Video's been up for 8 minutes and already has one Dislike. That tells you the person automatically clicked the "Thumbs Down" and didn't even watch the video.
One person in 21 is an abject idiot at the moment I'm watching. Overall it's i in 135 views. You know there are a-holes waiting to see an Economic Update video uploaded so they can jump in and dislike it. Usually without bothering to watch.
@@JorgePicco How do you "automatically" like something without first watching it? Not a very discriminating application of critical thinking imho. That's the stuff of sycophants. I am a fan of Wolff, but I certainly don't concur with everything he says such that I would blindly "like" his ideas. A little skepticism is in order.
@@jasonbrown9845 Most new traders make the mistake of trying to trade on their own, without having the required skills to benefit from the market. I was once like that, but it all changed thanks to an expert.
Prof. Wolff being in Academia who should know that Capitalism is about the employer taking the lion share of intellectual property rights simply because they employ you. Even though the university administration had no part in the intellectual property. Paying Deans of schools of departments a cut of profitability derived by ipr demand of the university is not a success of capitalism.
Professor Wolff, I appreciate the clarity and concise answers that you bring to economic matters. I'm from Denmark and I can confirm that the Danish welfare system is strong and economically sound. Our welfare system follows a hybrid model where the government provides first class social services combined with a modern but regulated market. The best of both worlds, socialism and capitalism combined. When we look to America we simply don't understand how Americans, for decades, have rejected obvious rational socialist ideas such as free health care and free education etc. As you have so brilliantly explained, this is the result of 75 years of anti-communism hysteria and 40 years of neo-liberal politics that have demonized and removed socialist ideas from public discussion in America. This must change. We are observing America, hoping they will do the right thing and vote Bernie 2020! The world depends on it.
It isn't "free" if someone other poor soul had to pay for YOUR choices with their labor "taxes." It would be free if you had your own "account" that was funded with natural renewable resources such as planting tree farms that are harvested for paper and lumber. No one is entitled to another's time or labor. Income taxes = slavery.
@@pasaulissurezisuotas2617 I do pay property taxes and so do all renters. Renters just pay for it as part of their "rent." And, that is why no one really "owns" property.
What is possible in Denmark, a nation with a relatively small and homogeneous population is far more difficult to achieve than in a society where these conditions are absent. Thanks, in part, to the initiatives advanced during the first half of the 20th century by the Retsforbundet (Justice) Party in Denmark, your society has escaped the wealth-concentrating consequences of landed privilege. One of the great political leaders produced in Denmark was Bue Bjorner. Others who helped form and served in the Justice Party also deserve credit for work on social policy. Dr. Viggo Starcke also comes to mind, who served as Premier during the 1950s.
I recommend Varoufakis' book "Talking to my Daughter about the economy". It's not too long, and written in a very accessible way. You can get the e-book version for free at libgen.is Link: libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=2647147612B3A216E4135DDFA4F172A6
You need to listen to Prof. Michael Hudson. Best economist alive today. You will want to see all his videos. He has written many books on debt and the social consequences. More importantly, how to solve the crisis... ruclips.net/video/XpG_BCDQ-jE/видео.html
*Allicia* - I subbed to Economic Update after watching two videos. :) I also watch every video that Stacey Herbert and Max Kieser make too. It seems to me that both hosts do not use esoteric speech.
Allicia Michael Hudson said , “ If you follow economics that is taught in The universities history doesn’t make sense but if you follow history then the economics taught in the universities don’t make sense” so don’t feel bad because we’ve all been duped and confused. “ when the truth comes it knocks out falsehoods brains” Holy Qur’an.
One of the biggest mobile rechnology firms in the world and world leader in new tech is a 'workers cooperative' - the ceo and founder of that tech giant as an individual owns the lion's share of the stock - he owns 0.5%. The bilk of the shares are owned by the workers. Of course that company is Huawei - I guess that's why rhe US is so afraid of them - that sort ownership is so unamerican better to have the wealth concentrated in the hands of a few oligarchs (sarcasm).
@@photon-9551 Although, it looks like Huawei is not a workers coop as this is usually understood in the West. From Wikipedia (not sure how accurate this is), around half of the shares are owned by a 'trade union commitee', which apparently is under control of the Communist Party of China. In any case, I wouldn't say Trump even knows any of this, let alone it being the reason behind the attack on Huawei.
LOL you act like the USA doesn't have a 100+ year old multibillion dollar cooperative network. I'm guessing you haven't heard of the NCB, CHS inc, the NRECA, or the NAHC? Are you familiar with ANY co-op in the USA?
