Saying NOTHING while babbling incessantly does not equal being SANE. Rodney King asked: "can't we all get along?" The answer has clearly been NO!!! The follow-up question is: WHY? What was Wolff's sane explanation?
PROFESSOR WOLFF, YOUR EXPLANATIONS ARE JUST BRILLIANT AND EASY TO UNDERSTAND. I HAVE NEVER HAD SOMEONE GIVE SUCH A CLEAR ANSWER TO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STOCKS AND THE REAL ECONOMY. IT'S A PLEASURE TO WATCH YOUR LECTURES AND YOU FEED US WITH SO MUCH KNOWLEDGE. THANK YOU.
What did he explain? What is the REAL economy? Wouldn't you need REAL MONEY for that? But there is no REAL money, so it would be foolish to save it since the only thing it promises is that it will continue to lose value, and whatever value it pretends to is imaginary. ( proven in Aug of 1971 ) The challenge then, for all the players, is to decide which other asset will appreciate as the value of the fake money depreciates, and this is true for every currency available. So what use is Wolff's knowledge in determining what to do with your fake money, assuming you have any and are not yet buried in debt? This is basic stuff and yet Wolff remains clueless...and there is nothing REAL about what he understands.
I really appreciate your take on Tucker's personal revelations about his Russia visit. I don't agree with him often, but the last couple of years he has openly changed his mind about many things and also has professed he's allowed to change his mind on things he feels he was mistaken about. Keeping your mind open throughout your life is an important trait. Saying you were wrong is honorable.
People aspiring to be the entitled, privileged few are the problem. What the professor says makes a lot of sense. Love him. Getting away from human selfishness, and greed will probably require global failure, otherwise people will just shift to the growing economies to continue their privilege. Love this channel, and professor Wolff. ❤
From a great, lesser known book I've been reading called: "No Place Like Home: Building Sustainable Communities" the author has many great points but simply put, says "Development should focus on local production from local resources to meet local needs." This is not a selfish point of view, this is a sane, sustainable and prosperous structure to follow especially if the people of the community co-own the means of production and share in the wealth that is created. We don't need no stinkin' Wal-Marts. They are blights on society. Local shops and services that cater to their local needs are far better than big box chains. Keep in mind, this book was written in 1992! So local production is far more possible than it even was in 1992, and so there really is no excuse anymore to not produce as much local food, water, energy and other goods in the bio-region one lives in with modern technology.
@@coolioso808 WalMart is operating on a profit margin of 2.55 percent...( Oct 2023 ) s0 $100, 000 in sales would equal a profit of $2,555. What local business could compete on that level?
THANK-U- PROFESSOR WOLF UR LECTURES ARE ALWAYS ENRICHING, I HAVE NOT YET WATCHED A SINGLE EPISODE THAT DISAPPOINT ,ALWAYS LEARNING AnD ENLIGHTENING US U ARE A WEALTH OF INFORMATION. 🎯💯ACCURATE.
After 4 years following literally everything of Prof. Wolff, I keep being amazed about his clear bold righteous insights in sometimes difficult topics, and his unrivalled ability to translate those insights into words that are a pleasure to anyone to follow.
Moral posturing is NOT a solution...nor are his insights. I hope the "pleasure" you claim to be experiencing will help as the reality continues to deteriorate.
Thank you for your excellent work. Please if it is possible can explain about the effect of dedollarizayion by brics on western economics and mostly on American working class
It occurs to me, and perhaps the Chinese, that freedom and democracy is a strong government/public service that the people can trust Correct me if I’m wrong, The industrial capacity of Germany, Russia and maybe Japan are maybe each half the size of the US, China is twice our size; China and Russia are growing healthily while the US is growing at Germany’s expense if at all GDP is sort of like adding the stock market to the real economy
What would happen if the limit on annual earnings subject to social security tax is removed ? Its currently $168,600 dollars. Could you explain why it has the cap ?
Interested in hearing the opposition response to ones who ask about the Russian gov. arrest/killing made against political opposition. Also the ones who say that the price of tuckers shopping cart was half of a weekly salary in Russia. That is the American left critique I hear of Russia and I’m just interested to hear any and all opinions of that.
China has lifted 800 millions out of absolute poverty. The US has 800 military bases in 80 countries. "8" is a lucky number for the Chinese, don't know about it in the US.
It hasn't been so far. Also, as Prof Wolff suggests, you need to understand what is driving 'growth', which is capital accumulation. The solution is socialism, which does not prioritise private capital accumulation, but instead plans economic activity and thereby growth.
