Welcome to free thoughts from libertarianism.org and the Cato Institute. I'm Aaron Ross Powell, and I'm Trevor Burrus Our guest today is Michael C. Munger the director of the politics philosophy and economics program at Duke University Welcome to free thoughts Mike. It's great to be on the show Today we're talking about Voluntaryness which is an incredibly core concept to free market and libertarian thought I mean probably to all types of political thought Why is the concept of Voluntaryness so core to economic thinking as we talk about it today? Well, a lot of economists will start with the assumption that exchange is voluntary Whereas people who are not economists tend to wonder whether an exchange is voluntary So right at the beginning we have economists say since Exchange is voluntary whereas everyone else says if and that makes a big difference That I think a lot of the reason is that economists are looking at kind of an abstract setting and they we call it perfect competition There's many buyers. There's many sellers The reason that it matters is that if something isn't voluntary, it's coerced now. That's too Trite distinction, but if something isn't voluntary it means we were in some way forced to do it So what the reason why a voluntary? Exchange is important is that we have some reason to believe that both are all parties to the exchange are better off and If we can find a way without increasing the amount of stuff to make at least two and maybe all people who are party to the exchange Better off it sounds like the world to be a better place And so it's a it's a way of justifying exchange cooperation all the sort of things that that we value in a social setting But Voluntaryness is also as you said It is a cornerstone of Economic thought in the sense of we presume that you wanted to exchange if you do it generally speaking Otherwise you wouldn't have exchanged it's hard to think about doing economics without the concept of Voluntaryness if you're talking about subject To value and maximizing but then other disciplines spend a lot of time thinking about Whether things are truly voluntary and there's a lot of ways that they maybe aren't truly voluntary some situations or things like this that affect how people think about exchange and are maybe against markets right and there's What Aaron just said is right? Suppose we allow people personal autonomy That means that we credit their subjective desires as being something that if they act on them No one's going to quarrel with it well There's plenty of circumstances whereas in fact that's not true and we think that objectively you're not better off And so we won't allow you to do it. We don't credit your subjective preferences And we think that you're not really doing it voluntary that it's under duress because there's some big difference in Bargaining strength or your career somehow by circumstances. That is you don't really have alternatives So for something to be voluntary you had to have a choice and if this is your only alternative and it's not very good It's just better than the terrible alternative that doesn't really seem like it's voluntary and that distinction goes back to Aristotle so in the Nicomachean ethics Aristotle talk gives the example of a ship and The the ship has a heavy cargo on it But there's a storm coming the captain is trying to decide whether to jettison all the cargo to save the ship The question is was it voluntary well in a sense? Yes, because he could have done otherwise but in another sense It wasn't because he didn't have any other legitimate choice And so Aristotle says it may depend what you call voluntary may depend on kind of the the locus of moral Agency that you have and in this case that we can treat it as being voluntary the guy Did it and made himself better off so he wasn't brainwashed or a robot or put a gun to a head So it was a choice in some sense But but it wasn't voluntary in the sense that I had a couple of pretty good choices And I just chose the one that was better so to clarify this it depends that you just mentioned of trying to figure out What's a voluntary and what isn't you introduce this term you voluntary? What does that mean? Well, some people say that it's Monster word because the Greek prefix prefix EU meaning well or truly is tacked on to the the Latin route Volunteers and so you've got a Greek Latin monster word Have you not taking your classics classes? I mean this is important stuff If you're really worried about that you need to go to Walmart and get a life they're on sale and If that's the worst problem with the word then I wouldn't worry much about it. So the my question was What is truly voluntary? What would everyone agree is truly voluntary and I've written a couple of papers about this and in fact I'm going to Chile Santiago de Chile to talk about Circumstances under which people have the sense that something's voluntary and I think for that to be true Not only do we have to be able to own something and have a sense that exchanging it is legitimate But also have not have it not have too many externalities where it affects other people without their permission and it can't you can't have coercion so the I think most Economists would say coercion in the sense of having a gun held to my head means not voluntary I'm So as I was reading that the papers you've written about this I was a little bit confused about the terminology or the need for a new term because we've now we've now it sounds like three levels there's There's coerced and then there's voluntary and then there's truly voluntary but the things that get described as just potentially voluntary but not truly voluntary like the whether to toss the cargo off the ship or in one of the papers you give an example of you're Stuck in the desert don't have anything to drink. You're on the verge of dehydration and some guy offers you water for a thousand bucks Does that I mean it seems weird to even call that voluntary at all that looks like how would we distinguish that situation like you either pay The thousand bucks or you die or you either throw the cargo overboard or the ship goes under from say the gun against your head Example where you pay the guy, you know, give me the thousand dollars I'll give you this water or I'll shoot you if you don't it's a distinction that philosophers make and I think what's interesting about it is that it the role of human agency between Coersion having the gun to my head means there's a human finger on the trigger in the other case I'm in the desert and Presumably the person who is trying to sell me the water also didn't maroon me in the desert if he had that would be something else But for whatever reason I'm in the desert and maybe that morning The example is a is a taco truck that shows up and is willing to provide me the water, but for a thousand dollars a liter He could have gone to the construction sites and sold tacos and water to everybody else to the workers of the construction site But he said I'm going to go drive around the desert and see if I can find someone who really needs water And then sell them water at a thousand dollars a liter So the question is is that person acting badly?   Well, and even if he's acting immorally We might many people would argue Michael Sandell for example at Harvard would say he's acting immorally But do you really want to make to say he's acting illegally? Because if we outlaw that transaction you're condemning me to die of thirst in the desert It's hard to say how that makes me better off if it's your concern for my welfare You're violating a philosophical principle called non-worseness the you the way you describe it in One of the papers as you say that there are six characteristics of voluntary exchange And most of you voluntary well, there's yeah five of five of more are voluntary you mentioned on property and externalities and No coercion from the agent who you're dealing with but the sixth one You describe as the best alternative to a negotiate exchange or that situation of the Situation giving you coercion but not the actual agent to giving you coercion. Maybe it's wrong to even call coercion duress And so yeah, the best of the batteny or the batten That's can you explain the equality of that that in the concept of you volunteering as well I was actually trying to grant something that Michael Sandell had written In in it again Michael Sandell as a philosopher at Harvard in it He said it's possible to be coerced but by circumstance So the objection to exchanges being voluntary because economists just say exchanges are voluntary Well, it might not be if you're working in a sweatshop and you don't really have any alternative So if you're coerced by circumstance the question is is that exchange something? That's morally acceptable and should it be legal so that that really is the background I was granting his claim what I was trying to do was make it less sort of Emotionally appealing and give it some technical content. So what Sandell said was there's two circumstances under which you might be coerced by Circumstance one is that you're in dire circumstances and the other is there's too big a difference in bargaining strength So the batna is here's what happens if I don't participate in this exchange The best alternative to a negotiated agreement is what happens if I don't Participate in the exchange which is die of thirst or something. Well in this case my my circumstance is dire It's not so much the difference in bargaining strengths is so great So the the two kinds of examples are I'll die if I don't if I'm not allowed to have this exchange That's coerced by circumstance or if the difference in bargaining strengths between Nike and the people that they hire at their sweatshop is so large now the people at the sweatshop are not going to die So their circumstances and dire in that case. It's a disparity or a difference between the two batnas So if Nike fails to hire this guy, there's a thousand more But if the worker fails