In addition to Wolff's points, here are a few more: To promote an economic system purely based on its increase in its standard of living is judging a single tree in a forest. Economic systems are inevitably tied with political systems and the ramifications there of. Looking at past history, if you make a comparison, the USSR achieved great economic development and reduced poverty, so did the Nazi party to post wwi Germany, as did ancient China under the emperor system, as did the slave system between 1750-1850s. To evaluate systems, or worse yet, to justify the lack of morals of a system by economic development is not a sound point. The key advantage of the type of socialism that wolff preaches is to remove the transactional element in human dealings, getting back to respecting individuals and having some intrinsic value other than just 'how much can you work and how much do i have to pay you'. Secondly, the world improvement in standard of living, since 1970 to now, is largely not the result of capitalism. China and India, by numbers, contributed to the vast majority in reduction in absolute poverty. While there may be arguments that China is not entirely socialist and it is true, but their state controls most of the key industries and have maintained so many interference in markets and foreign exchange, it is hardly capitalism by the neoliberal definition. They lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty while US income stagnated. The argument that 'capitalism should be maintained since it reduces poverty' isnt even true for the last 50 ish years.
Thank you for pointing this out. Prof Wolff continues to refer to China as socialist, though many would hardly describe it as a socialist economy. Indeed, describing today's China's economy as socialist is to fall for the propagandistic trick employed by the Communist Party of China that their economic system is "socialism with Chinese characteristics". What it is instead is a highly regulated mixed economy dominated by an authoritarian state, similar to yet different from Singapore which the neoliberals love to bits.
To quote from one Singaporean political leader; “Governance is fundamentally about improving the lives of our people, to enable them to fulfil their potential and aspirations.” This would be one great aspect (a very important one) to judge the achievement of the current ruling party, political system, or administration. I trust this reinforce one of the point Prof Wolff has been expounding.
What ideas? He made some extremely reductive arguments against criticisms socialism receives, said communist Russia and China weren’t that bad by a certain metric, again reductionist, then said the Scandinavian countries call themselves and or lean socialist, when they are clearly hyper capitalistic even more than the US.
Also, saying the USSSR and China did not succeed because they have only one political party (completely ignoring the theory if the dictatorship of the proletariat, by the way), does not take into account the fact that in EVERY capitalist country, the political parties in power are only changing faces and colors, but the policies remain more of less the same; policies that benefit capitalists (corporations and big businesses) and almost never benefit the people at large. So, if you're gonna measure the success or failure of a system by their political freedom, then capitalism has been a BIG failure.
@@miguelthealpaca8971 it's literally free knowledge, usually you have to pay for what he saying for and sit in a college class. That just why I appreciate what he does.
Dr. Wolff : I like the comment that you may have made earlier in one of your videos : “ . . . we have socialism for the military industrial complex . . . ‘“.
I had been living in China for many years and I can tell you that most of Chinese people have quite high standard of living. In fact the life there is much more convenient and comfortable than most of the western countries, not to mention it has got the best infrastructure.The most impressive thing is it’s safety, yes it is one of the safest countries to live. I have to say that China is a country has been long misunderstood and undervalued due to the western political propaganda.
I like this ethos! Honestly responding to critics is the best way for your ideas to gain ground. If you only refer to people that already agree with you you won't make much of a progress. Thank you Dr!
“Socialism" is a dirty word to many Americans but not for those who are "too big to fail"....So make sure you get big enough, then you can be "protected" from becoming the statistics of poverty.....
Based on my experience I expected the 3 criticisms to be as follows: 1. Communism is bad because it’s bad, so you’re wrong I win 2. Capitalism is good, and the free market is good; therefore you’re wrong 3. Haven’t you heard of Venezuela and the Soviet Union
@@ac1dP1nk and nota. I feel your reasoning, but I do not see the mechanics of your points playing out. I think with out the profit motivation why try something? This is not to defend the profit motivation but to critique the systems that only support the profit motivation with in innovation. So how do you provide incentives for non profit behaviors. Enter valueism.
The risk is so significant. I've experienced how it works. Also, the opportunity cost of allowing blocking of progress is rarely calculated or estimated. It is a very high cost.
Fundamental difference between slavery and capitalism is slavers had to buy their workers, capitalist rent them. What do you treat better, your own car that you purchased or the rental you picked up at the airport?
I get your point, but I must say that given the choice I would rather rent myself out than be property. I think the term "wage slave" actually diminishes the concept of slavery as the abominable practice of owning people. Capitalist wages for labor is not fair and keeps the wealth gap growing, but it is not as immoral as slavery.