@@mikemurray2027 "So far" is the key phrase. So far economic growth has only polluted the air, soil & water we all depend on, not to mention depleting Earth's natural resources & the extinction of countless plant & animal species. Perpetual economic growth based on ever increasing production & consumption is doomed in a closed system with limited natural resources regardless of the amount of capital accumulation.
@@tarmotyyri6733 That's a different argument. The problem is not 'growth' per se. It is capital accumulation at the expense of the means of production: nature and human beings. But, once past capitalism, growth - in order to meet human needs and wants - can be done in ways that are sustainable, renewable, etc. Human inventiveness will never end, there will always be better materials and methods, and that will satisfy ever more wants and needs.
@@mikemurray2027 I sincerely hope that it's not just a pipe dream, but I fear mankind will destroy itself and other lifeforms on this planet before that dream ever becomes true.
90 % of the Americans are being enslaved by mounting debt due to rising health costs, university fees, car costs, housing costs and increasingly food costs. If these conditions are not removed, the rich will continue to get richer in the present system. There is one solution to this problem: namely taxing progressively and heavily the richest persons and the biggest companies in America and introducing a wealth tax.
@@jgalt308 Oh of course, I haven't gotten an answer to that question in 15 years, even when I was child that believed this stuff. Just can't help but ask sometimes still lol
Low supply, increased demand, and the devaluation of the currency. Record profits compared to what..one year to the next...or as a percentage of the return on investment?
@@jgalt308 record profits would mean nominally high profits vs ever. Adjusting for inflation may be a different story but we’re at like 3.8% core inflation so it shouldn’t be that different regardless.
@@swpdisciple There are multiple measures of inflation...and there is a singular beneficiary to using the lowest possible calculation. The first one is that all inflation-adjusted entitlements can be reduced to reflect the chosen rate. If you exclude energy and food which core inflation does, the increase in "benefits" does not reflect the reality of the increase in the cost of living. It also reflects on the interest rate paid on the national debt and all other debt...and here, even while the rhetoric was dismissive regarding inflation, the reality forced an increase in rates. The inflation rate in the 70's totaled 112% between 1971 thru 1980...so you could have had a 100% increase in profits over the previous decade...but the reality was the increase was an illusion, as the increase would have to have been 112% just to equal the value of the profits earned in the previous decade. As tax rates were not inflation-adjusted, the realized gains were taxed at the prevailing rate. In the instance where and investment began in 1970, and ended in 1980...a gain of 100% would be a loss, and the tax owed would be a further loss. Worse, if you measure inflation in terms of gold ( lawful money ) the rate has been 5000% since 1934... whereas government calculations measure it at about 2100% since 1939. So the government is the beneficiary of inflation and it can print money without end.
@@swpdisciple There are multiple measures of inflation...and there is a singular beneficiary to using the lowest possible calculation. The first one is that all inflation-adjusted entitlements can be reduced to reflect the chosen rate. If you exclude energy and food which core inflation does, the increase in "benefits" does not reflect the reality of the increase in the cost of living. It also reflects on the interest rate paid on the national debt and all other debt...and here, even while the rhetoric was dismissive regarding inflation, the reality forced an increase in rates. The inflation rate in the 70's totaled 112% between 1971 thru 1980...so you could have had a 100% increase in profits over the previous decade...but the reality was the increase was an illusion, as the increase would have to have been 112% just to equal the value of the profits earned in the previous decade. As tax rates were not inflation-adjusted, the realized gains were taxed at the prevailing rate. In the instance where and investment began in 1970, and ended in 1980...a gain of 100% would be a loss, and the tax owed would be a further loss. Worse, if you measure inflation in terms of gold ( lawful money ) the rate has been 5000% since 1934... whereas government calculations measure it at about 2100% since 1939. So the government is the beneficiary of inflation and it can print money without end.
@@swpdisciple There are multiple measures of inflation...and there is a singular beneficiary to using the lowest possible calculation. The first one is that all inflation-adjusted entitlements can be reduced to reflect the chosen rate. If you exclude energy and food which core inflation does, the increase in "benefits" does not reflect the reality of the increase in the cost of living. It also reflects on the interest rate paid on the national debt and all other debt...and here, even while the rhetoric was dismissive regarding inflation, the reality forced an increase in rates. The inflation rate in the 70's totaled 112% between 1971 thru 1980...so you could have had a 100% increase in profits over the previous decade...but the reality was the increase was an illusion, as the increase would have to have been 112% just to equal the value of the profits earned in the previous decade. As tax rates were not inflation-adjusted, the realized gains were taxed at the prevailing rate. In the instance where and investment began in 1970, and ended in 1980...a gain of 100% would be a loss, and the tax owed would be a further loss. Worse, if you measure inflation in terms of gold ( lawful money ) the rate has been 5000% since 1934... whereas government calculations measure it at about 2100% since 1939. So the government is the beneficiary of inflation and it can print money without end.
