Does capitalism exploit workers? ‘Swag man wit a do’ tells it straight up

July 22, 2012

I caught this video coming down my facebook feed. My good friend Ian from YAL at UVA had reposted it from LearnLiberty.org. It is called Does Capitalism Exploit Workers:

This great video reminds me of my early podcasting days, when I first tuned in to the Ludwig von Mises Institute while cleaning horse stalls at a local stable in the Mt. Airy section of Philadelphia. The lecture I recall specifically was Tom DiLorenzo‘s Labor Market Superstitions, from 2006. Tom explains how employers across the labor market bid up wages until those wages approach value of the labor:

I was further charmed by the response video to Does Capitalism Exploit Workers, which was posted by a gentleman who refers to himself as ‘Swag Man Wit A Do’, if I’ve understood him correctly. Swag man implores us to “put some knowledge in our brains” by watching the video above:

He has a whole channel of similarly witty videos. What are you waiting for? Subscribe to both LearnLiberty and Swag man today!


Some Bunch O’ Links: Possibilianism; Greece; Portugal; Unheeded Prophets; others….

March 6, 2012
  1. I’m going to suggest that the next time someone says, “Well, you should just ‘cowboy up’ and commit to a decision,” we can say, “You know what? What I’d rather do is geek out.” And the idea with geeking out is, I’m going to be creative and come up with new narratives. I’m going to be comfortable holding multiple possibilities in mind.”

    I think this is good advice for learning economics. Some pairs of theories directly contradict each other. In those cases, you gotta pick one. Other theories don’t directly contradict each other. These could both be held in mind, and neither should be dismissed until better explanations are uncovered. One might weigh them. One might favor one of the other, but the other can not be dismissed until it is directly contradicted.

  2. Last May, Portugal received a $104 billion bailout from the European Union and International Monetary Fund, in exchange for deep spending cuts and structural reforms. … After a decade of easy credit, Portuguese are scrambling to make ends meet.

    Government can not keep bailing out and inflating ad infinitum. Recovery is a process. As Peter Schiff said, “Sometimes medicine tastes bad, but you have to swallow it.” Also, what else is government doing to thwart recovery? The article says debt keeps rising despite cuts. Why?

  3. I found this episode of This American Life to be helpful. If that broadcast is to be believed, then the dumbest economic policy of all was letting that vampire state Greece into the Eurozone in the first place.

Read the rest of this entry »


Links for August 1, 2011: Debt Stuff; A Block of MoJo; others….

August 1, 2011
  1. Hitting a debt limit is not the same as defaulting.

  2. Failure to raise the debt ceiling need not entail default; but it would still ding Uncle Sam’s credit rating.

    A more in depth discussion on the limit vs. default issue. I have not yet fully evaluated it.

  3. This is how Congress has been behaving for quite some time. Creditors may start to call soon.  Read the rest of this entry »


Links for May 31, 2011

May 1, 2011

  • A glimpse into our future?

  • I’d like to follow the Gary Johnson campaign. Read the rest of this entry »


  • Links for May 16: Old, old stuff.

    April 3, 2011
  • Vodpod videos no longer available.

    Part 1 of FoxNews’s investigative report. Note the absence of any allegation of physical harm to any patient. As far as I can tell, Jeff Cole is teaming up with the government to limit competition and consumer choice.

  • Vodpod videos no longer available.

    Part 2 of investigative report. Still no particular allegations of harm, but Jeff Cole acknowledges criticism of the investigation. These news agencies do care what their viewers think. It’s a matter of letting them know. Read the rest of this entry »


  • Links for January 24, 2011: Planet Money Compares Socialism and Libertarianism; When Is a Mural not a Mural?; SCOTUS Revisits “Knock and Announce”; others….

    January 23, 2011

    Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

  • Tom Woods | People Who Deserve to Be Better Known

    I knew one only one of the five on this list. I’m sure you will be reading more from them all here in no time. Thanks to Tom Woods for sharing, and I’m glad to pass it along!

  • http://public.npr.org/anon.npr-mp3/npr/blog/2010/09/20100917_blog_pmoney.mp3?_kip_ipx=1874937601-1295886944

    Nice talk with socialist economic professor Richard Wolff. If anyone out there could possibly convince me that socialism is the way to go, it would be a professor of economics who believes it. I don’t believe he makes his case here in this segment, but I’m sure it would be impossible to do so in such a small window time.

