Ep. 1423 Tucker Carlson Supports Elizabeth Warren's Economics

Ep. 1423 Tucker Carlson Supports Elizabeth Warren's Economics



Likes:193|Dislikes:24
Views:4224|Rating:4.45|View Time:29:58Minutes|

Virtually every major news source covered what Tucker Carlson had to say in the monologue of his FOX News program the other day, when he declared Elizabeth Warren’s economic plan to be a simple matter of economic patriotism that most Americans would support, and that out-of-touch Republicans, too enamored of libertarianism (!), would do well to heed. David R. Henderson joins me to respond. Subscribe to the Tom Woods Show:

the Tom would show episode 1423 prepared a set fire to the index card of allowable opinion your daily dose of Liberty education starts here the Tom woods show hopes this episode is brought to you by policy genius no matter how much or how little you know about life insurance you can find the right policy in minutes at policy genius calm everybody Tom woods here you may have heard about a now notorious monologue by Tucker Carlson on Fox News Channel in which he more or less endorses the economic program of Elizabeth Warren the Massachusetts senator who's running for president as a Democrat well this sent shockwaves throughout the internet on all sides it's not terribly surprising to me given the direction that Carlson's been going in and I have been the first one to give him credit where it's due I think he actually has done some very courageous things for example he was I think virtually alone among cable news commentators in speaking out against the president's strike on Syria and he was excellent on the Russia gate matter areas where virtually everybody was wrong he's been pretty good he's not good on everything but you know I can excuse a lot when you're good on the really major things that everybody else is either deluded or lying about but on this well you know the argument is that traditional conservatives shouldn't be in favor of the market because all it cares about is material things and blah blah blah blah blah it's it's the old traditionalist kind of argument against it and the thing is I've already heard those arguments and I'm as traditionalist as they come and I don't buy any of them so I want to talk about this monologue with a guest and I asked the folks in my supporting listeners group and David R Henderson is our guest for today David is emeritus professor of economics at the Naval Postgraduate School and a research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University David welcome back thanks Tom you know I feel like I've seen you at a funeral you know you see somebody a funeral you say I wish we could be beating under better circumstances well likewise I'm sorry that it has to be the occasion of a Tucker Carlson monologue that we are talking but I you know I I actually put out a request in my private Facebook group and I said I need somebody who would do a good job discussing this with me and Jean Epstein who's my normal go-to guy was not available and somebody said David R Henderson and I said yes that is the one so I wrote to you and here we are so I'm most nice to be second choice there's no shame in losing out to Jean Epstein right absolutely so I am going to link at Tom with Tom slash 14:23 to the video of this monologue so people can listen to that for themselves but the basic gist of what Tucker Carlson was saying was that in fact he quotes at length from a statement by Elizabeth Warren but he doesn't reveal her identity and he basically says you see how much common sense is in here for name weren't in effect he's saying if his name if her name weren't Elizabeth Warren you would be listening to this with a great deal of sympathy and his his conclusion is basically that if the if left liberals could just get rid of some of their social liberalism that he thinks drives away a lot of middle Americans their economic policy is actually not far from where a lot of Americans really are so what I want to do is go through some of the claims he makes but let's actually start right there I actually think that what he's saying there even though I wish he hadn't done this monologue because I disagree with it I think that point is not that far off I really do think it's true that America by and large is to the left of both parties on economics now the Democrats are drifting out leftward so maybe they're meeting them there but I think they've been fairly populist left for a while but they they shy away from the Democratic Party because they don't want the rest of the baggage I think there's something to that yeah I think there is too I think of course we have to remember that when people are favoring certain viewpoints they have no sense of the costs and I'm gonna just mention briefly my co blogger Bryan Caplan who's written a whole book on this about the irrational voter essentially and let me just give you a standard question you'll see in in polling questions do you favor Medicare for all and 60% say yes let's say do you favor Medicare for all if you have to pay an extra $20 a month in taxes and the number will fall by half now I'm making that up but if I had my library really handy I could find very similar questions with very similar results and so you know yes those views are popular a president who got elected and tried to implement them would be unpopular pretty quickly when the cost became apparent right and so I think I'm hopeful that the kinds of ideas that we're hearing spouted are not going to be victorious but if they are someday the extremely tenuous silver lining will be that the consequences should be fairly Swift and one hopes people will put two and two together but you know if what was it that Menken said about not going broke betting on the intelligence of the American public but anyway let me give a specific here this is a quotation from his monologue he says she meaning Elizabeth Warren says the taxpayers ought to benefit from the