I am finding a difference around the use of the word "growth." Growth is natural, and good. It's waste, and waste mismanagement, war, scarcity, greed, as well as bad Feng Shui, inefficiency, pollution, predation, poverty, confinement, invasion, and lack of freedom that concerns me more than positive growth. Sure extreme invasion, if called growth, like colonialism, is definitely an issue. But Growth? Maybe you see my question.
In your discussion you mention several things I have problems with. Socialism isn't a part of that. Worker ownership of the means of production is not part of that and worker owned cooperatives is the way to accomplish that. I never want anyone to think that I disagree with the foundational theories of the most interesting economist. I've learned so much. I am happy to see that as you expound on the Chinese miracle you acknowledge that authoritarianism has become synonymous with Chinese government. But then you point out that perhaps Chinese people can put up with the loss of freedom and democracy for material comfort. Once they have gotten beyond starvation, that is not a fair choice. People, even Chinese people want bread and roses too. You also point out that China's growth will surpass our GDP within this decade. That's true but there is a reason. I have to remind you that China has taken a right turn. China's economy is substantially capitalist. After the revolution it wasn't intended to be capitalist at all. Furthermore, China, and to a lesser degree Brazil. India, Phillipines and other poorer countries have become American Capitalist's production facilities. That is the basis of the Chinese miracle. Watch Xi get livid and enraged whenever any American businessman threatens to manufacture elsewhere. Saber rattling ensues, both metalic sabers and economic ones. I believe that capitalism is an unstable and unfair system and the domestic hunger, homelessness, insufficient wages and lack of replacement birthrate of the West are symptomatic of the failings of capitalism. I would think you agree because I learned all that from you. But there are intellectual dishonesties lurking within the framing and conclusions you offer. How is wage slavery better than serfdom if it results over time in obscenely rich teeny minorities and growing poverty and misery of masses of people? I'm one of those low paid. Hard working working class people who could not go to college and raised two kids on low pay jobs. My visceral understanding of poverty is lifelong. I never can buy a meal I have not prepared myself. In Decmber of last year I went to the first ballet I could attend in person in over 25 years. My car, yes I have one, is 30 years old. It's a jalopy that I really cannot afford because my rent is over 50% of my income and raises roughly 10% each year while my Social Security never raises that much and usually falls far behind. IM well acquainted with poverty in America. I find it unusual that you enthusiastically find historical reasons for praising Putin and even Tucker Carleson for making the pilgrimage to Russia to sit at the feet of Trump's idol. There is a peculiar agreement between parts of the very left and all of the very right when it comes to Putin and defunding Ukraine. Listen carefully. Ukraine is the place where there was a German massacre of Jews by Nazis and Ukranians stood by and did nothing and found it good. That's my history. But I am forced to acknowledge that in more recent times, though there actually are some Nazis still there, the people of Ukraine chose independence from Russia. Yes, historically Russia dominated several breakaway countries. Ukraine was one. But after breakaway. The people of Ukraine threw out their Russian puppet and chose further independence from their bigger neighbor. That's how it was and still is. Their people are fighting to be free of Russia and hopefully for democracy too. If you are intellectually honest you would have to give the whole of North America, Central America and South America to indigenous people. Because it was theirs for a long time. That's not happening. It's a new age. Maybe we would be better off under tribal indiginous rule. That's not happening. Using your logic, perhaps all of what Germany conquered during WWII should be returned to Germany. That's not happening either. Using the same standard Israel should be an Arab country and that's not happening. This us a new age and breakaway nations of the former Soviet hegemony are now independent nations and so is Ukraine, including Crimea, and Luhansk and Donetsk too. Israel exists. I don't like their imprisonment and extreme abuse and murder of Palestinians. I don't think that Israel can continue its expansionist and authoritarian ways. But It exists. We have to deal with that wrong too, but in that case the miral thingvto do is to defund Netanyahu's war and demand peace. There is a moral difference between Putin invading Ukraine and Netanyahu comitting ethnic cleansing. Given all this, RUSSIA UNILATERALLY AND DELIBERATELY INVADED UKRAINE, first in Crimea and then in Luhansk and Donetsk. Ite real intent is to claw back all of Ukraine under Russian dominance and to reconstruct the Soviet hegemony and Putin will be the Czar of all of it. I really am not so attached to Ukraine and it's history wounded my own family. But Russia is wrong in starting this vicious war. Your precious Putin is at fault here and no Trump or Wolff will convince me otherwise. I see nothing redeemable in Trump and his fascist undemocratic rabble. I see something redeemable in you and the left. The left is betraying all of it's history by throwing democracy away to gain more repression. At last, the end of this rant. Democracy wedded to socialism with the people owning the means of production is where we must go. Exposing capitalism's many failures but also excusing repressive authoritarians is worse than unhelpful. That's how you frame the discussion. You dangle progress before people who are sliding into economic difficulty in our country and subtley toss out democracy. Ugh!
