against capitalism by equating achievement with self-service. I own 2 businesses. I used to own 4. EVERY endeavor I've ever undertook was on the idea that society (my community) would benefit from the products that I produced. My first business was a farm. I can assure you that I never thought of my bottom-line when I inspected the insects and parasites that threatened my crops. I thought of the PRODUCTS that were threatened by them.
BBCater 1 year ago
@BBCater : Umm yeah... if you didn't inspect the veggies for insects you'd be known as selling a bad product. but you didn't do that because you wanted to continue selling your product... you did it for moral purposes. Fine, in a free market you can do that. Most people sell great products because they make money selling great products. And when did I ever say I wanted the gov. to get involved in business?
freezazoid 1 year ago
@freezazoid : I honestly don't get why everyone's hating on me. I'm a big fan of W.E.W. I just think his analogy is off. Economics doesn't revolve around "Serving Ones Fellow Man". Adam Smith would agree with me, Milton Friedman would agree, Ayn Rand would agree, Hayek and the whole Austrian School of Econ. would agree and any good economist would agree. The beautiful part about it is our fellow man DOES get help in a "self serving" business environment. It's a wonderful bi-product.
freezazoid 1 year ago
@freezazoid You use "book logic" to justify a position against something you've never tried. Honestly - with your mentality, I wouldn't WANT you owning a business. You're so obviously selfish and self-serving that you suppose everyone else is JUST LIKE YOU.
Drop your jaded, hate-your-parents attitude, and realize that your NEIGHBOR has FAR MORE interest in your well-being than your local politician does... even if he's an asshole. Trust in government is a lack of self-determination - period.
BBCater 1 year ago
@freezazoid
he served his fellow man indirectly by laboring for the surplus coconuts. The ones in the market who want the coconuts don't have to work for them directly, someone has already worked for them. A common exchange of currency is trading labor for labor. Every dollar represents a certain amount of labor.
andrewthejones 1 year ago
@andrewthejones EXACTLY!!!!! Finally someone who gets what i'm saying. The "serving ones fellow man" is an indirect consequence of wanting to trade your goods/services with others. "Laboring to trade" is a FINE term.... I personally as a laissez-faire capitalist don't like the term "serving ones fellow man". It sounds like altruism. I'm all for charity and serving people.... I just don't think that's what free-trade is all about. I've taken a lot of shit for not liking W.E.W. wording.
freezazoid 1 year ago
I Found him on Rush today i had a Chris Mathew moment x10 my whole body tingled!!!
Mr. Williams for President!!!
sitarp 1 year ago 2
heard him filling in 4 rush 2day this man is amazing !! like he was reading from Ayn Rand's books on objectivism !!
carveawoodeneye 1 year ago
@carveawoodeneye : oh poor ayn... she had to be way too abbrasive and now no one will listen. She's quite the character but I love her.
freezazoid 1 year ago
@freezazoid sad but true !!
carveawoodeneye 1 year ago
Walter E. Williams knows he must always respect the white man.
loonmaniac 1 year ago
@loonmaniac People should respect everyone, regardless of race.
markachute 1 year ago
It is only theoretical that money is "certificate of performance", in practice it is not always true.
abuabu41 1 year ago
such a beutifully elegant explanation. Free State (New Hamphshire)
7Highlander 1 year ago
Statism is driving the economy underground. In California a fourth of the economy is now underground because of insane taxation. Barter is returning, we are devolving, thanks to statism.
CIAagent11 1 year ago
@CIAagent11 yep we will all be trading things in a few years it will make life much harder for people to get what they need as cash will not be used/
tubbymanbat 1 year ago
I like this guy.. Excellent!
bjarnet3 1 year ago 2
Good video.
jetfowl 1 year ago
I love those who make sense!
gina7177 1 year ago
I always enjoy listening to Dr. Williams. He has shuch a talent for putting things into perspective.
badalice07 1 year ago 2
Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell 2012!! Pass it on...
econogate 1 year ago 57
This has been flagged as spam show
@econogate We don't need Walter Williams or Thomas Sowell as presidents. All we need is enough people reading those writers books and thinking about things, and voting accordingly. Then power-hungry politicians will have to do the right things to get elected. Education is the key!