research and development they pay for and yet she writes we often see American companies take that research and use it to manufacture products overseas like Apple did with the iPhone the companies get rich and American taxpayers have subsidized the creation of low-wage foreign jobs and then Carlson himself says she sounds like Donald Trump at his best well I'm not sure that's quite the whole trumps best but but how do you respond to that that glow I think I would respond in two ways first of all she sounds like Donald Trump at his worst right and the other thing though is let's and and I don't know the specific R&D she has in mind that US taxpayers subsidized I'm sure there was some I'd be willing to give you ten to one odds that that research on its own would have done nothing if Apple hadn't then used all of its skills on all of its talents to make something of it that's at that point also yes it produces jobs overseas because that's where it's cheaper and I mean it lower cost wages can be low but it can be higher cost if productivity is low so crews clearly they're having those jobs overseas because it's cheaper but she left out the huge beneficiary of Apple which is the customer so if you look at what people when they're polled say they would be willing to pay or what they'd have to be paid to give up an iPhone it's an order of magnitude higher than what they had to pay to get an iPhone and so we are huge beneficiaries of that right right and it actually kind of reminds me of a poll that I guess was done trying to determine how much people would be willing to pay to mitigate climate change how much they'd be willing to pay per month now these are the same people who lecture the rest of the world about all the sacrifices they should make the rich should make this sacrifice and you should make that sacrifice but when it comes to them and the sacrifices that they should be called on to make people are not willing to pay $10 a month for what they supposedly think this would literally be the end of the world if they're right about it and they won't even pay ten but they can't give up two packs of cigarettes so per month right let me read a passage with the taxes on cigarettes we're talking one pass oh I know how little I know about cigarettes right so here's a here's a little thing again I'd like to just get your thoughts on he says if there was a Democrat in 2020 in this election who made that primary plank in the platform I would vote for that person and so what he's saying is as follows he says that's how important I think it is if Elizabeth Warren came out and said I wrote a whole book on this and I want our economy to support parents on one income families on one income not so we can hire some person from the third world to work at minimum wage and raise your kids but so that you can have an intact family you can live in a way that we all know is better in rich neighborhoods in America there's a parent raising those kids overwhelmingly this is Carlson I live in one so I know there's a parent raising those kids why shouldn't everybody have that chance if she really this sounds like what it sounds like aoc I totally does hang on just once I'm also yeah I can't I want to make comments too he says if she ran on that I would vote for Elizabeth Warren I want to make sure to say that and I would say so in public that's what I'm calling for and I don't care who provides it why would I yeah so your thoughts on that well it's just made up in other words who wouldn't want everyone to be roughly five times as wealthy as they are what's that have to do with anything how do you get there and you don't get there by paying more for things rather than paying less for things so what Tucker misses and you see it when he talks about trade even before he talked about Elizabeth Warren is he misses the basic economics of trade things like economists talk about like comparative advantage and you and Bob Murphy your bete noire Paul Krugman just wrote a beautiful piece in this about 20 years ago called Ricardo's difficult idea and Ricardo's difficult idea is comparative advantage and he pointed out there all these intellectuals run into a cocktail parties who won't take 15 minutes to look at a simple numerical example showing that both sides are better off when people in various countries work in what their comparative advantage is and the fact that Apple has some of this assembly done in China means that that's not our comparative advantage I understand people who long for a family arrangement whereby people if they so choose can have the one parent at home let's say raising the children the other parent works that's a great set up for a lot of people and and I think it can have very good effects but as you say simply to say that that's a desirable thing is not the end of the discussion because the question would then be what policies create the wealth that would be necessary to allow for that I mean it's true that in the 1950s you did off at sea that set up but what we also know is I can I always my listeners are tired of hearing me say this but I'm a big fan of the honeymooners that old show from the 50s right and if you look at now we all know Ralph Kramden was a skate but all the same even with that it was not implausible that in the 1950s you would have an ice box instead of a refrigerator you would have no telephone they had to borrow they would have to lower the Nortons phone into their window to speak on the phone they had no television they might have had a radio i I don't remember they might have had a radio but they had the most primitive furniture they lived in a two-room apartment they had nothing so you know Alice stayed home all day and if you want to live at that standard of living you can have that right now with no problem it's precisely that people don't want to have the standard of living at that time that they don't that's used to do this that's right and I'll give in my own example we did our