My only real issue with Prof Wolff is, and I know he says he doesn't endorse the Chinese government, but when you keep holding them up as an example of progress, it seems like and implicit endorsement. Besides, China is state capitalism. They are very very far from a democratic government much less democratic workplace, in fact I would say they are the complete opposite of what the Prof advocates.
My goodness! Russia hasn't been USSR for 40 years, totally westernalized ever since, eith all proper consumer infrastructure and even better than in thr US and yet "Americans had no idea"😅 Is THIS the indicator of human values or a democracy?
Professor Wolff schools Lex Fridman on economics and how he would run a business, or how he thinks business should work, or.....????? The following was an excerpt from a three-hour interview with Lex where Wolff offers the following example of his understanding of all of the above and titled "Why Capitalism Fails." An employer hires 100 employees as labor to produce "whatever", for $100 and then spends another $100 on the materials the production requires. From this, he receives $20 profit and repeats the process. He then purchases a machine that replaces 50% of his workforce...so he does. Wolff disapproves of this as labor is always exploited ( except in the case of Mr and Mrs Smith who agree to sell their business to their employees ) and he suggests that all the employees should be retained at the same rate of pay, while only working half the hours. ( because labor is 100% responsible for what is being produced. ) This is similar to "other examples" he has offered in his attempt to sell the "democratically run workplace where the "employees" decide what to produce, when to produce, and how to produce as well as what to do with the profits." Now this example is completely flawed and so detached from reality that it is impossible to take it seriously...except on this site. ( echo chamber ) So I leave it to YOU, to decide whether to attempt to defend this idea or see how many flaws you can find pointing out a singular one that as an "existing business" all that what to produce stuff has already been determined, as it would be for any "existing business". Will those who have been "brilliantly educated" by the Professor respond with anything intelligently relevant or substantive? We shall see. *For those with reading comprehension difficulties. Your mission, if you decide to accept it, is to analyze the scenario presented by the Professor and to determine if it is a viable strategy. What are the prospects for its success? Does it provoke questions regarding the elements offered? It should be noted that while the example is suggestive of Wolff's co-op model of a democratic workplace in his alternative solution to firing the replaced workforce, the example itself is the standard, employer owner, employee worker that is the current capitalist structure. SEVENTH ATTEMPT...still waiting for anything intelligently relevant or substantive.
Usually agree with the Professor but disagree with him on Putin. As a Canadian we were not taught the same hatred towards the former USSR so this is not a Russia bashing comment. In school we were shown some of the contributions they gave to the world, but Putin is corrupt and many of his talking points are straight up bs. Yes, we do the same but that still doesn't make it right.
@@bluesmansunnyfournier4727Heard a lot of stupid things since MAGA came about, but that one tops it all. Putin is an authoritarian, Trudeau is useless. I'll take useless one.
![Global Capitalism: Europe 2024: Disunity, Decline, Despair [February 2024]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/8OB4p4_Sr0w/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you so much Professor Wolff.
Of great value !!!
As always .
Thank you Professor Wolff, you're one of the few sane voices left out there, and a great comfort to listen to.
Saying NOTHING while babbling incessantly does not equal being SANE.
Rodney King asked: "can't we all get along?"
The answer has clearly been NO!!! The follow-up question is: WHY?
What was Wolff's sane explanation?
PROFESSOR WOLFF, YOUR EXPLANATIONS ARE JUST BRILLIANT AND EASY TO UNDERSTAND. I HAVE NEVER HAD SOMEONE GIVE SUCH A CLEAR ANSWER TO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STOCKS AND THE REAL ECONOMY. IT'S A PLEASURE TO WATCH YOUR LECTURES AND YOU FEED US WITH SO MUCH KNOWLEDGE. THANK YOU.
He is such a good teacher
What did he explain? What is the REAL economy? Wouldn't you need REAL MONEY for that?
But there is no REAL money, so it would be foolish to save it since the only thing
it promises is that it will continue to lose value, and whatever value it pretends to is
imaginary. ( proven in Aug of 1971 )
The challenge then, for all the players, is to decide which other asset will appreciate
as the value of the fake money depreciates, and this is true for every currency available.
So what use is Wolff's knowledge in determining what to do with your fake money,
assuming you have any and are not yet buried in debt?
This is basic stuff and yet Wolff remains clueless...and there is nothing REAL
about what he understands.