to get that job he may end up selling drugs if it's a woman, you know She goes to prostitution the won't die, but has a much worse employment setting So the the I tried to give technical content to either the difference in bargaining strengths Which is one baton up minus the other or the direness of the circumstance And that is the the party that's less well off how bad off in an absolute sense Will they be and this is this is where the critique of market exchanges comes in from More friends on the left, right is that they they think that the What free markets do if you don't have government protecting our interests is Allow for these huge disparities in bargaining power and build them up and make them even worse So the bosses can dictate terms to the employees. And so what we need is to set price floors on wages and Get health care rules on that provision of health care and so possibly price gouging laws and all these things So given that you Agree that there's there's a there there that I mean that there is something wrong with these wildly disparate degrees of power in bargaining Which is something that a lot of libertarians Tend to take just the well, it's voluntary to act and just not really acknowledge that there's something problematic about this but so given that What's then wrong with using the state to address these serious disparities? I Think the answer is complicated. So I myself have kind of changed my mind after working on this I think there's my I started out as an economist and I was one of those people who would say since exchange is voluntary Both parties are better off Therefore the more of these exchanges that are allowed the better and any interference is prima facie a problem And so the state ought to stop well What the the the argument from the left goes and so the logic of it Let me summarize if I can find a way that these exchanges are not voluntary It's not true that both parties are better off and therefore there's at least some room for state intervention that might either Improve the quality of the transaction or at least protect the person who is weaker And so the that protection of the person who is weaker in a way It's kind of Rawlsian we want to make sure that we take care of those who are least well off And so though it's an it might be an invocation of the difference principle. I think I Was trying to do two things first. Let's come up with a place of agreement where You know if I if I go to the store and I buy a bottle of water and it the leader costs me $1.50 That's probably okay. So let's all agree that if an exchange is you voluntary the state has no business interfering with it Now what if the exchange is not you voluntary well the justification for state interference is to improve the welfare of the person Who's left less well off if it harms that person then that seems like we've done something odd And so I've made a lot of students at Duke very angry by making this claim And I admit that it's tendentious, but let me say it So the some of the the students from students against sweatshops at Duke had a very kind of naive idea of what they could accomplish Duke buys a lot of Duke clothing one of the things that you can tell about Duke students is they're very proud to be a Duke They have Duke hats to shirts to pants. They probably have Duke undergarments That we don't see thank goodness These are purchased from companies that buy them in Asian countries and you know, maybe they're sweatshops, maybe they're not It's certainly true that they pay much lower wages and they have different safety and environmental and health care Environments than you would have in the United States So the question is what should we do and if we say we're not going to buy from those countries Then it's hard to say that we're helping those people because all we're doing is firing them And so what we're doing is taking the moral smugness of rich white people and then using it as a Justification for imposing material harms on the people that we say we were trying to benefit But aren't I said it was tentative But but aren't the I mean so the people the people who are selling the sweatshop goods Are themselves party to the exchange say between Duke and them when Duke stocks this stuff or then between the students who are buying it and so Is it harming third parties one question? Well first is it harming third parties, but it also seems like they Since these people are party to this exchange they have something they want for it So we really are really cutting off the workers. Are we really saying no, they're not gonna get a job Because if say Nike Doesn't hire them or can't hire them. It's not like Nike's just gonna say well We're not gonna make sweatshirts right they're gonna have to find some alternative and that alternative may be to pay workers more or You know set up better systems that are going to make their customers in the end happy so that they'll buy the sweatshirt The collective action is big enough if I mean, let's say you actually do get a ton of people just stand up 80% of Nike's Product sales go down because everyone stands up and says I'm not gonna stand for this anymore So then that that could fix the right so the solution is a you know This there's a disparity in bargaining power at this level So we address it with a disparity in bargaining power at a much larger level, which is look Nike We're not gonna buy your sweatshirts unless you and then that's the problem unless you Unless you buy it from a factory that has certain characteristics that we approve of and so maybe it has wages and safety and healthcare benefits that Are only in the United States and so it's basically a buy American program It's hard to say how that helps anybody in Vietnam if that's your concern It's hard to say that I mean buy American is something else. That's protectionist policy And that's fair enough, but then you shouldn't disguise it as concerned for those who are less well off I think the most sophisticated version and you basically said it was Negotiate to make sure that Nike at that existing factory Increases its wages and has better health benefits now the question is and this is my economist side acting Why is it that the people who were working in the factory before we're working under those? Circumstances and at that wage it's because they're fairly economically marginal All of us know the term gentrification Gentrification is what happens when very poor people get priced out of a neighborhood because prices go up well jobs can be gentrified too So if you go from two dollars an hour to eleven dollars an hour and you start to get health care benefits You don't have a 26 year old woman working there anymore. You have a 35 year old man who graduated from high school And so all of the people that you say you care about are fired and it's gentrified so job gentrification defeats This perfectly laudable impulse to say I want to make sure that these people can have a better job It won't be the same people. You cannot do that When I was asking the last question and for a moment lost my train of thought Trevor jumped in with a I think also important issue Which is third parties because we can be parties to an exchange Without having Voluntary-ness enter into the question at all because through negative externalities or if I run a shop and Trevor runs a shop and you decide to buy from him then I'm being Harmed in the sense that I'm not getting your business a competition harms me Does that factor into questions of voluntariness or how we ought to think about whether these exchanges are really voluntary? Yes, and as I said I changed my own mind about this. So suppose that the reason I'm operating in these countries is that the Rules that they have for environmental protection or for the health of the workers are just a lot worse Well under those circumstances Maybe we're creating pollution that wouldn't be allowed in the United States or we're we're using a Part of the environment that's very damaging that wouldn't be allowed in most countries That's actually a violation you shouldn't be doing that and so in the company can say no we refuse to do that now It's true that there maybe they'll lose some profits as a result But you're not going to get the same gentrification result because the workers themselves are still being paid the same amounts The difference is the rest of the nation is not being damaged in ways They didn't consent to do so I think the externalities claim the third parties that are damaged in some of the Machiladoras and places where the environmental damage is significant. That's a legitimate objection and the company is responsible for it And if you want to object, that's fair enough but then what about the Competition harm because one of the arguments that we hear against say the global economy against you know No matter what the impact of buying this stuff overseas has on the environment or Whether the sweatshops are good or bad for those workers The fact is that you're buying it overseas you're not buying an American say and so we're losing these good union jobs because of your free exchanges and is I mean that the The guy who used to work in the garment factory in the US who has now lost his job That's a harm to him, right? But that doesn't we typically don't say that's the kind of harm that matters in the same way that environmental degradation might Why? one of the things that Is a benefit and a harm of capitalism is that we're constantly trying to find new ways to make better stuff more cheaply So it's really about consumer sovereignty capitalism isn't very good at producing jobs It's pretty good at producing benefits to consumers and so When I ask someone that I have a large class introduction to political economy How many of you made your own shoes? No one ever raises their hand. Why why didn't you make your not once? I thought that guy would be the most interesting guy in the entire class. I keep hoping. Yeah Some sort of clogs or the