own phone we did our own TV and radio although we were the last family in town to get TV we got it in 1961 but we had one bathroom now there was a time when there were three teenagers in that household can you imagine and guess which one took most of the time my sister you know so those kinds of things and and the houses were just primitive compared to now now it could be said in response though I can hear what I think is a somewhat legitimate objection and that is that because of government involvement in sectors of the economy that are very very important to people namely health care and education and not to mention housing but health care education those costs have gone up so much and you don't even have to blame the free market for that you could be a free market person who just says the government has helped to inflate these costs that now it actually is trickier for people to live with the the one parent household but even if that critique were correct what would you say would be the appropriate response a lot more housing so the price comes down get the government out of schools or at least get them you know move in the direction of getting them out of schools allow more free markets in healthcare allow people to buy catastrophic health insurance rather than buy full coverage you know those are the kinds I was kind of things I would say but also I would say even with those things if you put take all of the budget people put into those things and you're not talking about San Francisco where housing is just crazy you're talking about most country the amount of money they have left would buy everything those people had in the 1950s that you talked about plus that's that's more or less what I've been trying to say but I don't have the I don't have quite the audience of Duggar girls let's see what on these on this other list of things yep no he says he says that real wages have stagnated over the course of you know however many years some people say since 1970 the thing is I've seen charts that seemed to indicate that real wages have stagnated and then I talked to other economists who say well that leaves out fringe benefits or it leaves out this or that or it leaves out what's always awkward to to include hedonic adjustments because the fact is I would not want to live in 1974 even if I did get a higher let's say salary I would want to live in 1974 I wouldn't want to live with no internet with an exploding car you know with no air-conditioning in the car with you know with on a computer instead of a word processor I would want any of that yeah yeah and so what you mentioned fringe benefits and that's a that's a really good critique of that claim what you're getting at with your other part is is whether the Consumer Price Index adequately accounts for improvements in quality and for new products in the bottom line as it doesn't and so one of my colleagues at the Hoover Institution Mike Baskin at this committee he headed for the US Senate back in the mid nineties that estimated that even after the Bureau of Labor Statistics took some of their advice that the CPI overstates inflation by eight tenths to one percentage point a year now that's eight tenths to one percentage point so over 20 years that compounds to a lot and so yeah people really are better off and again you have to just look at well would you be willing to go without all those things all those improvements and get what you could get back then Don Boudreau at Cafe Hayek has done this great thing looking at a Sears catalog in the 1970s versus what you can buy now and you are so much better off now I'm quite sure that's true and I would actually love to look at that I can already hear the response though it's there's this sneering contempt from some people particularly not just on the left morally among traditional conservatives you know who sniffs that you don't understand the real meaning of life if all you're worried about is air conditioning and whatever you know they give us these lectures about materialism and stuff even at from their air-conditioned offices of course but I hear this a lot that as soon as you talk about the fact that we have a wider variety of goods available to us they think oh you stupid libertarians you don't you understand the meaning of life I'm sure you've come across these people how do you answer them I asked them by saying you just changed the rules in mids in midstream right you were the ones who talked about real wages stagnating what are you saying if you're saying real wages won't buy more than they used to I'm saying they do that's a factual issue so don't suddenly say you weren't worried about that when you were the one who raised the concern and particularly I get this critique again from traditionalists that libertarians are materialistic because they focus so much on material goods but these are the same people who say that free markets are screwing over workers well by what criterion to say they're screwing over workers because workers can't get enough wait for it material goods I mean you know so these people are just as so-called material and it's not even materialistic to just to say if your belly is full and you know you get a roof over your head you're in a much better position to you know indulgent intellectual or spiritual or aesthetic pursuits than you would be as a 14th century peasant in France right that's right yeah and and by the way I mean you're a very I know you enough and I know your work well enough to know that you don't favor free markets primarily because they produce the goods you favor them I think certainly the reason I do because people are free right that's the goal and yet look how far we get talking about that issue with those same people who'll accuse us of being materialist oh well it's easy for you to say that you know material things don't matter and freedom is all that but wait a minute you were the one who was saying that I was claiming material things were