I really appreciate your take on Tucker's personal revelations about his Russia visit. I don't agree with him often, but the last couple of years he has openly changed his mind about many things and also has professed he's allowed to change his mind on things he feels he was mistaken about. Keeping your mind open throughout your life is an important trait. Saying you were wrong is honorable.
This man is beyond brilliant.
People aspiring to be the entitled, privileged few are the problem. What the professor says makes a lot of sense. Love him. Getting away from human selfishness, and greed will probably require global failure, otherwise people will just shift to the growing economies to continue their privilege. Love this channel, and professor Wolff. ❤
I love this line for the nations: Sustainability is your way to prosperity!
From a great, lesser known book I've been reading called: "No Place Like Home: Building Sustainable Communities" the author has many great points but simply put, says "Development should focus on local production from local resources to meet local needs." This is not a selfish point of view, this is a sane, sustainable and prosperous structure to follow especially if the people of the community co-own the means of production and share in the wealth that is created.
We don't need no stinkin' Wal-Marts. They are blights on society. Local shops and services that cater to their local needs are far better than big box chains.
Keep in mind, this book was written in 1992! So local production is far more possible than it even was in 1992, and so there really is no excuse anymore to not produce as much local food, water, energy and other goods in the bio-region one lives in with modern technology.
Thank you for your prescient reply.@@coolioso808
@@coolioso808 WalMart is operating on a profit margin of 2.55 percent...( Oct 2023 )
s0 $100, 000 in sales would equal a profit of $2,555.
What local business could compete on that level?
If you are an intellectual then think in terms of game theory.
A beacon of hope
Thank you for your humanitarian way.
Another Great show
Thank you Mr. Wolff.
Thank you, Professor Wolff., It was an interesting class!
THANK-U- PROFESSOR WOLF
UR LECTURES ARE ALWAYS ENRICHING, I HAVE NOT YET WATCHED A SINGLE EPISODE THAT DISAPPOINT ,ALWAYS LEARNING AnD ENLIGHTENING US U ARE A WEALTH OF INFORMATION.
🎯💯ACCURATE.
So glad I went back to catch the second half, really great work here!
After 4 years following literally everything of Prof. Wolff, I keep being amazed about his clear bold righteous insights in sometimes difficult topics, and his unrivalled ability to translate those insights into words that are a pleasure to anyone to follow.
Moral posturing is NOT a solution...nor are his insights.
I hope the "pleasure" you claim to be experiencing will help as the reality continues
to deteriorate.
Thanks
Great information Mr. Wolff… Once again thank you for this invaluable education.
If it were Hudson the education would be far better, and he would probably
be able to answer the actual questions that were asked.
@@jgalt308 lol.. my correction.. Professor Wolff
@@BlUESKIES1178 No problem...without it, plugging Hudson's work
would not have been possible.
Love this! Congrats!
2:50 start
thanks prof
Great Richard, thank you
Hasta la Victoria✌
Thank you for your excellent work. Please if it is possible can explain about the effect of dedollarizayion by brics on western economics and mostly on American working class
Starts at 2:50
Thank you so much for your description of the relationship of the stock market and the real economy.
It occurs to me, and perhaps the Chinese, that freedom and democracy is a strong government/public service that the people can trust
Correct me if I’m wrong,
The industrial capacity of Germany, Russia and maybe Japan are maybe each half the size of the US, China is twice our size;
China and Russia are growing healthily while the US is growing at Germany’s expense if at all
GDP is sort of like adding the stock market to the real economy
What would happen if the limit on annual earnings subject to social security tax is removed ? Its currently $168,600 dollars. Could you explain why it has the cap ?
Thank, FDR, fiat, socialism, and an unconstitutional criminal government.
Interested in hearing the opposition response to ones who ask about the Russian gov. arrest/killing made against political opposition. Also the ones who say that the price of tuckers shopping cart was half of a weekly salary in Russia. That is the American left critique I hear of Russia and I’m just interested to hear any and all opinions of that.
Btw I’m a huge fan of this show and what dr Wolfe says. Just interested in stats and onions is all.
China has lifted 800 millions out of absolute poverty. The US has 800 military bases in 80 countries. "8" is a lucky number for the Chinese, don't know about it in the US.
Capitalism has lifted most of the world out of poverty...and when China's costs become
too high, the baton will be passed to the next low-cost market.
1st Question about Degrowth: better off seeing what Andrewism, Our Changing Climate, Think That Through, and JohntheDuncan have to say on the topic.
💗🍃🙏🏻
👍💐
What is the difference between the wealth of the top 1 percent and the 10 percent
🇫🇮❤ Perpetual economic growth is impossible in a closed system like our planet.