@@munstrumridcully However, in slavery the slave is livestock at least and must be housed and nourished. Not true in capitalism. Look at the Disney workers living in tent cities and requiring food stamps to simply exist. Freedom like that has all of the privations of slavery with none of the benefits. Like livestock abandoned and left to die in the desert.
@@munstrumridcully I disagree. In fact, I think all that rationalization serves is to obfuscate and downplay the immorality (and irrationality) of wage-slavery. It's almost another form of 'whataboutism' as well, because it's like saying 'at least your not chattel slaves, it could be worse, count your lucky stars, be grateful, etc.' It also reminds me of 'Stockholm Syndrome.' We are conditioned to accept this level of slavery much like the population back in the 18th and 19th Century US was conditioned to accept the reality of chattel slavery. It's just more difficult for us to recognize this from the inside I think (like it seems to have been for all of the primitive cultural customs/traditions throughout history.) But give it time. The more I learn, the more clear it all becomes.
The argument that capitalism pulls people out of poverty is based on the idea that growth for the capitalist and growth for the worker is connected, and that both groups' interests complement each other. In reality it's the exact opposite. The capitalist makes money precisely from denying more to the workers, and by accumulating more and more. The rate of profit is constantly falling and the capitalist needs to exploit us more in order to maintain more profits. Imperialism, social democracy, and credit are the only things keeping capitalism remotely alive. The crisis gets stronger every day hence why the capitalists continue to try and reduce what the workers have. The less we have, the more they have.
Hi professor, here I am watching an old show of yours. Boy howdy do I enjoy listening to you. Once again, although belated, I have concurred on every word of yours. Thank you sir. Peace.
Another criticism of the "capitalism reduced poverty" claim: The gains came from industrial production. In capitalist societies it was driven by profit incentive, and in more socialist countries by the pressure to improve standards of living (for example, to improve the lives of destitute Russian serfs). This huge increase in productivity allowed for fewer and fewer people to live in destitute poverty. But in capitalist societies, the bulk of production was aimed at those with the money to buy it - making it an absurdly inefficient way to distribute the increased production of industrialism. The very system itself meant that increased production reached those who needed it last. The reason why some capitalist countries have low levels of absolute poverty is firstly, as Prof Wolff says, because people agitated to demand the government step in and distribute production more evenly, but secondly because the levels of production got so vast that even the crumbs that fell to the floor were enough to keep people from starving or going unclothed. But that's a criminally inefficient way of using production - only addressing the needs of the most desperate when the amount of production is so overwhelming that it's pretty much cluttering up the place. Even the social-democracies of Scandinavia and Keral, India, were able to easily take a short-cut by mandating more efficient distriubtion - which is why Kerala in the '70s, despite being in an impoverished 3rd world country, had health outcomes equivalent to the United States which was then, as now, the biggest economy on Earth.
@BeGood 2Me eh not realy thinga got much worse after the Soviet Union. i.e. only now aftet 30(!) Years are standars of life expectancy recovering. i.stack.imgur.com/8Fj8E.png With far better trchnology available 2day mind you. Also if I recall correctly the GDP dropped by 30% would have to look that up again... So tldr life was objectifly worse under capitalist oligarchy
On "capitalism"and "poverty" the argument of proponents of minimal government intervention argue that "free markets" will operate to reduce poverty. The less regulation, the less poverty. This is a theoretical and philosophical argument. There has always been significant government intervention but throughout most of history intervention to secure and protect a privileged elite. The system that existed prior to the establishment of labor unions and progressive legislative actions was in reality, driven by privilege under law, by monopolies protected by law and the police powers of the state. So, a real question to be discussed is what would happen to poverty in the absence of monopoly privilege? Would we enjoy true full employment and an end to poverty (by all meaningful measurements)? Would the current redistribution of wealth that occurs from producers to non-producing "rentier" interests end? Would we experience a just distribution of income and wealth?
@@TobeornottooB Good question to raise. From my perspective, full employment is a state in which there are always more jobs looking for people than people looking for jobs. Thus, anyone who needs the assistance of other persons to perform any activity will always have to compete for them by offering full wages, acceptable working conditions and benefits.
@@nthperson Why isn't everyone "self employed?" Are you aware of the "trust" accounts that are set up with the "birth" certificates? If we arrive here and are assigned "trusts" then why don't individuals have direct access to them? I don't want to be a slave so some entity can harvest me like a crop for time/labor, do you? It astonishes me that some other entity could feel entitled to "tax" my time and energy. And, politics is crafted to create individuals who feel entitled to parasite off others.