the only thing and so it is the number of debates you get into where people keep changing the rules in mid debate is well over half the debates you get into yeah yeah so that's actually good advice of debaters is keep an eye on them keep your eye on the ball force your opponent to keep your you know that person's eye on the ball yeah exactly all right I thought in particular this is just a side note but he describes I guess the so-called right wing on the hill as being quote resolutely libertarian if only right if only I don't know what world that's that's from he ends the monologue by quoting Mitch McConnell saying we're not fans of tariffs you know hoping that they could somehow head off the some of these Trump tariffs on Mexico I think and yes and Carlson's response is just to in effect to sneer that this just goes to show how totally out of touch these people are how could you make a remark like that when there are real people who are seeing real jobs siphoned off by by free trade and so I guess I'd like to know let's say you're in a debate situation maybe you're on television or no television they'd never give you a two-minute response but what a glorious thing to luxuriate and that would be but let's suppose it's a it's a bizarre show you get two minutes of response how would you reach somebody who honestly thinks that what's been happening is we started off back would we had strong labor unions right this is there this is their argument we had top marginal tax rates that were very high we had strong labor unions and we had as a result they think as a result we had prosperity we had households with one person working one person taking care of the kids whereas now we've had deregulation less a fair free trade and a lot of outsourcing by companies that care nothing about Americans and the results are all around you there's tremendous that people feel like their jobs are very precarious there's a lot of anxiety out there in the labor force is there any truth to that picture at all because that's the picture that's painted for us all the time is there any truth to that whatsoever and if not what's the problem with it well once you say is there any truth I'm probably gonna say yes sure because there's there's a little bit but but okay but let's look at the precariousness of the jobs there was precariousness back then we had the 1958 recession during these golden years where unemployment hit I think 10 percent and look at look at the unemployment now which is just a little under 4 percent and you I don't know if you've noticed this in retail Tom but you go into a store and you get someone who's really incompetent dealing with you lately and on the one hand you feel bad about that on the other hand as an economist I say isn't this great someone who's really pretty incompetent even that person can get a job now and so just right now jobs are not very precarious except for the employers they're having trouble keeping people so that's that's just one thing but if I were to respond to the other stuff that would be to say again look at the things we get look at all the things we have and and we did we did have I did I looked at the data we had 3.2 percent real growth of GDP in the 60s in the 70s which surprises people in the 80s and in the 90s it averaged 3.2 percent through that whole time so the growth rate really was not much affected and as far as those high marginal tax rates they did hit 91 percent they were 91 percent through most of the 50s in the first few years of the 60s but almost no one was paying them because they kicked in at a very high real income and people figured out ways around them and so elizabeth warren and others want to tax people at 70 80 % but they wanted to kick in for a large slice of population and so that would be a very different situation he says at one point that he's citing elizabeth warren again he's citing her as advocating workplace apprenticeship programs on the grounds that four-year colleges are not right for everyone and so he says I agree with that okay well I agree with that too but right but okay who's responsible for the fact that no one thinks this way that everybody thinks you have to go to a four-year college I mean it's it's just a cultural expectation there have been a lot of us calling for this and there are programs like this that if if only there weren't this enormous cultural bias in the direction of four-year colleges there's a great program you may know about called praxis that has placed a lot of people in I paying jobs and and spared them years of accumulating debt those things are out there and I do favor those and in fact I even go farther than that not only four-year colleges aren't right for everyone but the traditional curriculum of K through 12 is not right for everyone no that's right that's true yeah and Mike again my colleague Brian Kaplan has written a whole book on that about you know the case against education which really should be titled the case against schooling but imagine here's what would happen if you just said the school-leaving age the age after which you can't be you know you you're not coerced by law to be in school if if their various state governments made that age fourteen instead of 18 you'd see a lot of bad if they relaxed the minimum wage law you'd see a lot of apprenticeships they wouldn't be formal things necessarily they would be a guy hiring a fourteen or fifteen year old to work in his construction site and he'd be making $3 an hour for the first few months and then six dollars an hour and so on and I just think you'd have a tremendous boost in productivity you would have a lot of teenagers being a lot happier and and we would get some of those things but the way to do it is not from the top down and have the government say whoo let's subsidize let's subsidize apprenticeships third they're gonna be acting like central planners they don't have the right incentives they don't have the right information