It hasn't been so far. Also, as Prof Wolff suggests, you need to understand what is driving 'growth', which is capital accumulation. The solution is socialism, which does not prioritise private capital accumulation, but instead plans economic activity and thereby growth.
@@mikemurray2027 "So far" is the key phrase. So far economic growth has only polluted the air, soil & water we all depend on, not to mention depleting Earth's natural resources & the extinction of countless plant & animal species. Perpetual economic growth based on ever increasing production & consumption is doomed in a closed system with limited natural resources regardless of the amount of capital accumulation.
@@tarmotyyri6733 That's a different argument. The problem is not 'growth' per se. It is capital accumulation at the expense of the means of production: nature and human beings. But, once past capitalism, growth - in order to meet human needs and wants - can be done in ways that are sustainable, renewable, etc. Human inventiveness will never end, there will always be better materials and methods, and that will satisfy ever more wants and needs.
@@mikemurray2027 I sincerely hope that it's not just a pipe dream, but I fear mankind will destroy itself and other lifeforms on this planet before that dream ever becomes true.
@@tarmotyyri6733 If we survive nuclear destruction and overcome capitalism, humanity has a bright future.
An economy is a kinetic system,
A stock market is potential capital that can be moved anywhere in the world or lost in devaluation
90 % of the Americans are being enslaved by mounting debt due to rising health costs, university fees, car costs, housing costs and increasingly food costs. If these conditions are not removed, the rich will continue to get richer in the present system.
There is one solution to this problem: namely taxing progressively and heavily the richest persons and the biggest companies in America and introducing a wealth tax.
What's the first step for this plan?
@@wav3st3p16 supporting it.
@@wav3st3p16 There is no plan...it's just rhetoric with no clue
what the problem is or how to fix it.
@@jgalt308 Oh of course, I haven't gotten an answer to that question in 15 years, even when I was child that believed this stuff. Just can't help but ask sometimes still lol
23:00 how do we explain record profits?
Low supply, increased demand, and the devaluation of the currency.
Record profits compared to what..one year to the next...or as a percentage of the return
on investment?
@@jgalt308 record profits would mean nominally high profits vs ever. Adjusting for inflation may be a different story but we’re at like 3.8% core inflation so it shouldn’t be that different regardless.
@@swpdisciple There are multiple measures of inflation...and there is a singular
beneficiary to using the lowest possible calculation.
The first one is that all inflation-adjusted entitlements can be reduced to reflect the chosen
rate. If you exclude energy and food which core inflation does, the increase in "benefits"
does not reflect the reality of the increase in the cost of living.
It also reflects on the interest rate paid on the national debt and all other debt...and here,
even while the rhetoric was dismissive regarding inflation, the reality forced an increase
in rates.
The inflation rate in the 70's totaled 112% between 1971 thru 1980...so you could have had
a 100% increase in profits over the previous decade...but the reality was the increase was
an illusion, as the increase would have to have been 112% just to equal the value
of the profits earned in the previous decade. As tax rates were not inflation-adjusted,
the realized gains were taxed at the prevailing rate. In the instance where and investment
began in 1970, and ended in 1980...a gain of 100% would be a loss, and the tax owed
would be a further loss.
Worse, if you measure inflation in terms of gold ( lawful money ) the rate has been 5000%
since 1934... whereas government calculations measure it at about 2100% since 1939.
So the government is the beneficiary of inflation and it can print money without end.
@@swpdisciple There are multiple measures of inflation...and there is a singular
beneficiary to using the lowest possible calculation.
The first one is that all inflation-adjusted entitlements can be reduced to reflect the chosen
rate. If you exclude energy and food which core inflation does, the increase in "benefits"
does not reflect the reality of the increase in the cost of living.
It also reflects on the interest rate paid on the national debt and all other debt...and here,
even while the rhetoric was dismissive regarding inflation, the reality forced an increase
in rates.
The inflation rate in the 70's totaled 112% between 1971 thru 1980...so you could have had
a 100% increase in profits over the previous decade...but the reality was the increase was
an illusion, as the increase would have to have been 112% just to equal the value
of the profits earned in the previous decade. As tax rates were not inflation-adjusted,
the realized gains were taxed at the prevailing rate. In the instance where and investment
began in 1970, and ended in 1980...a gain of 100% would be a loss, and the tax owed
would be a further loss.
Worse, if you measure inflation in terms of gold ( lawful money ) the rate has been 5000%
since 1934... whereas government calculations measure it at about 2100% since 1939.
So the government is the beneficiary of inflation and it can print money without end.
@@swpdisciple There are multiple measures of inflation...and there is a singular
beneficiary to using the lowest possible calculation.