CIAagent11 1 year ago
@econogate You are on to something with this winning ticket, my friend!! Even if it were Sowell/ Williams, I wouldn't mind!!
robdani1997 1 year ago
@econogate
That would be my dream candidacy for presidency. Its hard to find two smarter, more liberty loving-guys.
I'd definitely volunteer for that campaign.
relativisticvel 1 year ago
@econogate It'd never happen; they're both black.
4gl2u 1 year ago
@econogate Don't tease us like that. Since when would the population have enough brains to do that.
DandDskeeto 1 year ago
Dr. Williams for President!
audiophile71 2 years ago 6
LESS GOVERNMENT!!!!!!
daizee106 2 years ago 42
capitalism is force. makes perfect sense, just look at wal-mart and how it arms all of its employees with weapons and forces us to buy stuff from wal-mart.
regresseur 2 years ago
re-gre-ssie:
One supposes you are trying to make with the joke-joke but you are not funnies, man. You are not a funny man.
lumpagogo 2 years ago
I got "Liberty vs. The Tyranny of Socialism" as Christmas present. It is a great book and a great tool for refuting any leftist Keynsian nonsense.
VictoryCough 2 years ago
A working American works the first 5 months to pay tax obligations. Than you can keep the rest, after property tax,
sales tax,and soon carbon tax.
40 % of americans pay NO taxes. but most have a home a car
TV,cell phone and many of the comforts of the USA. Without
going to work and earning it.
montegoblackjack 2 years ago
monte talking legal and illegal immigrant. We're losing 3-4,000,000 jobs per year and bringing in circa the same number of immigrinti--now there are your Dept. of Labor and the INS at work for the "American people."
lumpagogo 2 years ago
"Human productivity" now plays a minor role in the U.S. economy. Instead of paying a Pennsylvanian $15/hr to produce a Hershey's Kiss, the company is now paying a Mexican $15/week to do the same thing. When that Mexican realizes he can fashion a handsome life for his family & him by sneaking to the U.S. (pre-arranged by the RCC or a Protestant Church), he can get SSI, DPA, Food Stamp, WIC, AFDC, HUD-aid, Fuel Stamp, full medical & drug coverage, the "theft" begins anew. "Ain't that America?"
lumpagogo 2 years ago
If I am a street bread-vendor, I will usually sell enougfh breads to get by as things remain static . But if I'm selling tee-vees on the street, I can only survive if the population continues to grow unchecked so that there are more housing starts, growth and suburbs so that folq need new tee-vees. You people can call that "Capitalism." But a few of us call it Madness.
lumpagogo 2 years ago
Wait...so demand for "teevees" come from urban sprawl?
HAHAHA okay, you're done
takadi 2 years ago
"But if I'm selling tee-vees on the street, I can only survive if the population continues to grow unchecked" Right because everyone buys one TV and that's it for life. Thank god they don't break and technology doesn't improve to the point where old models are replaced right? That is of course ignoring the fact that if you sell street TVs for a living you aren't exactly making yourself valuable to the job market and if you can't be bothered to improve yourself why should anyone care?
wantwit 2 years ago
Hi, want:
Let's see: in 2009, U.S. universities graduated 2,000 MSWs but there were only 180 openings for MSWs. Guess how many wound up selling street-breads and 'tee-wees.
lumpagogo 2 years ago
@lumpagogo I guess that tells you what an MSW is worth huh.
wantwit 2 years ago
Comment removed
lumpagogo 2 years ago
@lumpagogo No topic switching there. Getting a degree in social work is not improving yourself. They are worthless because social work has no value. Might as well get a degree in African American Studies. I can tell you what my CIS degree is worth, 35,000 more a year than I was earning without it.
wantwit 2 years ago 2