they would just waste a whole lot of money and a whole lot of young people's time folks for Yvonne just a quick note here sometimes we reproach ourselves for procrastinating but if you have been procrastinating about an extremely important decision that I have practically begged you to make namely getting life insurance to provide for your family if the unthinkable should happen wellyou've procrastinated just long enough for technology to make the whole process really simple policy genius calm is the easy way to shop for insurance online because in just two minutes you can be comparing quotes from top insurers and finding your best price and then once you apply the policy genius team handles all the paperwork and the red tape there's no sales pressure no hidden fees just financial protection and peace of mind and they don't make just life insurance easy they can also help you find the right home insurance auto insurance and disability insurance so if you need life insurance and chances are you do but you've been busy doing well pretty much anything else check out policy genius it's the easy way to compare all the top insurers and find the best value for you policy genius.com nobody wants to shop for life insurance that's why they made it easy alright so now let's suppose instead of tucker carlson tonight it's David R Henderson tonight the show we would all tuned in for and you're giving a monologue and it's not let's say in favor of Elizabeth Warren's plan what would be the central points that you think Americans most need to hear right now given all the misinformation they get about the economy Wow okay so the main thing I would say is that free markets are going to be the thing you're you should rely on they're the ones that always come through they don't necessarily respond to the headlines they respond to what people really want and really need and you're gonna be better off with free markets I would say that if you're worried about poverty which is one of the things that sometimes Elizabeth Warren talks about you don't understand poverty if you're looking at American poverty look at poverty in Bangladesh look at poverty in Pakistan and let's start allowing more of those people in it'll get them out of poverty and then you will have people who can take care of your kids that won't be what Carlson wants but so what you'll have what those parents want which is the woman can go out and get a job and she can pay someone three or four dollars an hour who's gonna be delighted to take care of her kids so there's so those are some of the things I'd say I'd say let's get rid of the draw work is that's putting a lot of people in prison that who shouldn't be in prison so there's just a whole lot of moves we could make that are somewhere near the Overton Window that would make things a lot better oh that's good that's good because I sometimes wonder if I had that opportunity you know let's say I had 10 minutes to talk to the whole country would I try to nudge them toward what they're already prepared to hear but that would you know what would result is some good improvements or would I just blow their minds you know by by you know pushing that Overton Window way way out there yeah it depends on what day of the week it is how I feel about which approach I would take but ya know that's right that's right by the way I have a t-shirt idea we've seen the or Burton window really worked for marijuana now so my t-shirt idea is to have a t-shirt that says on it real eagle-eyes cocaine oh why is legal but if you say real eagle-eyes people can start talking you mean it was legal yeah it was legal you know I had so that's that's my next Overton Window in the drug war that's smart all right everybody but my feeling is that my sense is that David R Henderson is not big into making print-on-demand products so you could probably steal that idea from him okay do you still maintain Oh David R Henderson calm where can we send people if they want more of your stuff okay I'm really bad at that David R Henderson comm is up there and hasn't been revised in about three years but I do blog at econ log as you 22 22 25 blog posts a month and for some reason if you do a google and econ log you don't get driven there so do a Google an econ Lib org and then you'll find econ log okay and then do you have some kind of an archive there or do we just yes okay all right so I'll link to that too so people can check out your stuff Tom Woods comm slash 14:23 will be where I'll put that well thanks for doing this on such short notice I wanted to talk about this before it became old news you know and boy yeah the same day I asked you here you are – thank you very much okay thank you all right folks as we wrap up for the weekend I'd like to let you know about a pie caste and blog run by a couple listeners of the show one of whom is an Iraq war veteran now turned peace monger and cap and it's called the statist quo you can check it out at the statist quote net as I say it's a podcast and a blog and you will find a great many episodes dealing with war and foreign policy but also the drug war and other topics as well but definitely with a foreign policy emphasis for obvious reasons so you'll want to check that out over at the status quo dotnet I'll link to that at Tom woods comm slash 14:23 and you can get nice publicity like this for the blog or website you are dreaming of creating simply by going to tom woods comm slash publicity before you start it up get your hosting through me and you'll get publicity plus membership in my bloggers group and other really great benefits that will give you some nice traffic as you start your career on the information superhighway I'll see you next week become a smarter libertarian in just 30 minutes a day visit Tom woods calm to subscribe to the show for free and we'll see you next time like the sound of the Tom would show my audio production is provided by pods worth media check them out at pods worth com

