Down with "Leadership": Against the Election | Tom Woods

The opening lecture of Mises University 2016. Recorded at the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, on 24 July 2016.

[@AlexanderKitchenko]

Great video, thanks! I've just finished making russian subtitles and submitted it via KZbin, hope you guys approve it. Got to expand these bright ideas to people around the world!

[@buk6708]

Thanks, this is VERY rare info. Tom Woods only has like 30k subscribers. We are an extreme minority, but very intelligent and well read.

[@Sigridovski]

Maybe send it to Mises Institute?

[@soapbxprod]

My God... I've now watched this four times and it's like a Beethoven piano concerto... Thank you Dr. Woods and Mises University... I would go simply nuts without the comfort of your wisdom.

[@JonathanG94]

In the current insanity that is social justice on college campuses, Mises University provides a light of hope for the future.

[@anybody2501]

~12:50 DO SOMETHING PRODUCTUVE AND STFU ABOUT LEADERSHIP! Amen Tom! Preach my brother!

[@CarrotCakeMake]

17:36 "We would not be richer if the government takes more money away from us. That makes us poorer." --Tom Woods

[@GreatBigHat]

"That can't be, we would not be richer if the government takes more money away from us. That makes us poorer."

[@priscillasieckman975]

Great video! Thank you

[@Waldivitis]

the video Almost ended but not without Tom inevitably complaining about his move lmaoooo

[@fountaincap]

Re: the gender pay gap, I actually think most, if not all of the proponents of "equal pay for equal work" are actually demanding that a woman be paid as much as her male counterpart REGARDLESS of hours worked, because it is a woman's "right" to have a child and not have her career suffer because of it. Obama certainly implied this when he addressed the issue. Of course, I don't agree with this, but I'm just trying to state the other side's position correctly. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's what they're after.

[@wannabelikegzus]

I think the SJW crowd is evolving to that. Basically, the knowledge that, actually, women get paid the same for the same work is becoming very common, especially amongst those that do even a small amount of research. For the SJW's, though, ideology is everything. Women HAVE to be discriminated against by the system. So, now, I've just begun to see posts and articles talking about how the system discriminates by choosing to pay fields that women choose to go into less than those that disproportionally attract men.

[@BobWidlefish]

It's true that some believe we should be forced to subsidize women's choices (e.g. to have kids). Though many are just idiots and think women are systematically paid less for the same output because of sexism.

[@Pdrum2]

@@BobWidlefish I saw pepsi company advertising for this, rediculous

[@computerarchitecture9480]

3:03 OMG DERIVING AN OUGHT FROM AN IS *TRIGGERED*

[@costadnelio]

18:05 - 2021 arrived. Is Bob available now to continue the debate on free trade?

[@richardaurre4840]

The consumer is king!

[@samr7542]

Limit Muslim immigration and I'm on board with literally everything else ancap/Austrian/libertarian/etc.

[@jpbochi]

welcome to the pack then. Libertarianism (or ancap for that matter) is not hands down is favour of open borders. Read mises.org/library/open-borders-are-assault-private-property Basically, the idea is to extend the concept of private property to private borders. How exactly should those be controlled? I'm not sure. Perhaps, something similar to contracting a security company to protect a gated community. Just in a larger scale. In the long run, it could be unrecognisable. In the short run, blocking people that don't value liberty is a good start.

[@AlexanderKitchenko]

Good to see you together with us, then! Speaking about immigration - the main problem is in welfare state. Another problem is mentioned by commenter above, it is in fact a private property assault; limit the welfare state, don't allow people come to private property without owner's will (via adjusting the «open borders policy»), and the problem is solved.

[@jpbochi]

ditching the welfare state would not immediately solve the problem. Sure, it is a big attractive to immigration, but there are tons of other reasons why people immigrate. To name a few, better work opportunities, better education for your children, better health care (public and/or private), physical safety (your home region might be full of criminals or is being bombed and rampaged by all types of jerks). I'm with Ron Paul on this. Let's start by stopping to bomb them almost indiscriminately (some presidential candidates were even mentioning "carpet bombing"). This can be achieved way faster than getting rid of the welfare state.

[@jpbochi]

***** nice! I'll read that later

[@AnalEyesAnalyzeAnalLies-666]

Sam R Dummy

[@Cotswolds1913]

Would have been helpful to have the source material on the gender-pay gap.

[@nicosmind3]

Ha just searched here on youtube and found a video titled The Candlemakers' Petition - Frédéric Bastiat. I would link the video but im on my phone and i dont want this speech to stop. Its not like im on my PC and using a seperate tab here :P

[@michalptacnik1]

As to the discussion about unions, the professor is apparently not a union member or it works very very wrong in the US compared to us. Here, the union makes CAOs, which are collective agreements mandatory for everyone. You don't have 'scabs'. You have just a very very marginal illegal employment and then people who work for humane minimal wage or better, and mostly better. You do need goons, as evidenced to a small 'CAO free' and 'minimal wage' free sector which my country (as opposed to other countries in Europe) has as a relic. And there, the people are just hard core exploited. Been there. No, you don't want that to be the rule. You get sick? -> no money. You can't find 'gigs'? You don't get paid.