@@TobeornottooB The explanation to your question was provided by Henry George in the late 19th century. Powerful vested interests have succeeded in protecting unearned income from much taxation, requiring government to impose heavy taxes on earned income from wages, on tangible (meaning real) capital goods and on commerce. What political economists termed "rents" were income that flows from locational advantages and advantages created by other public policies that restrict competition (eg.., liquor licenses or taxi medallions or limits on how much in fish can be taken each year from the seas). Rents from all sources are what should pay for democratically-agreed upon public goods and services. Taxation would then not be needed for revenue. We might still want to tax pollution heavily because the costs of remediation are socialized.
It would be nice for Dr Wolff to lay out what a better system than capitalism- or socialism, for that matter- would look like and how it might work. It's all very well to criticise, but it's important to have solutions to work towards. Inventors do that very thing. Economists would do well to abide by the same standard.
Professor Wolff, you are doing a really fantastic job in educating the masses about this very important topic. Something that bothers me about the capitalists: have they considered that in depriving the working classes from earning better wages, they are also shooting themselves in the foot? Do they really believe that by expanding credit, they can continue to expand their wealth ad infinitum through the use of this unsustainable practice? One point you made here that seems to go unnoticed by these capitalists: there is a lack of impartiality with regards to employees; they operate in a unilateral way; their thinking is so one-sided that they fail to notice that in order for motion to be sustained, there must always be resistance; for if there is a loss of resistance, there can be no motion; everything will come to a standstill. It's like someone decided to paint the road surfaces with oil so that there would be no resistance to the tires, forgetting that the tires would spin uncontrollably but the vehicle would go nowhere. It's like men deciding that women are no longer important so we can do without them, forgetting that the human race would become extinct; and lastly the battery inside an automobile had one of its poles badly damaged but the owner thinks that he can still get his car started. There are several other examples we can give. I can only hope that common sense will ultimately prevail.
I love this episode! I've been listening to Democracy at Work for about a two months now. I've heard lots about why why should move away from the hierarchy in the capitalist enterprise (which is a very new idea to me), but I didnt hear much of the criticisms to this idea. I like hearing Wolff not only bringing them up but also responding to them really well. Keep up the great work :)
It occurs to me that many major inventions are made in publicly funded research universities but once they are invented the universities sell the patents which they own to private business. If that is true then it seems like capitalism does not reward an inventor better than socialism would.
@@mirror452 Imperialism is an inherent trait of accruing and consolidating wealth -- to "cap" markets/regions -- for primacy. Paying for social programs out of that system is a pittance compared to the accrual of said wealth. Especially in the case of Germany. Furthermore, that exploitation occurs where there is a hierarchy primarily concerned with consolidation. Worker-owned enterprises would rather keep the employment/production local for the benefit of the community over cheaper wages in another country/region. You're trying to assign a higher standard of living as a benefit of imperialism (or detriment of colonialism) is asinine.
@@amandaharig1978 Why else does a European or North American worker generally have a higher standard of living than a worker in the so-called third world? Also, what stops worker coops from competing with each other for costumers?
Thanks sir Wolff for your contribution to mankind and humanity! I wish you a long and healthy life sir. The world needs people like you. I find it such a tragedy that we don't have wise and considerate people like you as leaders but instead psychopaths with a mindset that resembles the minds of spoiled children.
Regarding automation and robotics. It doesn't have to be bad on the worker. Many things could be manually done in an automated factory. Helping the machine by offering your services, (when cheaper), to do certain steps in the project (saves money). Overseeing the product as it is developed by the machine to look for defects as they pass. Maintaining and ordering parts that are deteriorating or starting to deteriorate. Keeping the machine and surrounding area clean, etc. The point is; You NEED to keep a worker busy. Also, you now have the power to compete with cheaper nations, without whipping the employee if you can't purchase that piece of automation. Eventually all will be automated - People with nothing to do, get into trouble.
I like how Prof. Wolff explains things in a way people can understand clearly. But I'm working some times with ideas here and observation for longer than this. I have a critisicm about this idea of Democracy at Workplace being a solution for most problems of Capitalism (mostly at a social democracy like some European countries). First, there is still the profit incentive. The Capital still has the basic same rules as before to keep expanding. It may be a good idea for countries or places were Socialism already stabilished but not that much for the rest. It's exactly the same issue we have with our "democracy" , at the end people vote for those that defend the interesets of the Capital or the capitalists anyway. The same would apply to a entreprise, it's better in some ways but the rules of the game in terms of what makes a entreprise a sucess or not would be the same, profit and Capital that make it possible to expand. I aggree if this is a good idea would already be in place and becoming dominant, it's maybe because the rules of the game need to be changed FIRST. I always thought about the idea of people receiving a reward for an automation they do, for example, let's say you automate the job you have and you receive 50% of that position wage, if you do that twice or more and you are happy with your income you could go home and retire if you like, so no real unemployment, that would never happen in a Capitalist society because whatever you delivery as extra value goes pretty much all to the owners or capitalists. So, if you don't remove the profit incentive, the Capital will ALWAYS want to grow. That may work with a combination of very strong social rules like a lower and higher limit for salary (let's say in the 4x times scale), and a huge tax rate to profits so very profitable entreprises can distribute their wealth with the rest, like for example, the value you give in return would be 50% to you or a group of people that created something valuable; 25% to the rest of the "country" (taxes) and 25% as capital and profit to the entreprise. Anyway seems this may only work in a closed system, like with other competitions from other countries with different rules other may win due to the profit and Capital hegemony, same as already happen to US today. The Capital tends to stay or move wherever the rules are more relaxed for higher profit margins.