The first one is that all inflation-adjusted entitlements can be reduced to reflect the chosen
rate. If you exclude energy and food which core inflation does, the increase in "benefits"
does not reflect the reality of the increase in the cost of living.
It also reflects on the interest rate paid on the national debt and all other debt...and here,
even while the rhetoric was dismissive regarding inflation, the reality forced an increase
in rates.
The inflation rate in the 70's totaled 112% between 1971 thru 1980...so you could have had
a 100% increase in profits over the previous decade...but the reality was the increase was
an illusion, as the increase would have to have been 112% just to equal the value
of the profits earned in the previous decade. As tax rates were not inflation-adjusted,
the realized gains were taxed at the prevailing rate. In the instance where and investment
began in 1970, and ended in 1980...a gain of 100% would be a loss, and the tax owed
would be a further loss.
Worse, if you measure inflation in terms of gold ( lawful money ) the rate has been 5000%
since 1934... whereas government calculations measure it at about 2100% since 1939.
So the government is the beneficiary of inflation and it can print money without end.
The war in Ukraine didn't start in februari 2022, it started in 2014.
I am finding a difference around the use of the word "growth." Growth is natural, and good. It's waste, and waste mismanagement, war, scarcity, greed, as well as bad Feng Shui, inefficiency, pollution, predation, poverty, confinement, invasion, and lack of freedom that concerns me more than positive growth. Sure extreme invasion, if called growth, like colonialism, is definitely an issue. But Growth? Maybe you see my question.
Not here...and as demonstrated he doesn't even see them in the chat...
even when that person PAID him to answer it.
In your discussion you mention several things I have problems with. Socialism isn't a part of that. Worker ownership of the means of production is not part of that and worker owned cooperatives is the way to accomplish that. I never want anyone to think that I disagree with the foundational theories of the most interesting economist. I've learned so much.
I am happy to see that as you expound on the Chinese miracle you acknowledge that authoritarianism has become synonymous with Chinese government. But then you point out that perhaps Chinese people can put up with the loss of freedom and democracy for material comfort. Once they have gotten beyond starvation, that is not a fair choice. People, even Chinese people want bread and roses too. You also point out that China's growth will surpass our GDP within this decade. That's true but there is a reason.
I have to remind you that China has taken a right turn. China's economy is substantially capitalist. After the revolution it wasn't intended to be capitalist at all. Furthermore, China, and to a lesser degree Brazil. India, Phillipines and other poorer countries have become American Capitalist's production facilities. That is the basis of the Chinese miracle. Watch Xi get livid and enraged whenever any American businessman threatens to manufacture elsewhere. Saber rattling ensues, both metalic sabers and economic ones.
I believe that capitalism is an unstable and unfair system and the domestic hunger, homelessness, insufficient wages and lack of replacement birthrate of the West are symptomatic of the failings of capitalism. I would think you agree because I learned all that from you.
But there are intellectual dishonesties lurking within the framing and conclusions you offer. How is wage slavery better than serfdom if it results over time in obscenely rich teeny minorities and growing poverty and misery of masses of people? I'm one of those low paid. Hard working working class people who could not go to college and raised two kids on low pay jobs. My visceral understanding of poverty is lifelong. I never can buy a meal I have not prepared myself. In Decmber of last year I went to the first ballet I could attend in person in over 25 years. My car, yes I have one, is 30 years old. It's a jalopy that I really cannot afford because my rent is over 50% of my income and raises roughly 10% each year while my Social Security never raises that much and usually falls far behind. IM well acquainted with poverty in America.
I find it unusual that you enthusiastically find historical reasons for praising Putin and even Tucker Carleson for making the pilgrimage to Russia to sit at the feet of Trump's idol. There is a peculiar agreement between parts of the very left and all of the very right when it comes to Putin and defunding Ukraine.
Listen carefully. Ukraine is the place where there was a German massacre of Jews by Nazis and Ukranians stood by and did nothing and found it good. That's my history. But I am forced to acknowledge that in more recent times, though there actually are some Nazis still there, the people of Ukraine chose independence from Russia.
Yes, historically Russia dominated several breakaway countries. Ukraine was one. But after breakaway. The people of Ukraine threw out their Russian puppet and chose further independence from their bigger neighbor. That's how it was and still is. Their people are fighting to be free of Russia and hopefully for democracy too.
If you are intellectually honest you would have to give the whole of North America, Central America and South America to indigenous people. Because it was theirs for a long time. That's not happening. It's a new age. Maybe we would be better off under tribal indiginous rule. That's not happening. Using your logic, perhaps all of what Germany conquered during WWII should be returned to Germany. That's not happening either. Using the same standard Israel should be an Arab country and that's not happening. This us a new age and breakaway nations of the former Soviet hegemony are now independent nations and so is Ukraine, including Crimea, and Luhansk and Donetsk too.