[@michalptacnik1]

I know personally people who are smart, used to be motivated (now much less after all the employer abuse...) and yet could not find a good job. There was no employer within their reach to employ them for more than minimal wage, which here is luckily high enough. I myself have two university master degrees in law from two universities seen in their filed as the best of their respective countries (NL and CZ) and had always issues getting in to a company or an institution. Once in, once really in, I was and am seen as a very good employee. I can tell you that if you are not of the privileged groups of people, life looks different. And I do NOT mean 'black or muslim', I mean just not born to middle class. Success brings survivor's bias. I would also, if I had it as good as I have it now for the whole of my productive life so far, say things this guy says - sure, no problem! Get an online degree, try a little harder. The theory sounds fine. Only life teaches different and experience is unfortunatelly untransferrable.

[@christiansmith-of7dt]

Yeah I know you guys are bored of your job , don't worry we will get you through it

[@walperstyle]

Why are you guys not sharing this on Bernie Pages. Get them to vote Libertarian if they don't like Trump... I mean, it makes sense doesn't it?

[@walperstyle]

They think rules and regulations stop monopolies, but if you look through history, regulations actually protect monopolies. The EPA is about to destroy an 8 billion dollar industry (hot rodding/modifying cars) very shortly.... wake up America, your own government isn't smart enough.

[@jc-ke3ll]

was surprised to hear the hatred towards Shapiro, he generally agrees with these principles , no ?

[@Hendry812]

No

[@russellstone9056]

Your conclusions on labor unions are false. The union gives the single worker power against the management which is a union. I have a friend who hated unions until he got a pilot job where the company was making money hand over fist but they paid their pilots substandard salaries and benefits. The company didn't give a rock about the pilots. They wanted profits like most other companies. It was only the union that forced the company to share in the profits of the company and pay the pilots a more fair amount while still maintaining very high profitability. My experience is that management will lie and cheat and they don't care about the employees at all except to use them. Unions give individuals power to stand up to that corruption and greed and force a better situation for themselves. It's no different than the AMA (union) or ADA (union). Of course those aren't called unions because they are worshipped. Human nature I have found is that of greed and predatory practices. Slavery is a perfect example of that. Many companies desire slaves but cannot legally have them. They want to pay as little as possible for the people who actually do the work while a few elites, who are often in their positions due to social connections or status, live a dream life due to massive overpayment. Who is worth 1,000x the average employee in a company? Often times these elite clowns are the ones steering the company into the ground while floating down to the ground in their golden parachutes. So ridiculous. So much in this speech is so very wrong. Blind leading the blind.

[@kepstein8888]

Some of his lectures are thoughtful and objective. This one is just whiny and partisan. He sounds like a 14-year-old who wants a motorcycle.

[@istjmoneymaker]

Low prices are only good for consumers. Tom ignores the supply side's value in the equation. Microeconomics teaches you don't want artificially low prices just as much as you don't want artificially high prices. Artificially low prices cause overconsumption and incentivize an inefficient wasteful use of resources. What you really want is the market equilibrium. The Goldielock's price point not too low and not too high but just right. It's the most efficient price for both the consumers and suppliers. Monoplies and monopolistic companies actually cause a lot of inefficiency, over consumption, and waste of resources. Mega corporations like Walmart are indeed doing harm by offering resources at such ludicrously low prices. The cost has to be passed along somewhere. There's no such thing as a free lunch. Farmers and producers of Walmart's good pay the price for such low cost products. They're making next to nothing per pound of goods sold, but they have no choice, but to sell to these mega corporations because they simply offer them too much business and are too big of a customer for them to demand more per pound. Yes, you can say consumers benefit from the artificially low prices, but at what cost? Like the popular third world black kid meme says, " So you mean to tell me the poorest people in your country are the fattest?" The decreased price is actually shooting people in the foot. Incentivizing them to over consume by large margins because they can now afford to even with low incomes. While it eliminates the one problem of starvation it causes another entirely in the way of obesity, heart disease, and an overall lower quality of life amongst consumers of such goods who are slow eating themselves to death. I so I actually think prices of consumer goods need to be higher. WAAAY higher than they are right now. It's destroying and ruining economic opportunities in the producer and supplier market. The US has almost no homegrown or homemade products anymore. It's because there's next to no money in it. Mega, monopolistic corporations like Walmart need to be taken down and broken up into smaller business that can more effficiency be managed without layers and layers of additional management costs required to run a world wide business like it. That's a whole other issue, but in short: The smaller the business the more efficiently it can be managed and run with less cost. Conversely the bigger the business, the larger scale it is, the more resources and managers it requires to function. At a certain level the increased cost in management is worth it for optimal efficiency, but that goes back to my point about the market's equilibrium. Mega corporations with layers and layers of upper management are almost certainly operating at level ABOVE the market's equilibrium for management costs. Smaller grocery store and retailers spanning across merely a few states, could be operated and managed at a MUCH cheaper and more efficient price.

[@Pdrum2]

Prices that are "too low" lead to monetary loses