Thank you so much Mr. Wolff for all of the valuable information you give. I think we the people do need to start working very hard, as communities we need to begin working very hard to become independent of the capitalist corporations that have given us the idea that we can't survive without them. It's definitely going to take sacrifice along with a slew of other changes to start this examples being trying solar panels so we can get away from private-owned power industries who will charge whatever is necessary to maintain their profits. We can start farming in our communities and create our own jobs in our communities essentially. We the people have alot more power than we realize time to start using it, we already have the leverage just gotta figure out how to sustain ourselves while we use it.
One thing I want a good answer to and have been trying to find an answer to for quite some time now are the questions below. I have also tried to find some way of emailing these questions to doctor Wolff but failed in that too. Any help in finding answers to this would be greatly appreciated. "I hear all this talk about debt but what I don't understand and what absolutely NOBODY seems to ask is whom have we borrowed from? Whom do we owe all this money? Exactly WHOM are the extremely rich guys and/or institutions that have supplied us with all this money? And, secondly, where did they get this money? From WHERE is the money coming? The closest to an explanation I have seen is that the money was created as out of thin air. Like in fractional reserve banking. . . BUT, If that is true we could just as well let that debt disappear as into thin air. Otherwise this is just an infernal scheme to make some few smart people very very rich and most of us very very poor. Thus does anyone know: 1) who have lent out the money and 2) where did they get that money? You know, I am more and more getting the feeling that NOT answering these questions is what keep hiding from us, the people, perhaps the greatest scandal and fraud done in human history by a few very smart people . . . a system to skim us of wealth and transfer it to themselves. Ignoring these questions keep us all in the danger of keep being robbed. Any comments would be greatly appreciated."
Ich bin sehr stolz auf sie Herr Wolffs Sie haben sehr prezis Erklaert, Fuer Ihe Bemuehungen sind wir sehr dankbar Ihr gute Freund aus Deutschland Hamburg
I purchased that book. "Understanding Socialism" I find it very good. I have read a few essays on or by Marx, (mostly regarding English LIt) but in the 19th-century language, the reading is a bit thick. I like how Wolfe has simplified things a bit. The book is also short, and very informative. I think that the USA should have more political options, not just the two dominant parties. And also more Co-ops.
Dear Professor Wolff, I know this is different for a youtube video, but could you please put your sources in the description of the video! It would be extremely helpful to learn more and to fact check videos. I've just started watching your Content, and I'm learning a lot. Thank you!
This is the first place that makes sense out of what's going on in our government there's other Independent Media that talks about what the government does to us but not with much insight about why it's doing it in the mainstream media has intentionally left us in the dark.
