Raj Patel On The Colbert Report (VIDEO)

Academic/activist/writer Raj Patel appeared on The Colbert Report Tuesday to discuss his new book, "The Value of Nothing." The title comes from a quote by Oscar Wilde, which is telling in and of itself: "Nowadays people know the price of everything and the value of nothing."

Patel argues that prices in the free market are deceiving, and that the hidden costs of our consumption can actually end up causing environmental harm. Food, for example, causes a lot of environmental damage that is not reflected in the price.

"I give the example of a $200 hamburger," Patel said. "The trouble is that it's a regular hamburger, but the fact is that if you add in the hidden costs of environmental destruction behind it for example, that cost could add up to $200."

Colbert retorts: "So are you saying that if I go to the drive-thru at a burger establishment represented by a jolly clown, that I should be paying $200 for their big burger?"

Suffice it to say, we would be eating very differently if we did pay the true value of what we eat, Patel replied.

WATCH Colbert's full interview with Patel:

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Raj Patel
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Economy

Get HuffPost Green On Facebook and Twitter!

Comments

[krz2]

01:46 AM on 01/15/2010

this may come as surprise to those educated after 1970.
HE'S A COMMUNIST.
he tries to neutralize the gag reflex with the environmental mumbo jumbo.

[jsarets]

11:01 PM on 01/16/2010

Thankfully the generations who grew up with McCarthy will eventually pass on so that future generations can have serious debates about macroeconomic theory without asinine references to Stalin or Hitler.

[Dnietz]

11:00 PM on 03/16/2010

LOL

awesome response

fanned

[biged242]

11:39 AM on 03/16/2010

OH NO! NOT A COMMUNIST! RUN FOR THE HILLS!

[krz2]

04:15 PM on 03/17/2010

please don't misunderstand, my copy of Das Kapital is the hard copy collectors edition. i'm kind of making fun of the subterfuge. I'v e got a lot more respect for Van Jones. What you see is what you get.

[Gladys1963]

03:10 PM on 01/14/2010

Mr. Patel could read me the phone book and I'd hang on every word. That accent!

[KIVPossum]

05:15 AM on 01/14/2010

He was trying to make some interesting points if Colbert had let him finish a sentence.

[leifcatt]

11:48 AM on 01/14/2010

Even though I am a fan of Colbert, I agree that he(Mr. Patel) was cut off on some interesting points.
His book sounds like it would be good reading.

[liberalNmoderation]

02:31 PM on 01/14/2010

Agreed, but he does that to ALL his guests, it's part of the Colbert persona...

[Dnietz]

11:03 PM on 03/16/2010

Yea, but all of Colbert's interviews are like that. They are less than 5 minutes long and are barely an introduction.

His show is highly rated because of its style. How can we get super picky and ask him to change it? He is a liberal that has a good show on TV. I hope he does well.

Anyone that is possibly interested, has been introduced to the subject and can go off and read about it somewhere. His show is not a platform for views or a debate.

[JScott]

02:48 AM on 01/14/2010

Yup if we all knew the gruesome details of how meat and dairy products are produced we'd probably all become vegetarian.

[leifcatt]

11:56 AM on 01/14/2010

For some maybe.
As a kid I helped slaughter animals on my grandparents and uncles farm. I was taught to be thankful that animals slaughtered for food died for my nutrition. I have no problem with eating meat. I do not like the factory farms and try to buy free range products whenever I can. I on the other hand do not eat fruit and barely eat any vegetables. I could argue that the destruction of these plants means less CO2 being absorbed. But I just don't like fruits and veggies.

[Dnietz]

11:06 PM on 03/16/2010

Uhmm....... seriously, I don't think you can compare slaughtering meat at a family farm to the food factories that exist now.

There have been several documentaries the last couple of years and all I can tell you without making you sick is that watching them will make you sick to your stomach. Go watch them and then learn how clean and healthy your family farm was compared to these factories.

I recommend not watching the documentaries on a full stomach.

[mike72]

01:14 AM on 01/14/2010

That neighboring country that produces that fabel salt is called the OPEC that produce oil.

1) All oil sold in open market must be traded in US dollars

The 7 years old needs to sew a lot of ties for some green looking printed money. His house is polluted. He can not go to school. All he knows is sewing ties which is not real skill. The tie is not edible.