University of Oregon No one makes their own shoes because they can buy much more cheaply than they can make them and Adam Smith makes this argument that in some ways this scales up from the individual to the family to the nation Why would you make something when you can buy it more cheaply now? The question is what happens to the people who would be making it in your country if you only bought from the United States and that means that some of them would have jobs that now don't and That means though that when you look at how much it would cost consumers to keep that person in the job It's usually some pretty big integer multiple three or four times So to keep this person in this thirty thousand dollar job would cost consumers a hundred and twenty thousand dollars now We don't compensate them very well though. It's true We you could say if consumers are benefited surely we can have trade adjustment assistance The problem is that the history of those things don't work very well And to the extent that you try to do it you're enslaving generations of people in jobs that aren't going anywhere like keeping whale oil people Farming whales there are three counties in northern Alabama were nearly half of all the hosiery all the socks and the world used to be made They and those had come from New England Where all the jobs had been lost and those had come from old England where all those jobs had originally been that that's where the hosiery Market had started After about 1985 The factories in northern Alabama started to close and now two-thirds of all the world's Socks are made in a near in and around a city in China called detang And they call it sock city or whatever the Chinese word for sock city is in Mandarin All those counties in northern Alabama are just devastated. Nobody now has jobs. The employment is in the industry It's 30 or 40 percent unemployment But the result is that socks the cost of socks has fallen even in nominal terms certainly in real terms Dramatically everyone can buy much cheaper socks as a result now How do we weigh the costs and benefits of that in a market economy? There's a strong presumption in favor of benefits to consumers rather than benefits to workers question is how can we make that? politically palatable is Is that you hear this kind of dispute a lot you kind of from the Bernie Sanders camp or we're sacrificing Workers quality jobs at the altar of consumer cheapness and having more and more and more better I mean, do you view that as a as a? a At least a cogent objection to the market economy that needs to be Addressed in some fashion and maybe the voluntariness element as works where we can use some other concept to say this is this is wrong But it's at least interestingly wrong You and Aaron both made the objection in I think it's strongest form economists say that in a voluntary exchange Everyone is made better off Well, here's an exchange where people are buying socks from China and the result is some people in northern Alabama are in fact made worse off Now it's not an externality in the usual sense that it's a consequence of the purchase like pollution But it's a consequence of me buying from you and not someone else They're I mean buying not from you and instead from someone else But do the consequence of liberty in some basic sense. It's a cost of liberty. So the the but the advantage of it is that James Taylor has this song about mill work So there used to be a bunch of cotton mills and textile mills in North Carolina They were called the people who work their lint heads and the James Taylor song is mill work in a DZ mill work It ain't hard mill work it ain't nothing but an awful boring job. So is that really what we aspire to have our children do? Well, there were a lot of towns where that was the backbone of the culture of the society However now there are all sorts of other jobs people go to college They aspire to do something else if we artificially raised the wages and preserved those jobs We would basically be shackling people to something that is from the previous century and another To sort of change gears, but it's still the same topic of a similar type of the effects of trying to stop this or or keep it out keep keep it out or Mandate it some way is the price gouging laws which Still enjoy a fairly high level of popularity. Oh, it's bigger than I would say three-quarters in it And I think that some of the original reasons you were thinking about you voluntariness is you were trying to explain Something you know for economists are just like well, yeah, I mean the price goes up price goes down. There's no real price There's a problem as resources. Well, you know, this is obvious. We should not price catch a lot Well, no one else see over very few people who aren't economists think that and one of the stories that you tell is about bringing ice into Hurricane situation and what happened in that situation So This is the place where I probably changed my mind the most We tend to think that people have subjective preferences and they can have those in politics so economists Well, when they look in the mirror, they see the smartest person in the room So, you know, I'm an economist all is known by me and when he disagrees must be irrational So I looked at this example where in Raleigh, North Carolina, some people from Goldsboro had brought ice in to sell it They were selling it for $11 a bag which violated North Carolina's price gouging law The police came to arrest the guys who were selling the ice and some of the people who were standing in line waiting to buy it Actually clapped as the police arrested them. So they clearly wanted Then the them I mean is the ice sellers So the people standing in line to buy the ice from those ice sellers were Clapping when the police arrested the ice sellers and this was just to this was in the aftermath of a Hurricane of a terrible and so there was there was simply no ice available in the local area and people food was rotting It's not just insulin insulin and baby formula and they really wanted. Yeah, they really wanted ice But they also felt that they were being taken advantage of and in a sense They were they had the notion that ice was worth and this is kind of like Aquinas's notion of just price Ice is worth a dollar fifty a bag and you're selling it for eleven dollars a bag In fact, you came here to sell it knowing that I was desperate Now what's interesting is that the person who stayed home in Goldsboro and watched TV and said oh, it must be terrible to be in Raleigh. I wonder what's on Sports Center. We think that person is more moral Than the greedy guy who says let's go get some ice and he rents and he rents a refrigerator truck fills it with ice and takes It to Raleigh. Yeah, that's the bad guy. That's the bad guy because and what's interesting is that if If if you were an omniscient benevolent social planner You would tell me Take ice to Raleigh That's what you would whisper in my ear. You just wake up in the middle of the night and just suddenly have a command Well, but the thing is they did it for the wrong reason they were doing it for a self-interest and they were going to sell the ice I think it's interesting to ask how the people were stint standing in line were made worse off By having an alternative. They wouldn't otherwise have had but Those people standing in line were the ones who voted for the price gouging law because unlike my earlier example where I said Moral smugness was being purchased for rich people at the price of material harm to poor people these people had both parts of the consideration in mind and Economists tend to think that people who are autonomous are able to make trade-offs So they were trading off the material harm from being denied access to the ice for the spiritual vindication The moral fact that these people are taking advantage of me and here are the authorities to say this is wrong. I As the people standing in line are saying I like the second of those better than the first and they should be able to Make that trade-off so it's not irrational to support price gouging laws But it it seemed I mean the fact that they were standing in line is what's so weird about this because if they were sitting at home They're like I hear there's ice for $11. I really like ice But I'm not gonna pay $11 because that's highway robbery and then you're watching it on the local news And you see the guys get hauled away by the cops and you cheer like okay You know might disagree that it would be better if they could keep selling the ice But you can on that makes sense But to say I really need this ice and I'm willing to pay $11 for I want it more than I want the $11 So I'm going to stand in line and presumably stand in a long line reasonably long line and Then you've made it some way through the line So you've already got these sunk costs and then they arrest them and you start cheering you still cheer then that seems just Completely bizarre. Oh, I it took me five years to understand it But but is it open? I see your point But are we okay with that with saying that if you want to Vindicate your moral Your moral beliefs about price gouging by voting to use the apparatus of the state to use coercion against people who are making voluntary exchanges Or I guess that's the big maybe raise the question itself Then then you can't you're not allowed to do that Yeah, there are many things you might want to make your morality and and play it out and then use the state to keep people from smoking marijuana But if we're generally libertarian like you we don't usually make that calculus. Well, and that's a fair point But it's a different point. So one of the things that a sort of a property rights Purist would say that ice belonged to the seller. He can charge whatever price he wants as long as he's not using coercion and You know, that's fair enough But suppose you don't believe that that's true and that we can put some restrictions on what people sell and what they do I Once thought even then price gouging laws are just irrational But what's interesting about Aaron's example? He put a fine point on it. They didn't stay home. They actually left home and went to stand in line I think the explanation is that the eleven dollars exhausted almost all of the expected consumer surplus from purchasing it So probably they're really not willing to pay much more than eleven dollars the benefit of the transaction is not very much But you're only making the claim that it's not irrational. I still think it's worth them, but it's wrong It's still it's why is it wrong? It's wrong two ways One it's morally wrong in the sense that it violates the property rights of the seller They're not doing anybody harm by bringing in this needed stuff in selling it So it's a violation of property rights and I think that should be that that's a good argument against it Just that not everybody buys that but second it's wrong because it doesn't recognize that there's a supply response The only way to have a low price is to allow a high price. You you there's this inducement So people tend to think of this as if it's a lifeboat example and in a lifeboat There's a fixed amount of stuff. I've really got to be kind of a jerk You really need water and I have some to say well You know how much are your children worth because you're never gonna see them again without this water So you have to promise that when we get back to port if I share this water with you that you'll pay me a million dollars And you say okay, I have no choice we get back to port you say it was an unconscionable contract It would it was an under duress and the judge would agree it is an unconscionable contract So the the the question here what's interesting I think is even if you if you let's put aside the question of it belongs to the seller there's a Consequentialist argument for getting rid of price gouging laws because it dramatically increases the amount of ice that's available to desperate people and The only reason why the price is $11 is that we basically made it illegal to sell this stuff You get rid of the price gouging law and there would have been a parade of trucks bringing ice and other needed materials to the beleaguered city So what we saw this after Hurricane Katrina the US Army basically laid siege To an American city which is pretty remarkable They had trouble keeping control inside, but they surrounded it and prevented needed supplies from being brought in That's what a siege is so a lot of trucks bringing supplies were headed towards New Orleans Some people just got up and decided to drive down there Yeah, the argument the reason they were turned away was they were told we can't be sure you won't sell this So that the main thing we don't need to protect people against hunger thirst forget that we can protect them against price gouging That's the main thing that we should do. That's just wrong Many more things would have been brought to the city if it had not been surrounded by armed troops with their guns facing outward Economists though, I mean continue to be often baffled by this kind of behavior So whether it's people being opposed to price gouging even when we can make a pretty clear case that they're hurting themselves with these laws Or rent or minimum wage but even even so anti-discrimination like there's the the story that you know the market would get rid of Racial discrimination because you're by refusing say blacks you're giving up customers or you're giving up potentially good employees and yet this stuff Sticks around. Is it is it because? Marks to move well or is it is that it is there are other things that economists are failing to take into account in their utility functions like that we You know, yes, we're not getting the ice, but we are getting a level of satisfaction from our moral indignation or the racist gets something valuable to them out of excluding blacks and so if we You know if we pretend that sort of thing doesn't exist then it looks Strange or wrong, but if we take those values seriously, then those count at the same way as like Getting the ice or whatever else I Think economists tend to undervalue People's moral intuitions and how much they will pay to have Policies that satisfy in accord with those moral intuitions and that's what I think we need to do a better job of engaging It's not that we can't it's just that we don't and we tend to say well markets will solve this Well markets won't solve some of those problems Perfectly competitive markets over the long period just make it more expensive for me to exercise a taste for racism They don't make it impossible unless the market's perfectly competitive and so You can you can say that it that it helps When people look at what look like disparate results and attribute it to racism and then they can pass a law saying We're not going to have that it makes them feel better And so the I think it would be better if we say this really is a problem What is it that we can do to address it? How could we make markets better at at solving problems of racism discrimination? Making sure that poor people have access to housing The rent control I think is the the one almost all people who are trained in economics are going to say rent controls a bad idea There's just no defense for rent control. The main thing it does is hurt poor people In in your essay one of your essays on you volunteers You discuss a John Locke peace Which you had once told me was It was it's almost lost and it was before you had written about it It was almost lost where John Locke is ruminating on the questions that we're talking about today and and particularly what would be It's almost just price theory in the desert water example or some other examples He comes up with and how what maybe what the moral thing there should be but then there's also the legal thing of whether That they should prohibit so it's everything you've been kind of talking about here. What is this essay? Where did it come from? What is the general gist of it? Well, I'm awfully excited about it. So let me give you the brief version John Locke when he was pretty young in the 1650s wrote a little squib and at the top he entitled it Venditti Oh, and it was handwritten it was found in its handwritten form in a folio in the 1690s And it was this was owned then by a family that had bought some of Locke's papers It was printed a couple of times, but it was unknown to economists And it's really unknown to most philosophers and even Locke scholars because it's obscure so Someone had suggested it to me and on reading it I did I was shocked at how modern a conception it has of a particular question And that is we all have a notion of when prices are just or unjust When is the market price just which is an amazingly terrific question for the 1650s So this is more than a hundred years before Adam Smith published the wealth of nations It's long before we had any notion of market price And in fact Locke's notion of market price is pretty close to ours in the sense that it's that that is Generated by a market with many buyers and many sellers and that we can agree on what the commodity is So it's a it's an amazingly Modern forward-looking conception of this he gives four examples And if I may one of the places you can now find it because it is in print We got permission to print it is the new philosophy politics and economics anthology of which I'm a co-editor that was just published by Oxford I'm also happy to send anybody a PDF if they want to send me an email and the the it is interesting because as you said So much of this depends upon the competitiveness of the market your ability to take to extract or Coerce or Whatever word you want to use the guy in the desert when you're the only person there and then there's someone else who also has Is what defines that market is the lack of other people who are also selling water to the guy in the desert So so what is so I think Locke uses the example of a ship that loses its anchor And and it's happened upon but what is that example? How does that come forward? He gives four examples and each of them is work is worth looking at the ship example is the hardest I think There's a sailing ships and The if you don't have an anchor in a sailing ship at night And you're anywhere near a coast or rocks that you don't know about You're likely to drift on it the ship will be wrecked and all the cargo and crew will be lost So what's the value of an anchor life? If you don't have any it's the the sum of the value of the lives of all your crew the value of the ship And the value of the cargo it's a lot Well, suppose that one ship that has multiple anchors let's say three encounters on the high seas another ship that has lost all its anchors and The ship that has no anchors hails them and says will you sell us an anchor? The guy who has three anchors what price would he be justified in charging? You can almost charge anything you want. We can why didn't say what price will he charge? I said what price would he be justified and by justified? I mean literally just so what would be the morally just price to charge and The theme that block has developed throughout this is that you're not obliged to do anything super Erogatory so an erogatory act is one that you're obliged within Market setting super erogatory means to sacrifice. I'm going to do something more So I am not obliged to give him an anchor if I had 30 maybe I would have some obligation It's like somebody's drowning. I have a life ring and I can throw it It doesn't cost me anything then I might be obliged But I have three anchors and the reason I have three anchors is that sometimes you lose them and losing them is bad So if I were to ask myself what chart what price would I charge for an anchor? It might be a lot But then when I find this guy, I can't use my particular knowledge of his desperation to jack the price up even more That's what Locke says. That's Locke's claim So Locke's claim is you have to conduct a kind of hypothetical bargain Where this person maybe has one anchor or doesn't need it quite so desperately and then would an exchange take place So if there is no market price you have to come up with a way of saying what would the market price be if there were a market here and He's careful to say the price of an anchor back in port is almost irrelevant Because we're the particular and this is very Hayekian the particular circumstances of time and place actually matter for the setting of the market price But it is wrong for me to use my knowledge of your desperation Now, you know, that's controversial But the what it has going for it the brilliant part of it is if one of us is really desperate It's not a market price in the usual sense. It's it's an emergency. It's something else So a market price is when there's relatively many buyers many sellers and the consequences of failing to exchange are not catastrophic So I'm always justified in charging the market price the question is what would it be and he has this very tantalizing interesting claim that Mentally you construct what a bargain would look like and maybe you still wouldn't sell it. Maybe you think I you know Look, I'm sorry, but I've only got three and I can't risk the lives of my crew the value of the cargo all my investors So I still can't sell you one. So I'm not obliged even to sell at all but what I can't do is say Absolutely, your ship is worth a hundred thousand pounds. I'd like ninety nine thousand pounds, please You mentioned that this is somewhat there's this hacky in question in here of trying to imagine what The price would be in this market that doesn't quite I mean, we can't just say like what's the price on the other markets as emerging prices But how does that play into the other hacky a notion of? prices and knowledge because it seems like you're almost asking this person to play the role of the Impossible central planner like we don't have a market to see what the prices emerge from so just use your intellect to Figure out maybe some econometrics ought to be I mean doesn't kind of hacking thought preclude the very possibility of what Locke is asking us to do well There's no question that these two people are going to come up with a bargain And the bargain might be I refuse to sell because you can't possibly pay me enough That seems unlikely Because I would be willing to pay quite a bit what what Locke is saying is I can't use the difference between What I would take what I'm willing subjectively not not not my reservation price And most of us can come up with here's something that I would be happy to accept Now the question is I then compare that to the market price. I have no idea what that would be That's right, but that's in this case. It's the best that I can do and the the alternative is that I say Well, it's too hard a problem. I'm not going to sell it to you In these situations of we're just sort of discussing all these and of course I find it interesting that more and more You called them a few a few minutes ago lifeboat situations a lot of public policy is like this is discussed in sort of lifeboat situations type of things which it seems like they're trying to invoke This you voluntary type of the lack of being you voluntary health care minimum wage is now discussed as as a lifeboat type of situation Many other price gouging obviously things like this What is the best way for libertarians to? Respond I mean we've been talking about all the same What is the best way to respond to this? I mean because the tendency is just like oh, well, you know They really don't need how much do you know how much healthier to someone actually need and Everyone could say they need this and everyone says dire straits and all this stuff like that But but then the other side is saying well look we need a heart transplant It's not you volunteer your base of being coerced into any price you possibly pay What is the best way to talk about these very difficult issues? I? Think the thing that we have to do and it's really hard, so I'm not saying it's not but it's really hard Is to get people to understand the distinction that Bastiat made so well between the scene and the unseen So John Stuart mill famously has this formulation where he says that when it comes to production We have to use the physics of markets. There's not really an alternative But the things once there we can then use the rules of morality to decide how to distribute their benefits Well, it's a mistake to say that those two things can be separated and you hear this all the time And one of the most egregious examples is from pharmaceuticals So we have this drug that somebody went through Clinical trials and there's nine drugs. They tried that didn't work They now have one and it costs $300,000 per year to do this need that can't possibly be right. They shouldn't be able to charge $300,000 per year. Well that confuses the thing the things once their problem The reason that they were created the reason that the guy in the taco truck went looking for people who needed water Was the recognition that there might that this might not work? So they undertook a risk we don't look at the failures We don't say well all the drugs that didn't work We're gonna compensate you for that all of their efforts to create a new drug that that admittedly I mean the reason that's important is that by premise this drug is extremely useful more useful than any other drug We have for treating this very dangerous disease whatever it is Well, but you don't get to charge as much as we thought you were going to get to That doesn't make any sense and you have to ask not well the things once there what is seen You have to say what would have happened if we if we had known in advance You you couldn't charge more than what we now think is a reasonable price a hundred dollars a year Well, they wouldn't have come with the drugs in the first place But that's hard to recognize that there's a and it's the same supply response The reaction of markets is to create things that don't now exist It's a very hard argument to make because we tend to be materialist and look around and say how can we allocate the fixed Amount of stuff around us. How can we do better? Not let's take advantage of the dynamism and creativity and entrepreneurship of people who are admittedly motivated by profits Thank you for listening if you have any questions you can find us on Twitter at free thoughts pod That's free thoughts POD free thoughts is produced by Evan banks and Mark McDaniel to learn more find us on the web at www.libertarianism.org


Hello everybody, Andrew Maesca here with Dental Pell. So let's talk about what does every dental hygiene business owner need right away and what are things that you don't necessarily have to spend the money on now until you make a little bit of extra money, until you know how many patients you'll be seeing weekly, daily, and just sort of how you want to run your business. So I did leave some notes on my iPad here, so I'm just gonna look at that just so I don't forget anything. So what you need right away, so things you might not think of or you have questions on, well, should I spend the money, should I wait? So number one, honestly, is the intraoral camera. Use that intraoral camera. So why do I say this? I say this because I take intraoral photos on every single new patient that I have, so that that way afterwards I can sit them up and show them all of their teeth, even if there's nothing exciting to look at. So even if there's no cavities, the gums look good, anything, I like to actually show them that. But usually there's something there. So even if there's a little more stain, tartar plaque, the lower interior linguals, I will show them that. If they have a big cavity, if they have a small cavity, I will show them that using my intraoral camera. I plug it into my laptop. So I see patients in their own home, plus over here too. So that's why I like to bring my laptop along so that way I can actually show them even if I go to their house. So I'm talking about the intraoral camera because they can be expensive. When I was first talking to a dental company, so a dental rep, theirs was about $2,000. I found one on Amazon for, shoot, I'll have to, I'll leave the link for you guys on the bottom. I forget the cost. I wanna say $200 or $300. I bought it about a year ago, so I can't remember. But it's perfect. I literally plug it into my laptop and the picture quality is amazing. So definitely purchase it. And it does come with the barriers as well. Okay, it is expensive to get the barriers to get more of them, but it is what it is. But it's still so much cheaper than spending $2,000 from a dental supply company. So I will leave a link for you guys on the bottom, check it out. The nice thing about Amazon is if you don't like it, return it, but you will love it. So another thing that is a must-have, I forgot already, sorry guys, I'm just looking at my iPad here. Actually, that was the number one that I wanted to talk about is the intraoral camera. So other things that are a must-have, which may seem a little more obvious to you, is you want to have enough instruments, but you don't have to buy, let's say 20 different instrument kits. If you're just starting out, I would suggest buying three. I purchased about five or six when I first started and I did end up purchasing more, but if you're looking to save money, you might not be seeing five patients a day. So it is possible to maybe buy three different instrument kits and then just make sure to obviously have them sterilized before the next one, right? But you don't need 20, 30 kits if you don't know how many patients you will be seeing because it does take time to build up seeing patients. But that brings me to my next point is, do you need a sterilizer? So I did spend the big bucks to get a sterilizer right away. It cost me about $10,000, but this way I do have one in my own home. Whereas I know a dental hygienist who did start her