    Wolff seems to think that part of the problem with capitalism is that there is a conflict of interest between business leaders and laborers. Of course there is such a conflict, but in a world of scarce resources, there will always be conflicts of interest between producers and consumers. Everybody has an interest in producing less and consuming more, and that interest conflicts with everyone else’s interest to do the same. Abolishing capitalism will not alter this reality.

    Wolff advocates a more democratic workplace. He evidently wants rules of some kind that would limit the types of businesses that people are allowed to create. Only those businesses that allow workers the prescribed amount of say in the goings on of the business are to be permitted. Wolff does not say here whether he expects everyone to adhere to these rules voluntarily or if he has in mind some sort of enforcement apparatus. But here in our capitalist society, people are perfectly free to create democratic workplaces. The usually do not, because they want a certain amount of control over their own creations and they want to ensure adequate returns for themselves. If all these other rules are placed upon the act of starting a business, I’m sure you will see far fewer people willing to take the risk.

    Not that I’m entitled to the increased productivity the a capitalist societies, but why not freedom? Nobody forces one particular person to work for another particular person, and nobody should force business models that they find appealing on the entrepreneurs who are producing, innovating, and making things happen.

  • http://public.npr.org/anon.npr-mp3/npr/blog/2010/09/20100921_blog_pmpod.mp3?_kip_ipx=1614643902-1295887909

    Adam Davidson: I’m just trying to think how my life would be different [in a libertarian society].

    David Boaz: You would be much richer, you would be happier, you would be better looking, you would be taller.

    Adam Davidson: Would I be stronger?

    DB: Absolutely.

    AD: Could I eat fattening foods but somehow maintain a slim physique?

    DB: Yes, probably. … With faster economic growth, we’d have better technology. And we probably would have all these miracle fats that don’t put any weight on you.

    This is the promised Libertarian follow-up to the above discussion with a socialist. The exchange above, I’m sure, is a tongue-in-cheek jab at those who describe libertarians as utopian. Do not take it all literally, but we surely would at least have faster economic growth. It’s a shame that I feel like I have to explain this.  Read the rest of this entry »


  • Links for January 17, 2011: “An American Conversation” on Tucson, Drug Prohibition, etc.

    January 16, 2011
  • Reason.tv once again lives up to its name.

  • On January 5, 2011, a gang of gun-wielding thugs rampaged into a private residence and killed a grandfather of 12. My question is: Were the killers inspired by violent “drug war” rhetoric, or were they simply crazy? It is time for an American Conversation on the tragedy in Framingham. Raids like this are conducted over 100 times each day across America. Yes, people die.

  • Vodpod videos no longer available.

    ANN COULTER: I have one statement for you: the welfare state. No, people can not do whatever they want to do and live however they want to live, as long as Ann has to pay for it, when they can’t hold a job and raise their own kids and buy their own food and pay for their own rent. You get rid of the welfare state and we’ll talk about people sitting home and shooting heroin all day, but right now, oh, and now I have to pay for their health care!

    JOHN STOSSEL: So because we have a social welfare system, we have to give up these other freedoms?

    ANN: Yeah, as long as Ann is paying for it.

    Ann Coulter is a little more forthright than the average prohibitionist. Her argument is that since the government is forcing her to pay for something, then it might as well be what she wants most of all, which is to bastille her fellow citizens when she disapproves of their private, personal conduct. If she weren’t forced to pay for something, she might then be open to not paying out of her own pocket to imprison people who have committed no crimes against her or others.

    If Ann doesn’t want government health care money and living expenses to go to drug addicts, then her solution is counter-productive. Even prior to ObamaCare, the only people in the United States of America who have been constitutionally entitled to state-funded health care have been prisoners. Her argument, essentially, is: “I don’t want to pay for drug addicts’ health care food, room, and board, but I love throwing them all in jail, where I’m guaranteed to pay for all of their health care, food, room, and board. It is more important to Ann that we throw drug users in jail than it is that we save Ann’s tax money.”

    That is the logic of prohibition. For more hemming, hawing, evading, and stammering, see part 2:

    Vodpod videos no longer available.

    You can decide for yourselves whether the logic of prohibition wins the day. Read the rest of this entry »