42 thoughts on “Ep. 1423 Tucker Carlson Supports Elizabeth Warren's Economics

  1. Come out of your offices and get some sun libertarians. There's a world of allah's people down here willing to work for you and raise your kids for you real cheap.

  2. David Henderson, (the name of a past Uncle of mine actually), is the Libertarian guys like Woods should separate himself from, not praise him. He is a man who believes in a mixed economy to the point of outsourcing to communist nations, (the results of that are in for the last 40 years), and he is stuck on the war against drugs, (re-legalize cocaine?). I really don't care what Tucker Carlson says nearly as much as I care about what Tom Woods guests say. David Henderson's thinking is exactly why the Libertarian party will always be a "also ran", and did poorly in every election. I can't say much more for Tom Woods, for praising this man.

  3. The guest seems to think that "our free market", as part of our individual liberty, (how else can an individual chase his/her dreams if the free market is not in their hands?), is compatible with the communist nation(s), who do not recognize individual liberty at all, who make the I-phone. A free market and communism are opposite philosophies, and are not compatible. It is as simple as that! What kind of results do we have to experience (our decline since 1978, when china made a decision to give "semi private business" a try), to understand that people doing business together both prosper, and communism and a free market are not compatible? I don't know why Tom Woods did not call him on that. Maybe he does not understand the reality himself?

  4. worse than a debate where the interviewers change rules mid-talk is a debate where there are no rules of debate (or worse even where the apparent rules actually aren't)

  5. Tucker has been having some great monologues recently criticizing big corporations. How long is it going to take right wingers to realize large corporations "globo homo" hates them and will always thank them for their tax cuts by funding gay pride events and affirmative action programs. It's time to wake up and stop automatically siding with big business and capitalism.