mobile business. She tried it out. She did purchase her own sterilizer, some company from China to be honest with you. So it was a lot cheaper and it worked perfectly fine, but if you get audited, that's not gonna hold. Like you can't get a sterilizer from somewhere else. It has to be here. But anyways, it's a good thing that she didn't spend the $10,000 to get one because she didn't really, her business didn't really take off. So she was in business for maybe six months and then she soon thought, okay, this is hard work. This isn't for me. I'm working, I just wanna do other things. She found an amazing job, or I'm sorry, she was offered an amazing job as a receptionist, office manager. So she loves that. So it's a good thing she did not buy a sterilizer right away. That was $10,000 like the one that I picked because she would just have to try to sell it and that's a lot of money, right? So a sterilizer, do you need it right away? Probably not. If you're able to use another office to sterilize your instruments, perfect. But maybe you don't know any other offices that would be willing to let you use their equipment. If that's the case, then you need to get your own sterilizer, okay? So other things that you have to buy right away, think masks, gloves, bibs. You need like pouches if you do have a sterilizer, things like that. So think the basics. But the thing about that is if you buy anything off of a dental supply company, you have to order like a box of 1,000 to actually order anything. So if you're able to find a dental hygienist or a dental office that can sell you say a box of 100 masks or 100 bibs, so you don't have to spend like $30 here, $80 there and $90 there right away, that would be ideal just until you kind of get your foot in the door and you build up your patients. I did spend a lot of money initially because I knew that I was going to make this business work. It was just something that I have always wanted to do. When I want to do something, I just do it. So I didn't mind buying a box of 1,000 bibs that I still have a year later. I didn't mind buying boxes of masks in the hundreds because I knew that I will eventually use them. If you buy in bulk, you do save money but if you're just starting out, if you can help it, try not to buy all of that, okay? So those are kind of the main things. I'm probably missing something but I would feel the most common question that people ask me is, do I need a sterilizer? How many instruments do you suggest I get? That kind of thing. Things that you can hold off on is a computer software. So this is the big thing. Don't spend the money on a computer software for your patients unless you were like me and you do plan to really make this work no matter what. It's expensive. I wish though I did buy a computer, a dental software right away because having to input all of my patients in afterwards did take a lot of work but I was spending so much money initially that I didn't have an extra 3,000 just lying around anyway. I said to myself, I'm just gonna do paper charts, paper like medical history, everything paper until I'm seeing a lot of patients to pay the money to get a dental software but I did find an amazing one for about $3,000 to get the support every year. I wanna say it's $800 but don't call me. I can't remember the price for sure but that's so much better than some of the other dental softwares that I've heard of and talked to. It was $10,000 minimum and then per year like 2,000 something like that. So this software that I went, they are for dental hygienists. I will leave the link for you on the bottom. They're amazing, okay, amazing and their customer service is amazing. It's easy to use which is nice. So I did buy the computer software a year later and I had about 116 patients or sorry, I do have 116 patients. I didn't know I had so many but the nice thing about a dental software is you can send claims electronically if you do use insurance. You can just type it all in there. Your charting's typed in schedule. Oh my goodness, it's so much nicer. But that's another thing you guys, you don't need that dental software right away and you don't have to accept insurance either right away. So that brings me to my next point is do you want to do cash only patients or do you want to accept insurance? If you accept insurance, meaning that you actually submit to their insurance company and they would only pay you the difference at the time of their appointment, it's a lot of work. I can't stand how much work it is, it's difficult but I would not have my patients because of it. 99% of my patients have insurance and they said I simply would not be able to afford your services otherwise. So that's a question that I do get is do patients pay cash or do you submit for them to insurance? A lot of hygienists out there, 90% of them will not submit to insurance because they know it's a lot of work. They have to chase patients sometimes, claims conveniently don't go through. We can't send everything electronically, it's a mess but I still deal with it because I wouldn't have most of my patients because of it. But I'll talk to you guys about how to charge patients especially when you're starting out. You wanna offer a discount maybe but not too much. Don't charge too much because then you're not gonna get the patients. Do you bill for a new patient exam? Do you not? That I will talk about in another video. So other things you can wait on are things like actually this. So this is super handy. So I call this my teaching tool, okay? You can get some amazing teaching tools on Amazon. You don't have to get these right away. So this was about 38, 99 Canadian. So you don't have to get overly excited, get all of your teaching tools right away. Wait until you have patients. So this took me a year to buy. Yes, it's only 38, 99. There's actually more that I did purchase because I find that teaching tools are so helpful. But again, do you need it right away? No, spend the money on things like instruments, masks, gloves. Another thing is loops. If you don't have loops yet, I entirely recommend you get them. But is that something you need right away? Especially if you're not used to using loops? Maybe not. Save your money. My loops were about under $2,000 with the light. They're amazing. I love them. I can't imagine not wearing them, especially the light. I need it. But again, I've been using it for maybe 10 years. So I'm used to loops. But if you're not used to them, or if you don't usually have them, don't waste your money yet. Make some money first. What else, guys? I'm just kinda looking around. I just set up for my patients a couple hours ago. So I'm just trying to think of things that I set up. Talking about slow-speed handpieces, you will need that right away, obviously, to polish patients' teeth. I purchased the new Pro Freedom Handpiece. It's a very expensive one, about $2,000 worth every penny. You don't need the most expensive slow-speed handpiece out there until you know you want to make this a regular thing. Because a lot of dental hygienists, business owners, they realize it's hard work, and then they don't want to do it. So it really depends if this is something that you truly want to do. You'll need to get a stool for yourself right away. If you're a mobile dental hygienist, you want to get end tables, side tables. I found amazing ones. I will leave the link for you guys on the bottom for that as well. Whitening. I do suggest getting some type of whitening kit for your patients. A lot of my patients ask me, so you do teeth cleaning. Do you do the whitening, too? Spend the money to purchase everything you need to do the whitening because you will make some great money doing that.  For some reason, I guess I was just advertising more about the whitening, not as much the cleaning, but people love it, okay? So spend the money doing that. That's all I can think about. This is kind of a longer video. I'm not good at doing short videos because I just keep talking. So I'm sorry. Please comment below, though, if you have any questions. I do hope this helped. I will leave the links for you guys on the bottom because I do purchase a lot from Amazon.  That should be from a dental company. But things like a model, a teaching model, hey, purchase it from Amazon. If I were to buy this from a dental company, it would have been at least $99. I saw this at the Dental Convention for $99.95. I paid $38.99 for it off of Amazon, so Amazon's awesome. So check out the links, you guys. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you so much for watching and I'll see you in the next one.