I'm late! New "job digs" outta the house . . . and what a way to end the day; Democracy at Work. Ear ease, most welcome. No criticism up in here, only like-minded appreciation~~ ;)
Professor Wolff, Thank you for your insights and responses to critics. Your critique of the "I invented it, it's mine argument" was good, but missing the best argument against it. This is the classic "self-made" myth most Americans are taught to believe most of their lives. I would add to this argument made by capitalists in this way: So, a person has an idea for a product to sell. This person would either need to borrow money through several ways, many of which are government (tax payer) backed programs or already have the capital needed. Next, said person uses the capital to bring the idea to life. At this point, let's say this person produces and sells a few "widgets" and makes a profit. Ok...good for him/her, the result of his/her own labor created a profit. If the person stays at this stage and doesn't grow the business, then the business is truly his/her business (for the most part). Real Socialists think this is a good thing too and insist upon it. However, the moment said person hires an employee to grow and increase profit, the business owner is no longer the sole owner/decision maker. This is because the surplus is no longer the result of his/her own labor alone, it is a result of both of their labor. Now, does this mean the profits are split 50/50? Not necessarily, but the decisions on what to produce, how to produce, when to produce, where to produce and how to spend the surplus is a joint decision. Many will argue, "it's my company, I make the decisions, the employee can leave if he/she doesn't like it!" Very true, but then your company will not grow because one person can only produce a limited amount of product in one day. Point being, it takes socializing the workplace (inventors + laborers) to grow and increase profit. Simply put, it takes teamwork to be successful. All of the profits made by multiple workers should never be the sole possession of one or a few individuals whose sole labor did not produce, that is called theft in a normal world. But, when capitalists write the laws, theft magically becomes legal. This was the core idea behind socialism. Worker control over the company/production, which will then reduce the need for government to interfere. It wasn't until the late 19th century that socialism started to be defined by capitalists as a system where a totalitarian government controls everything. Ironically, the capitalist definition of socialism is actually Fascism, which big business loves, it is very Orwellian. It was Otto Von Bismarck who started this manipulation of what most capitalists/Americans think socialism means today. In fact, the idea that government controls production and profit is extremely anti-socialist. Bismarck used government healthcare, minimum wage, free education as consessions to the socialists so they would not overthrow capitalism or the status quo. Bismarck also used these benefits to try and lure members from a strong socialist party to his. Essentially, Bismarck saved capitalism from being destroyed. Franklin Roosevelt did the same thing in the 30s and Bernie Sanders or AOC are trying to the same thing today....Not Socialists, but social Democrats. Capitalism produces the need for big government interference and control, it is the hegelian dialectic, a way to maintain a repeating cycle of manipulation and control by the elite or as others have called them, "the masters of mankind." Politically this is manifested as left and right, providing the illusion of opposition to perpetuat the same cycle. The Socialist knew this and found a way to break the cycle or status quo, control over the economy/production. Which made them very dangerous to those in power. Equal or more power to the people is the single greatest threat against the elite and the single greatest power for the people. Which is why Noam Chomsky speaks about neccessary illusions that must be mantained.
Great video, thanks a lot for it. It wonders me about your particular thoughts on Stephen Pinker, particularly. Also, on a good answer to Mark Blyth on the scope of worker coops in the economy.
Richard could also look at Jason Hinkel’s book ‘The Divide’. It is one of the best current works on debunking the myth that capital has been solving poverty. It hasn’t. It’s accelerated it.
Speaking as a german - I´m somewhat dissapointed that Prof. Wolff got this wrong. We DO have tuition fees in german universities and technical colleges. It was a hard fight in the late nineties when the neoliberals pressed it through, and finally the federal governement gave the states - and those in part their universities - free reign to demand by-semester tuition fees. Buuut - most Unis that demanded comaparably high prices lost students like theres no tomorrow and reduced their ask, and several states started taking it and stopped again to continue drawing in students which then pay taxes ect.. Plus: the highest margin was about 1000 Euros (at the moment ca 1100 USD) per semester/half year. Which makes a bachelor degree about 6500 USD, with an additional master maybe 11k all fees included. Not a lot compared to american rates,I know. But thats only tuition, and added with relatively high living cost has considerably lowered the rate of low-income-kids doing higher education. Just as it was meant to.
@@thanqol Cant be answered like that, sorry. There are states like Berlin or Saarland that take none at all, ever, there are states that take fees for each semester more than "normal" study-time and the "normal" time defined by either college, chair of the field or somebody in the state bueraucracy, there are states that let their Unis decide for themselves. There are fees that get rolled into free public transportation or student residential administration ect. Since you asked I googled the current situation and was surprised that most states seem to have abandoned the fees again, and those that take tuition dont go over 500 Euros - 550 USD. There will be some extra fees for the official tests or excursions ect, but thats about it - in the worst case 500 E per semester. In public colleges - mind you - there are several private ones that come near british or US prices.
@@nilesbutler8638 Sounds like the same system as in Norway, where you pay a semester fee (€50-60). This is technically not the same as a tuition fee (it does not cover the expenses of the education, but rather expenses of social programs for the students), so the Prof is right in that regard, although there is some small cost for attending college/uni.
@@thanqol Not exactly - that smaller semester fee from anywhere between 50 to 150 Euro a semester was already common before Ms. Merkekels second cancellorship. Its about student body organization, public sevices in housing, childcare, councelling, some cheap student insurances ect. . Then she followed pressure by her then corporate-liberal coalition partner and the neoliberal arm of her own party an introduced actual tuition fees, respectively made them possible by law, which wasnt the case beforehand. . I was in fact just leaving the Uni back then, and remember that some high-ranking schools took 700-900 euros in the first semester they where allowed to. Since then I read here and there that a lot of the states and chairs reduced or abandoned tuition altogether again. . Now I checked because you asked and was surprised than only four of the seventeen states still take general tuition, about half of them do for overdrawn study time - and none take more than 500. . So thanks, you moved me to get an information update.