Israel exists. I don't like their imprisonment and extreme abuse and murder of Palestinians. I don't think that Israel can continue its expansionist and authoritarian ways. But It exists. We have to deal with that wrong too, but in that case the miral thingvto do is to defund Netanyahu's war and demand peace. There is a moral difference between Putin invading Ukraine and Netanyahu comitting ethnic cleansing.
Given all this, RUSSIA UNILATERALLY AND DELIBERATELY INVADED UKRAINE, first in Crimea and then in Luhansk and Donetsk. Ite real intent is to claw back all of Ukraine under Russian dominance and to reconstruct the Soviet hegemony and Putin will be the Czar of all of it. I really am not so attached to Ukraine and it's history wounded my own family. But Russia is wrong in starting this vicious war. Your precious Putin is at fault here and no Trump or Wolff will convince me otherwise. I see nothing redeemable in Trump and his fascist undemocratic rabble. I see something redeemable in you and the left. The left is betraying all of it's history by throwing democracy away to gain more repression.
At last, the end of this rant. Democracy wedded to socialism with the people owning the means of production is where we must go. Exposing capitalism's many failures but also excusing repressive authoritarians is worse than unhelpful. That's how you frame the discussion. You dangle progress before people who are sliding into economic difficulty in our country and subtley toss out democracy. Ugh!
My only real issue with Prof Wolff is, and I know he says he doesn't endorse the Chinese government, but when you keep holding them up as an example of progress, it seems like and implicit endorsement. Besides, China is state capitalism. They are very very far from a democratic government much less democratic workplace, in fact I would say they are the complete opposite of what the Prof advocates.
My goodness! Russia hasn't been USSR for 40 years, totally westernalized ever since, eith all proper consumer infrastructure and even better than in thr US and yet "Americans had no idea"😅 Is THIS the indicator of human values or a democracy?
Growth is a BS way to prove things are improving
LOUDER! THE MF'S IN THE BACK CANT HEAR YOU!
Professor Wolff schools Lex Fridman on economics and how he would run a business, or how he thinks business should work, or.....?????
The following was an excerpt from a three-hour interview with Lex where Wolff offers the following example of his understanding of all of the above and titled "Why Capitalism Fails."
An employer hires 100 employees as labor to produce "whatever", for $100 and then spends another $100 on the materials the production requires. From this, he receives $20 profit and repeats the process. He then purchases a machine that replaces 50% of his workforce...so he does.
Wolff disapproves of this as labor is always exploited ( except in the case of Mr and Mrs Smith who agree to sell their business to their employees ) and he suggests that all the employees should be retained at the same rate of pay, while only working half the hours. ( because labor is 100% responsible for what is being produced. )
This is similar to "other examples" he has offered in his attempt to sell the "democratically run workplace where the "employees" decide what to produce, when to produce, and how to produce as well as what to do with the profits."
Now this example is completely flawed and so detached from reality that it is impossible to take it seriously...except on this site. ( echo chamber )
So I leave it to YOU, to decide whether to attempt to defend this idea or see how many flaws you can find pointing out a singular one that as an "existing business" all that what to produce stuff has already been determined, as it would be for any "existing business".
Will those who have been "brilliantly educated" by the Professor respond with anything intelligently relevant or substantive? We shall see.
*For those with reading comprehension difficulties.
Your mission, if you decide to accept it, is to analyze the scenario presented by the Professor and to determine if it is a viable strategy. What are the prospects for its success? Does it provoke questions regarding the elements offered? It should be noted that while the example is suggestive of Wolff's co-op model of a democratic workplace in his alternative solution to firing the replaced workforce, the example itself is the standard, employer owner, employee worker that is the current capitalist structure.
SEVENTH ATTEMPT...still waiting for anything intelligently relevant or substantive.
You think you know so much; so, do your own show.
Still waiting....
@@jgalt308It's gonna be a long wait...
@@wav3st3p16 Looks like it...and nobody seems overjoyed that the workers
replaced by the machine have been freed from exploitation.
Usually agree with the Professor but disagree with him on Putin.
As a Canadian we were not taught the same hatred towards the former USSR so this is not a Russia bashing comment.
In school we were shown some of the contributions they gave to the world, but Putin is corrupt and many of his talking points are straight up bs.
Yes, we do the same but that still doesn't make it right.
What evidence do you have that Putin is corrupt?
As a Canadian. I'll take Putin over Trudeau. Cheers from Cambodia.
@@bluesmansunnyfournier4727Heard a lot of stupid things since MAGA came about, but that one tops it all. Putin is an authoritarian, Trudeau is useless. I'll take useless one.
Starts at 2:51
👍💐