  6. So one of the main things Mr Henderson thinks we need to hear right now is we need even more third world immigrants to babysit our young impressionable children? That we need mothers in the workplace for what reason? The entire point of traditional conservative's complaints about the average family's economic environment right now is that our family dynamics are stretched too thin to have a parent at home and therefore we are losing our connection with them. So you think the solution is to exacerbate that problem? Bring even more unskilled labor into the workforce? Bring literal child rapists from Muslim majority countries into ours and have them babysit our kids? You think this is a good idea?

    I was pretty much on board with most of this until the ending monologue by Henderson. It reminded me why I hate identifying with the libertarian label.

    It is precisely why most libertarians are completely out of touch and incapable of addressing real people's concerns. Terrible, awful monologue. Would call your boss to have your show canceled/10

  7. Ricardo was right. The problem is the economic good of free trade is not a conclusive moral argument for free trade. You have to assume one nation becoming interdependent on another nation is morally acceptable to begin with. A nation naturally risks its freedoms and sovereignty when it becomes dependent upon other countries. That is why we need to be very careful who we become dependent upon. Becoming dependent upon Saudi Arabia was a gigantic mistake. Dependency on China is also a mistake. America has no right to become economically dependent upon tyrannical evil societies. All that does is enable evil.

    Free trade with China = the initiation of force.

  8. Folks, Libertarians are against the very concept of a nation state. They are the fringest of the fringe and this is why they can't win an election despite having some good points.

  9. Tariffs work. I'm relieved to know you ideologues will once again be outvoted. While the average American is living on rice and beans every night, you over-educated numbskulls are living high on the hog. Disgusting.

  10. Carlson is not good on anything. He doesn’t want to attack syria because 1) he wants secular dictators to suppress islam and 2) he want to attack china. He is just new deal socialism for white Christians.

  11. 25:56
    >look at poverty in Bangladesh, look at poverty in Pakistan. Let's start letting more of them in
    Hard nope.

    This is why libertarianism has unfortunately become irrelevant to the contemporary right. When the overwhelming majority of the population is against third world immigration, how is it in keeping with the NAP to "let more of them in"? I understand that government borders are "artificial", but surely if America were an ancap country, these sorts of people could not so easily penetrate it.

  12. The trouble isn't that 'we want all the fancy things but we can't afford them so mom and dad both have to work waaaaaa'
    The trouble is that mom and dad are having babies that they want someone else to do 50% of the raising. Also the trouble is that often enough, it a two income household to afford a home in a city neighborhood that isn't a warzone.

  13. The libertarian attack on Tucker proves the bankruptcy of the libertarians.. Stiflers of action.. They will take everything lying down except when they see someone breaking out of the "allowable opinions"..

    Moral of the story. Socialism is bad, but it exists already for trannies, minorities, immigrants, criminals, Israel… if it exists already regular people should get it.. PERIOD. You can't tell people go work hard and give me your tax money so I can give it as a hand out to others.. Fuck that.. Your current capitalism is a fraud..Everybody gets the benefits of tax money except the people that paid it.. Bullshit.. Yeah vote socialism at least from a collapsitarian, burn it all down point of view..What motivation does the white kid from middle america has to play fair or protect the economy or the currency?? fuck it all.. He's not seeing any of it..

    If taxation is theft, which it is, doesn't it make sense to take your money back that you paid?
    Taxes already exists, socialism already exists, just not for you goy.. Get to work white boy don't take the free lunch.. Give me your taxes and I'll give it to others as a free lunch !!!

  14. Apple is a bad example, empirical evidence says that they categorically make inferior products. While a huge number, Apple users are actually an outlier. They are sold on style and brand and universally ignorant of the actual poor quality and value of the product.

  15. "Republicans don't want to do anything because they're free market absolutists, under the narcotic sway of libertarian religion."

    -Tucker Carlson
    08-24-18

  16. Quite an interesting argument you put forth.
    Yet it failed to persuade me to your point of view, where it is more beneficial for society to place premium value in the acquisition of easily obtained and affordable material goods. Instead of high paying jobs and industry.