Still seems like a far more affordable deal than what the U.S. deals with. "According to College Board, published tuition fees for 2018/19 at state colleges are an average of US $10,230 for state residents, and $26,290 for everyone else(out of state). This compares to an average of $35,830 at private non-profit colleges. This is annually mind you. When all is said and done, you are looking at a clean 40-60 thousand in debt. This number doesn't include room and board either. If you do stay on campus or nearby, you are looking at about another 5000 a year, factor in food, clothing, and travel, that cost increases further. Each class is about 2-5 days per week, depending on the credit amount/class. Math classes tend to be about an hr long 4-5 days a week, other classes might be 2-3 days a week at 2 hrs or more a day. Some medical science classes can be a 5 hr daily endeavor with a 3 hr lecture and two hr lab. If you are lucky enough to work part time, it's usually at a retail store, restaurant, or on the campus itself, wages are about 10 dollars. You turn 22-23 years old, you have a degree, with little to no relevant experience in your field and about 40-60 thousand in debt. You are now expected to start out making about 14-16 an hr, but factor in the cost of a car, insurance, and housing(if you aren't being charged rent/ living with your parents), cellphone service, gas, electric, etc. You aren't really being set up for success. Law of supply and demand dictates as the supply of bachelor's degrees increases, the value of said bachelors degree decreases, it's almost the equivalent to a highschool diploma. Servers and bartenders at a solid restaurant in a fairly high traffic area make more a year than people with bachelor's degrees. It's a really weird system. Just recently found out that some of the private universities in my area are sitting on something around 3-4 billion unspent dollars, waiting to buy up properties in the downtown to open a new campus/housing area for students.
Americans who falsely believe they have a lot in common with Australia should spend time studying world history and understanding what Working and Social conditions we have had for many decades - NO in this respect we are not like you, not even close!
Prof Wolff concedes that on one of the measures of 'success' (democracy and personal liberties on socialist countries) like the USSR and PRC were given low grades. This is perhaps a 'fair' assessment in some respects in others - particularly the PRC it is questionable. Perhaps a better measure would be on how 'representative' the governing structures are of the people. In China a review of the government structures from the bottom up (which is how it functions) indicates those in charge have been drawn largely from the non-elites. In the western democratic systems based on a party and in particular a 2 party system using non preferential voting or first past the the post systems the 'people' are given a very limited vote to select their leaders. The leaders on offer have been carefully handcrafted by a very small percentage of the people i.e. by the donor elite class. The 2016 US election where people were in effect given a choice of Trump or Clinton is a prime example how their choice of leaders was crafted and limited. One of the prime reason Trump was 'elected' and one of the reasons for the very low voter turnout. A voting option for 'Neither of the above' would probably have won that election. The elites long ago realized the way to control the democratic process was to control the nomination process not just the election itself. This same argument flows down through the lower levels of government at Federal, State and local levels.
Dr. Wolff should add that like in Northern Europe, healthcare and education through the university are free to the population and are of good quality in Cuba and similarly in the USSR before its dissolution. Also, one may wish to question the dominant model of democracy in the US, that allows capital such control over the political process.
We're all slaves. We don't even know what the outside of our cage looks like because we've never seen it. This is not the doings of capitalism. Credit belongs to bureaucrats, secondary to politicians.
Capitalists work hand in hand with bureaucrats to keep our system stagnant and terrible for most people. The heads of the largest companies are akin to bureaucrats in that sense, just with even more control in the confines of their company. At least we have some chance of voting the worst politicians out.
He is right on countries. All European countries have a strong socialist element. Italy has a philo-socialist constitution, something very few people know. There are three socialist parties in the EU Parliament: The Socialist Party (the second biggest in Europe) The Green Party (I think the 4th) Another party left of the socialist party with about 6% of the votes.
Breakthroughs in public tranport are stopped poltically, an immortal lightbulb costs more and uses way more electricity. He just spouts things and waits for clapping.
And the politics is driven by money. Public transit systems are literally lobbied against by car manufacturers. And no, long lasting light bulbs do not necessarily cost more or use more power. LED's for example.
@@antediluvianatheist5262 the bulb he so ominously spoke about is one of the first incandescent one's ever made. LEDs are here now and last long even though they're an evil capitalist product. And the lobbies pay who to use what power to screw with people?