Everybody forced here ripping one but our four boxes excuse me four boxes of 2022 tops pristine baseball hobby for Octavian a thanks Octavian Good luck. I'm starting with a Fernando Tatis refractor And a Jersey auto a rolled a Chapman to 99. Good first pack Base pack here in an encased Miguel Tejada auto Gail Tejada Throwback action there JD Martinez and a purple refractor DJ. Lemay you that's out of 99 Juan Soto insert there and a gold auto Freddy Peralta out of 50 29 to 50 Freddy Peralta auto rookie refractor Matt Manning gold refractor Tori Hunter out of 50 pure power Juan Soto and A Liam Hendricks not numbered encased there rod Karoo Sammy long rookie O'Neill Cruz and encased Max Muncie not numbered Xander Bogart's and Eduardo Escobar a rod Shohei Otani insert and Blue refractor rookie Jose Ciri out of 75 Emmanuel Rivera rookie refractor with a Kyle Lewis pure Powered Jackson and orange encased Manny Ramirez 18 to 25 on the Manny many being many Justin Verlander followed by a purple refractor Reggie Jackson to 99 you Manny fan or Red Sox fan Octavian Castro Jeter Pure Power Ken Griffey Jr. Insert Encased rookie auto Jake Berger. I'd be not numbered on Jake Berger. Oh Yankees fan. Gotcha. Oh Yeah, that's why we're talking earlier about the Judge thing. It's okay to love Manny. Manny was the best Eloi got gold refractor Jammer Candelario out of 50 Soto Bay Slendor insert Uh cc sabathia auto there There you go Yankees hit for a Yankees fan Nice cc Workhorse Paul de Young Juan Soto refractor Cunha on the insert Blue refractor Nolan Aronato out of 75 nice Nato might just stay like that then Uh Jeter. I'm Utah refractor with a jersey auto geo or shella Yankees box brand rookie and a jose abray you An orange refractor encased Kyle seager out of 25 Fractors Jonathan India Alan Trammell Mariana Rivera base Refractor Liam Hendricks. That's not numbered Shane Bieber refractor with a Jared Walsh Joe Ryan and a Babe Ruth pure power inserts Oh wait, I didn't show that that was a Nolan Aronato. Sorry Nolan Aronato refractor not numbered so the Jim Tome refractor That is a jersey auto Christian yellow non-numbered on the Yelly Chas McCormick rookie Shohei Ichiro on the insert Rookie auto encased for the Tigers Matt Manning non-numbered Matt Manning Reggie Jackson and a red to five Ernie Banks Four of five on the Ernie very nice Get that one back for you Octavian pure power Tatees Other Tigers pitcher auto here Casey Meyes non-numbered on the insert auto Hermon Marquez purple refractor Yuli Gertiell to 99 Yeti Molina Yeah, an encased refractor Dolis Garcia I think I could probably just become a surgeon like right away after The training learning curve would be would be very easy. I'll just get it done like a month Zach Wheeler Kyle Gibson Trout there's a Durand rookie insert Barry Larkin encased refractor I would I would think I would I don't even know man There's no way a surgeon makes less than me, right? There's no way In any country on earth, there's no way That's saying I make not a lot of money. We're sailing Surgeon has got to get paid super well everywhere, right? Everywhere. Pimento refractor Michael Brantley pure power Jose Ramirez Blue refractor max Kepler out of 75 I don't know if I pulled a Julio Rodriguez auto out of this yet Where's DJ Abrams? Maybe like one Bobby Whitt Okay, we're just gonna skip that whole staffer. Just go to this Oh my god, dude Walker Bueller Mike Schmidt I'm gonna go fight tops of the national And a mariano Rivera inserts Gold refractor Evandro Rodriguez out of 50 nice pudge Some scuffs on the surface of the mag over here 33 of 50 Last one Yeah, I'll refuse I think I'll just refuse luka I'll just refuse to break it If it's the same next year Tops address the definitive auto situation. They need to address this situation They have to have something nice in here. Yeah, we've got rookie refractor Vidal Bruhan And orange Jersey auto Yvonne Rodriguez nice hit That's three out of 25 on the pudge Rodriguez as a tiger Rosa rena insert and a Shane Bieber auto out of 99 On the beaver wouldn't be so bad if the packs that like gets sealed together George Brett's purple Hermon Marquez out of 99 They didn't seal the packs together and like That's like the first thing Got pure power Dave Winfield And rookie auto Vidal Bruhan Nice one there 53 of 99 Like if they were just like hanger packs that'd be different. That's actually open well. That was very strange That's that's rare Joey Wendell refractor gold refractor trade turn out of 50 nice tray Yeah, so I keep saying I love the cards packaging. It was a little bit desired. I would say you darvish God base refractor tautis Like I would like to rip a box for myself, but have someone else open it for me Whoever's doing personals on the night that I'm laughing. You'll be Big Mac Aaron judge refractor Devers and vichette on the insert I've got refractor Salvador Perez that that's why that's why I don't like everything else. I'm cool Honestly, like if it works fine, it works. I like pristine but the theory is better than the Actuality here Tyler glasner refractor gold refractor andy pettit as an astro to 50 Freeman blue refractor ricky henderson to 75 Fractor Joe Morgan purple refractor Liam Hendricks To 99 And pink refractor on the back is Ahmed Rosario. That's number to 15 on the Ahmed Rosario And that will do it. Thanks again, Octavia. We'll get those right out to you


Welcome to the original gangsters podcast another quick hitter edition some huge news that came out of the New York mob orbit this week and where it came out from is just as significant as the news itself. So you had newsbreak on Wednesday night of Joe Massino dying in witness protection. He actually died in New York City coming back to spend his final days with his family reconnecting and reconciling with some people. Everybody that's watching this I'm sure knows that Joe Massino was the most powerful mafia boss in America during the 1990s and early 2000s the boss of bosses in New York kingpin godfather of the Bonanno crime family and had had a role in the day-to-day affairs of that family going all the way back to the early 80s late 70s even you know late 79 with the assassination of Carmine Galante. He was mentored by Bill Rusty Rustelli was a front boss acting boss Rustelli died in June of 91 and Massino became the official don by the end of the the 90s heading into 2000s he had brought the bananas back from almost the dead they've been kicked out kicked out of the commission in the 80s for the Donny Brasco fiasco letting an undercover into the into the family and it disrupted a lot of things and lost a lot of respect but Massino polished that thing up and and got it back to where they were the the real standard bearer for the New York mafia at the last vestige of kind of the mobs glory era of the late mid to late 20th century and he was you know if you want to consider uh the the commission existing at that point and it was kind of like a makeshift commission uh he you know he was you know at the chairman of the board and then he he flipped and became the most the highest ranking organized crime member to ever cut a cooperation agreement with the government enter the witness protection program testify in open court it all kind of began to fall apart for him in the early 2000s when his brother-in-law and under boss salvatore good-looking sal vital vitali uh was alienated from him he was uh Massino was married to his sister and then you know lost him he jumped ship um had gotten jammed up and uh decided to to flip on on Massino became the star witness at Massino's trial Massino was convicted at at trial and racketeering murder accounts in 2004 and then quickly joined team USA wired up against his underlings including uh acting boss uh Vinnie Gorgias Bassiano and disappeared into witness protection program uh came out in the last couple days that uh been living in Ohio at the end I had been told that he was at first uh in Florida then relocated to Ohio eventually made it back to New York to reconcile with his family because he had been kind of exiled from them when he when he joined witness protection and left New York City I want to go back to how this news came out uh and the story was broken in surreal fashion by reputed Philadelphia mob boss skinny Joey Merlino who in the last couple weeks has uh thrown his hat into the ring in the podcast game on youtube a shout out to the skinny which is his youtube podcast and this is this is a huge feather in their cap gives them a ton of validation and credibility uh and frankly they're getting at least early on in the way this is being covered by the New York media the east coast media they're not getting their their their fair due um they're being ignored when they broke the story a news day came out with this um with this news that they were the first mainstream outlet to break it in uh late last night thursday night and they source uh Masino's daughter while they wouldn't have been reaching out to Masino's daughter for comment if Merlino and his podcast partner uh Joe Joe snuff little Joe snuff Joe Perry uh if they had him to put that out on wednesday so i i know it's unconventional and i understand that because of what some people think of Joey Merlino he claims that he's uh gone straight is out of the out of the mob game and his days as a mob shock caller are behind him that he living down in south florida away from his alleged mob kingdom and in um philadelphia and parts of new jersey uh you know he's been there for 12 years fed say that he runs it from afar he says he's got nothing to do with it now he's kind of trying to prove it by putting out this podcast which is more of a gambling podcast than a mob podcast but uh he wanted to speak on uh informants uh make his feelings felt on guys that had cooperated with the government and he dropped the nugget of information that Joe Masino had died uh and and a lot of people were skeptical uh it took 24 hours plus for other people to confirm it shout out to to jeff nadu and the sit down uh podcast he was the first media outlet that covers organized crime on a day-to-day basis to uh confirm the news and then newsday was the first mainstream outlet uh but newsday had no mention of the fact that this information first surface uh via joey merlino and the skinny podcast and that that's just as you know from a journalistic posture point of view and protocol it's wrong whatever you think of joey whatever you think of the medium uh or you know that he's a podcaster now you know this was a huge huge piece of news um that you know bombshell that that he rolled out that again i'm saying gives a lot of credibility to what he's trying to do you know uh that's a big piece of news he scooped everybody on it all due respect to jerry capesi all due respect to larry mccain and tony d stafano and all those great writers in new york city the the alleged mob boss the alleged godfather was like uh 10 10 miles in front of everybody that does this for a living including myself but you gotta include myself in there uh so i just think uh it's bad form and uh he should get acknowledged the show should be acknowledged um again it's surreal that uh you have someone who's looked at as maybe the most iconic modern day new millennium mob boss and joey merlino is breaking the news of the previous generations most iconic mob boss and joey merlino uh but