    Also, cocaine.

  17. If Tucker Carlson needed a strategy to attract Leftist viewers to his Fox show and away from MSNBC, he may have found it with this latest stunt of his.

  18. Willing to pay for an iphone, is higher than what they actually payed to get the iphone?
    THAT IS TOTAL BS!
    I really can see how you stupid right wing idiots believe these lying assholes… still, you're stupid for believing them.
    The guest seems to use, "I can look in my files and find actual data that supports my numbers, EXACTLY!"
    Here's the thing… HE DOESN'T OR HASN'T FOUND THOSE ACTUAL NUMBERS. (that was an example of the kind of way he talks… listen to it again, that wasn't an exact quote.)
    He uses that kind of structure in his answers, AND THAT IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM ACTUALLY HAVING THE DATA TO SUPPORT HIS VIEWS!
    TOTAL BULLSHIT!

  19. WHAT ABOUT THE TAXES NOW? WHAT ABOUT DEFENSE BUDGET & WHAT WE ARE PAYING ON THAT?
    WHAT ABOUT WELFARE?
    AREN'T WE SUPPOSED TO BE RICH ON ALL THE TAXES WE SHOULD BE SAVING WITH RECORD LOW OF IMMIGRANTS?
    Fact is, is that conservatives that said, "take them to your house & you pay for them!", were so full of shit!
    Were is your money, LYING POS!
    You aren't getting extra money, because we are PAYING MORE!
    DOTARD POKED YOUR EYES AGAIN!

  20. He's one of those dudes who is mostly okay but obviously not an Austrian or really a principled man. Certainly he is the furthest thing from the real enemy at this point. This news is unsettling as it opens him up to legitimate attacks.

  21. I don't like Tucker's economic leftism. But I also don't like the race blind worldview of 99% of libertarians. This is the problem. Racial / alt right wingers (of which Tucker is a hairline away from being) see race but they don't see liberty. Libertarians see liberty but they don't see race.

    Mr. Henderson, we DONT need more brown or black people in this nation. They will only ensure TOTAL DOMINATION of the Democrats and a leftist hellhole. Not to mention the attack on white commons and the crime, etc. Jesus Christ is it so hard to want a libertarian society in the context of a white nation?

    Tucker is an economic ignoramus like Trump. But most libertarians are suicidal race deniers. I could spit…

  22. The biggest pain points for the average american are in services and products under the most government control and central planning (healthcare, housing, education). The fact that people like Tucker don't even acknowledge this just proves they're driven purely by their emotions, rather than their ability to reason.

  23. The name of this Tom Woods Show episode is deliberately misrepresentative. All we know is that Tucker Carlson agrees with one aspect of Elizabeth Warren’s economic ideology.

  24. Tucker is a nationalist and a protectionist. It's not inexplicable for Tucker to agree with someone who advocates protectionism for American workers, even if that person happens to be a Democrat.  This isn’t much different than a libertarian agreeing with Tulsi Gabbard on matters pertaining to noninterventionist U.S. military policy.  If someone like Tom Woods starts praising Gabbard's collectivist notions, that'll be the time to worry.

  25. If protectionism advocate Tucker Carlson hadn’t mentioned “Austrian economics” and “libertarian ideologues” by name, Dr. Woods wouldn’t have gotten his fragile feathers ruffled, and wouldn’t have bothered to produce this episode. Dr. Woods took the bait.

  26. Oh, man… Really good until… starts advocating for more immigration from 3rd world countries just so we can get cheap labor. When will libertarians understand the importance of shared cultural values and finally figure out that people cannot be reduced to Homo Economicus? I can only dream…

  27. Anyone here mad at Tucker but actively supports Tulsi for president is completely hypocritical. They are both great on foreign policy but have shortcomings on the homefront (at least in your minds I'm sure)

  28. You don't have to raise taxes. Print money or get debt. Libertarians constantly claim we can't do so forever, but we have done so for decades and are the best economy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *