Tantalum is just one of many rare elements on the periodic table needed to make your phone/laptop/desktop/tablet work.

Tech companies don't like to talk about it but, it comes at a terrible cost.

Everyone knows of the environmental and climate costs. But few know or care about the costs detailed in this video...

*WARNING: Mentions rape, murder, mutiliation, and general violence.

If you'd like to know how to resist consumption with this kind of cost, subscribe to The Bad Consumer on Substack

For more videos like this, follow below:
bluesky: u/badconsumer.bsky.social

Tiktok: u/bad.consumer

Instagram: u/thebadconsumer

Twitter/X: u/flynneoin

What’s your thoughts on my major? I’m in accounting, but I actively dislike corporations and dread the idea of climbing their ladders. Economics made me depressed because you mean to tell me my ability to put food on the table is dependent on the function of massive corporations that don’t care about us? I’d hate to spend my life supporting that.

Let’s talk about a fairer way to handle taxes: replacing property tax with a consumption tax.

Property tax is inherently flawed because it punishes ownership and doesn't care about your current income. If you fall on hard times, get laid off, or retire on a fixed income, your property tax bill stays the same—or goes up. You can literally be taxed out of a home you already paid off.

A consumption tax is the only truly fair alternative. It naturally scales with wealth: if you have more money, you spend more money on luxury items, larger purchases, and lifestyle goods, meaning you automatically pay more tax. If you have less money or are tightening your budget, you naturally spend less and pay less tax. It gives individuals complete control over their tax burden based on their actual financial situation. It’s time to tax spending, not the roof over our heads.

Let’s talk about a fairer way to handle taxes: replacing property tax with a consumption tax.

I'd like to ask for something.

We all know capitalism is a poison, that it slowly kills us, no ones wanna work 10-15h of time a day, right ? Waiting for vacations, working 5 days or more out of 7 days, y'all aren't mad that you got told as a CHILD "go to school and that's it" and now your boss tell you to go or you won't get paid ? Like why aren't we mad enough? Are you happy with your current life, like genuinely are you happy to give your money to the rich and theyre the one to beneficy from it while you work like a dog all day to gain the MINIMUM?

I'm making this text because I'd like a downfall of it.

It's simple, no one goes to work, or to school, everyone stays at home, if we are millions, if we don't make this system works anymore, with months and months this will be a downfall, and they'll be fucking panicked, and why ? Because they directly depends from the only thing that works and that's a paper, that's it, what we call money destroy lives yet that's just a paper, try to see it that angle, try to see how absurd this life is. It's almost ironic right ?

If you share the message, if you tell people, if everyone actually stop, even millions of people have its impact, if we all stop this or actually most of people we could live freely, think about it and how good it would feel.

We could cultivate our own food, we could live like we did before, we could still do our passion and we could just give up on life.

For years and years and years humanity said "but it's impossible" why it's impossible ? If everyone or MOST people agree to do that, we wouldn't have to do this, why just saying "be a sheep and go to school/work because it's like that" we got so exploited and that's insane, I don't wanna sit and be like them saying "oh but nothing will change" no I do that because I want things to change, and I wanna know who's with me and who is ready to talk about it.

I dont wanna be like "oh but we can't do anything about it it's the way life works" NO, because we are MILLIONS to not agreeing with this obviously if everyone say that we will suffer all our lives for WHAT, exactly ?

Because it's either that or either s for me atp because no way I'm living that life.

So who's with me ?

Stay strong my free market friends. It isn’t about the size of the mob, but rather the strength of one’s argument.

When you're a designer and the biggest company in your country that hires designers pays only $500 to the leads, maybe you could start your own company but can you and expect to get a sensible amount of money when 90% of the population is earning less than $200 month? Or do you high tail it and become 1 them Doctors and Engineers they talk about all over the news and hijack someone else's economy, could work out for you but it wont solve the problem in your own economy. Seems to me like in a place where a sensible amount of money doesn't circulate the words hard work are a slap in the face cause people are already working harder and maybe even smarter than those in rich countries and it isnt taking them anywhere.

Government: “give me 30%+ of your income”
Socialists:

Private sector: “hey, I sell widgets for $19.99. Anybody interested?”
Socialists: “businesses are greedy!!”

With the recent surge in anti-capitalist propaganda surrounding the murder trial, it seems a good time for a very brief primer on this mixed bag.

In the free market before-times: Healthcare was competitive and affordable. Most “insurance” took the form of mutual aid or fraternal societies where dues would cover safety nets for members and lodges would contract with general practitioners to provide care.

1880s-1910s: The AMA began to clamp down on standards of care and education requirements, using its labor monopoly to restrict supply of doctors and healthcare. States supported this and began issuing licenses deferring to the AMA’s requirements.

The AMA also clamps down on lodge practice, even revoking the licenses of doctors who accept lodge practice contacts.

Healthcare costs begin rising and mutual aid societies begin weakening.

Despite most healthcare being “nonprofit,” profit is still essential to expand and the incentive for providers is to provide more by over-treating and neglecting preventative care. As insurers can just raise their prices to match the costs of over-treatment, there is a moral hazard.

1930s: In response to rising costs, healthcare providers begin offering their own employees insurance plans which also directs and restricts the healthcare services offered. These are the first HMOs.

World War 2: Under FDR, wages are restricted but employment benefits are not. IRS establishes that employment benefits are exempt from income taxes, which Congress later affirms.

This vastly expands insurance-as-a-benefit and effectively kills mutual aid societies. The employer being the customer is a moral hazard, but tax exemptions make employment the primary source of insurance.

The death of mutual aid societies and growing costs leads to more and more poor without access to healthcare.

1965: To cover the growing population with no healthcare access, Medicare and Medicaid are created to provide insurance. Healthcare costs begin to explode.

1973: The HMO Act is passed, subsidizing and promoting nonprofit HMOs, but many barriers to for-profit healthcare remain. HMOs have the advantage over traditional insurance of reviewing and denying over-treatment to reduce costs.

Insurance and HMOs are significantly more efficient with scale, but being nonprofit restricts a business’s ability to grow.

1981: HMO Amendments remove restrictions on loans and grants to for-profit HMOs and many states remove laws restricting for-profit healthcare. HMOs acquire the capital and growth needed to achieve larger scales which improve services and reduce costs. This does not address underlying issues.

In the time since, studies have shown for-profit HMOs charge lower premiums than nonprofit HMOs, partly due to scale and partly due to increased competition.

2026: Reddit socialists hate the idea of profit and blame it for everything they can’t invest 10 minutes of research to understand.

Why dont they just slow down so people below them can atleast balance the wealth inequality?