that's what happened and that's where we are in 2023 uh and i've always called joey merlino and not always but the last 10 years of all i've coined the term for joey merlino is being the instagram don and you know it just means that he's he's he's tech savvy he's uh you know he's an influencer he was an influencer before he even knew the term influencer um and you know he he has the ability to adapt pretty quickly into uh into new you know territory and he'd only they'd only been in the podcast and game for like two weeks and breaks this huge piece of news so credit to them and i just wanted to point out that i wasn't thrilled that that uh news day didn't properly acknowledge where it came from and we'll see when the other news outlets in new york city start to roll out more coverage of this uh over the weekend new york post new york daily news new york times even uh and how how they cover it and source it so uh joe merlino is dead 80 years old lived the last 18 years in hiding under an assumed identity you know i don't need to tell you who joe merlino is people that are watching this know you know you know came up uh under rusty rostelli based out of mass pep queens was the quarterback of the infamous three capo slain's that you see in the movie donnie prosco uh and then rebuilt so the banano prime family into a juggernaut after uh it had fallen on hard times in in the in the 1980s in the aftermath of donnie prosco so uh joe massino dead at 80 joey merlino bright breaks the news here at the og pod we're always going to give credit where's credit's due so shout out to the skinny little joe snuff joey merlino for for breaking this big piece of news joe massino dead at eight years old i'm scott burnstein see you next time at og pod


Myself, this is Veena Sunil Patki, Assistant Professor, Department of Electronics Engineering, Walchand Institute of Technology, Solaapur. Welcome you for this session. At the end of this session, students can analyze speed control methods from rotor side of three phase induction motor. So, these are the methods. Armature resistance control, cascade operation and by injecting EMF in rotor circuit. So, these are the three speed control methods from rotor side. So, first let us discuss about the rotor rheostat control. This method is similar to that of armature rheostat control of DC shunt motor, but this method is only applicable to slip ring motors as addition of external resistance in rotor of squirrel cage motor is not possible. Because here for squirrel cage induction motor, we cannot add the external resistance, only the conductor bars are used for that rotor. And for slip ring rotors, we can add the external resistance because the winding is placed on the rotor and slip rings are used to connect the external resistance for this method. External resistance is added on rotor side. So, torque equation is given as t equal to 3 by 2 pi n s into s e 2 square r 2 divided by under root r 2 square plus in bracket s x 2 bracket square. The three phase induction motor operates in low slip region and in low slip region s x 2 square becomes very very small as compared to r 2. If we see that equation s x 2 square is very small because the s is very less. So, we can neglect it and here e 2 is also constant. So, the equation of torque becomes torque is proportional to slip and inversely proportional to r 2. If we increase rotor resistance r 2, torque decreases and to supply the same load torque must remain constant. So, we increase slip which will further result in decrease in rotor speed and thus by adding additional resistance in rotor circuit, we can decrease the speed of three phase induction motor. The main advantage of this method is that with an addition of external resistance starting torque increases, but motor also suffers from some disadvantages. The speed above the normal value is not possible and large speed change requires a large value in large speed change requires a large value of resistance and it will cause large copper loss and hence reduction in efficiency. So, when the intermittent speed control is required, this method is used. Heat has some drawbacks. The rheostat per phase causes unbalancing in motor. The resistances generate huge losses and generate heat. As the resistance increases, heat also increases and it requires more maintenance, hence the cost is more and this method cannot be used for industrial automation purpose. Now, pause the video and think about this question. High starting torque can be obtained in three phase induction motor by a. Increasing rotor resistance b. Decreasing rotor resistance c. Increasing rotor reactance and d none of the above. So, what is the answer? Increasing rotor resistance. So, by changing rotor resistance, we can change the torque also. So, speed control by cascade operation. In this method, the speed control of three phase induction motor of two three phase induction motors are connected. The two three phase induction motors are connected on a common shaft and hence called cascade motor, cascaded motor. So, cascaded motor means two motors are connected with same shaft. So, one motor is called main motor and another motor is called auxiliary motor. You can see here in this diagram motor a is the main motor and motor b is the auxiliary motor. So, two motors are connected with same shaft and with slip rings, the rheostat is connected variable resistance is provided for motor b and the supply is given from the slip ring to motor b. Motor a is called the main motor, motor b is called the auxiliary motor, NS1 and NS2 are the synchronous speed of motor a and b, P1 number of poles of stator of motor a, P2 is the number of stator poles of motor b and N is the speed of set and same for both motors. So, with this method, four different speeds can be obtained when only motor a works NS1 equal to 120 F by P1 is the speed of the motor and when only motor b works NS2 equal to 120 F by P2 is the speed of the set and if cumulative cascading is done, then the speed is given as 120 F by P1 plus P2 and if differential cascading is done, then the speed is given by N equal to 120 F by P1 minus P2. So, let us see about the by injecting EMF in rotor circuit, speed control of induction motor. When the speed control is done by adding resistance in rotor circuit, some part of power called the slip power is lost as I square R losses and therefore, the efficiency is reduced and this slip power loss can be recovered and supplied back to improve the overall efficiency and this scheme recovering the power is called slip power recovery scheme. So, in this method, speed of induction motor is controlled by injecting a voltage of slip frequency in rotor circuit and if we inject EMF, which is in opposite phase with rotor induced EMF, rotor resistance will be increased and speed will decrease and thus by changing the phase of injected EMF, speed can be controlled. The main advantage of this method is a wide range of speed control above normal as well as below normal can be achieved. So, here this is the block diagram by injecting EMF in rotor circuit. You can see the converter is used and one inverter is used and by using that inverter where injecting the rotor EMF into rotor circuit so that we can control the rotor speed below or above normal speed. You can refer the book, Electrical Machines by B. L. Thareja, Principles of Electrical Machines, VK Mehta and Rohit Mehta. Thank you.


As we round off now, confusions around in Twitter incorporated deep hint over the weekend after a number of high-profile accounts saw their price blue check marks reinstated even though some of their owners have been dead for years. Celebrities and public figures took to the platform to deny having paid for the eight-dollar amount that yields their call at stake. Despite labels stated the account is verified because they are subscribed to Twitter Blue and verified their phone numbers. Unpaid legacy boutiques which once conferred authenticity on accounts verified by the company were removed last week as part of billionaire owner Elon Musk's push for to boost revenue. I will leave you with reactions from co-founder of Black, Judge or Mosul. Business Insight returns again tomorrow. I am Justin Acadone. Many thanks for watching. Thank you so much. So personally I don't foresee any issues since Twitter has not enforced the new batch on the masses. Twitter users can continue to use the platform with or without the new batch. The organization, Twitter, needs this new revenue stream to survive. The operational costs at their current scale will not be manageable for much longer if they don't take drastic actions. And I believe that's what they're trying to do here, honestly speaking. With a number of the top advertisers going off the platform and coupled with the number of bot accounts affecting the perceived value of the company, the move to paid verified badges will ensure that the company can continue to survive. I think the concern that a lot of people have had around misrepresentation is being addressed using the affiliate badge in my opinion although some people don't like it. We had a case recently where I believe it was the BBC that was tagged or affiliated as the government-funded media and they didn't take too kindly to that for obvious reasons. So I think the challenge here, the key challenge here would be ensuring mass adoption of the new badge which means that Twitter has to ensure that people continue to find the $8 fee valuable to them. And this would mean constant and consistent innovation from the perspective of the technologies. When a product is free, people don't complain much. But once they have to pay for it, it becomes a different story altogether. Although Elon is not a stranger to running these sorts of businesses, I believe a number of the businesses that he runs actually utilize this model. So I believe if anyone can pull this off, it's probably him. And yeah, I would like to see how Tuna pulls this off and I wish him the best of luck.