2) the price of oil are set by the trading houses in Texas, not from OPEC countries

The 7 years old needs to make even more ties when the oil price gets speculated by the trading house in Texas. He spent the whole life making ties, along polluting every rivers and ponds in his living regions and still can not make enough printed US dollars to get oil or real food. And the Westerner get to wear some nice looking ties for couple days and throw it into the trash can, complaining it is cheap.

[mike72]

01:16 AM on 01/14/2010

The real cost of the tie is the pollution, missed education and resource deprivation ... the labled cost of the tie is US$8.99, with another 20% discount.

[mike72]

01:19 AM on 01/14/2010

And wasted labor. Instead of making meaningless tie hook up on a neck, the people can producing real wealth, such as growing food that can support the family.

[mike72]

01:05 AM on 01/14/2010

(Continue)

2) Why do that 7 years old will spent so much time to make a tie for a mere US cent? That is because the kid's country has to earn the meaningless US dollars to buy something else from somewhere else. For example, the family from the 7 years old might need some salt that produces from the neighboring country. Instead of growing corns (real wealth) and trade with the neighoring country to get a ton of salt and still have enough to feed the families, a large number of the 7 years olds will keep to make ties (no meaning value) so they can ship to US for some printed money called US dollars, and save enough of these printed money so they can trade with the neighboring country for a little bit of salt. The end result is, the 7 years olds are forced to make ties instead of growing corns, and with hard labor, can only make a little bit of US dollars, and then use that little bit of US dollars to buy a little bit of salt from the neighoring country.

[nowarrantforbeing]

01:21 AM on 01/14/2010

Your analysis has many flaws. Firstly, you neglect comparative advantages which is the deciding factor in international trade. The United States has no control over the production of goods of another soveriegn nation. Production is influenced by demand, the 7 year olds produce ties because they have a comparative advantage in tie makings as opposed to growing corn. Raj's arguement centers on economic externatilies, which are legitimate concerns and the basis for many subsidy policies. Your analysis is futher flawed by your misunderstanding of the role of a fiat currency in international markets.

[mike72]

01:05 AM on 01/14/2010

He has lots of good points. But he doesn't have the time to explain with Colbert keeps interrupting and highjacked the pace of the conversation.

1) the items we bought in US are artificially cheap. Their real values are much higher. But because we are so powerful and force the rest of the world to follow, or more accurately, support, our economy, the actual costs are dissipated or absorbed in the countries that develop these goods. The cost might be the pollution, missed education (the time spent by that 7 years old sewing a tie for a Westerner is the time missed in education time), the extraction of national resources to support making meaningless items for Westerners (such as a tie)

[ghee99]

11:19 PM on 01/13/2010

well, by this logic

dont watch sports, because the stadiums are subsidized

dont drink hybrids, because green technology is subsidized

dont write checks because the banks are subsidized

....and by all means never watch PBS

Of course, the smart consumer spends his or her money where it is in fact subsidized because they have already paid for it, why not get what you paid for already?

either way you bought it,
so might as well eat it.

your only decision really is...
do you want fries with that?

[Audrey Goldfarb]

11:16 PM on 01/13/2010

Eat crap and you'll pay for it alright...with obesity, disease and organ failure. YUCK!

[Gladys1963]

03:15 PM on 01/14/2010

Reminds me of Jim Gaffigan's bit on Hot Pockets. Hysterical!

[biged242]

11:45 AM on 03/16/2010

Jim Gaffigan: "There is the vegetarian Hot Pocket for those of us who don't want to eat meat, but would still like diarrhea."

[rf dude]

10:11 PM on 01/13/2010

'
It all comes out in the end...

[ghee99]

10:14 PM on 01/13/2010

"the end"

lol, i get it!

[ghee99]

10:05 PM on 01/13/2010

it would seem then, the smart thing to do would be to eat as many hamburgers, and other subsidized food as possible, to get your money's worth out of the taxes you pay

if you eat tofu, you're a sucker

eat enough of the food thats subsidized, and you might even come out ahead

[krz2]

10:01 PM on 01/13/2010

i checked out the trailer
i get it

[ghee99]

09:56 PM on 01/13/2010

stephen is funny

this guy being interviewed is spouting the most unprovable nonsense i have heard in ages

[krz2]

09:50 PM on 01/13/2010

so, what was his point, his solution?
i suppose you have to buy the book.

[sarikarkus]

08:42 PM on 01/13/2010

Patel,

Welcome to the USA. We need more like you.