To be fair, the people who use these arguments usually don't use the terms capitalism and socialism in the same way. So for example, when they argue that capitalism has lifted people out of poverty, it's really the private enterprise and having access to a market that they're referring to; not the system of having an employer and employees. For this argument, I would stress what we mean by capitalism and what we're advocating for is a change to a workplace system, so that every worker benefits more from the business.
A great example of capitalism is the Sean Connery movie "The Molly Maguires". It is also interesting to see the role of the church. After the soccer game the minister rides away with the mine boss in his car. Toil in this life and you will be rewarded in the next. Socialism for billionaires and capitalism for the working class.
@@Sondan1988 social security is an example of a system that brought people out of poverty. Before S.S. the elderly, largely, either lived in extreme poverty or were a tremendous burden to their families.
@@garydeforve5055 that same social security that is going broke ? 'Social Security benefits will start to exceed the program’s costs in 2020, and the program will deplete its $2.9 trillion reserve fund in 2035.' www.barrons.com/articles/social-security-deficit-reserves-check-benefits-payroll-tax-51555958282
@@garydeforve5055 if you don't like the Barons link...you can go directly the the Social Security Administration annual report and read it for yourself. www.ssa.gov/oact/TRSUM/tr19summary.pdf
@@garydeforve5055 we still have half of America that hasn't saved a dime for their retirement and we HAVE social security.....what happens when it goes broke and people didn't save anyways ? See Social Security was NEVER supposed to be your retirement , it was only supposed to be a supplement to what you saved. Why save though when you think the Government is going to take care of you ? Also you didn't answer my question, because we still have poverty and socialism in this country.
Capitalism isn't working for a lot of people after 40 years of Reaganomics. After prez Raygun did away with a lot of the policies FDR enacted in the 1930s, doing away with the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890, and destroying the power of labor unions, things have gotten worse. Now most workers have no protections whatsoever, a lot of people today are working crappy Gig jobs, like driving for Uber, Task Rabbit, and working part time temporary jobs. The quality of the jobs and protections for workers are gone, so a lot of workers are basically no better than sharecroppers.
Same capitalist that is against universal health care. I think taking the burden off employers will allow wage growth. Can someone explain how that logic is incorrect?
I saw an article about the prosperity around us and how people don't see it because people are sitting at cafes on their tablets and phones, etc. But if those drinks, tablets and phones are gotten on credit then it is McProsperity because as anyone of my age whose parents lived though the depression know that our parents only bought their houses on credit as it is a secured loan. Credit cards and car loans were not usual because they did not trust credit and it was not easily available as you could not get it if you did not have the assets to pay it off if need be. So our prosperity is not real it is an illusion. My Dad paid for his car with his bonus. Our house had a mortgage that he paid off. Our possessions were only bought if we had the money to pay for them. Our furniture and appliances lasted decades. Today the young owe more money than 3 houses back then just for college. BTW very few people I know who went to college owed anything as they could work the summer and pay for college or their parents even though just middle class could pay for it. We are a debtor society which is a slave society so our prosperity is a farce, an illusion.
![Summer Walker - Heart Of A Woman [Official Lyric Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/SFddctbZzw8/mqdefault.jpg)
Video's been up for 8 minutes and already has one Dislike.
That tells you the person automatically clicked the "Thumbs Down" and didn't even watch the video.
One person in 21 is an abject idiot at the moment I'm watching. Overall it's i in 135 views.
You know there are a-holes waiting to see an Economic Update video uploaded so they can jump in and dislike it. Usually without bothering to watch.
What's wrong with that? I "automatically " clicked liked because I'm happy there is a new video and I'm sure it will be educational.
@@elsiegel84 better hypothesis, due to the shrewdness of the ultra-rich: Prof. Wolff is visited by regular trolls.
Obviously the dislike came from a moron with zero brain cell...
@@JorgePicco How do you "automatically" like something without first watching it? Not a very discriminating application of critical thinking imho. That's the stuff of sycophants. I am a fan of Wolff, but I certainly don't concur with everything he says such that I would blindly "like" his ideas. A little skepticism is in order.
I don't know who needs to hear this, saving won't make you a millionaire investing will..take out some money and invest. Do it wisely though!
True though unfortunately, The losses I Incurred trading cryptos has dealt with my mental health. Don't know the way forward atm
😢
@@jasonbrown9845 Most new traders make the mistake of trying to trade on their own, without having the required skills to benefit from the market.
I was once like that, but it all changed thanks to an expert.
@@mikejenkins7816 That's interesting, anyway to connect with her? I have to get started
@@mikejenkins7816 This is hepful, thanks...Gotta message her right away
Access to good information is what we need to progress financially and generally in life, Here's a good one and I'm thankful.
Thank you Prof. Wolff for everything you do :)
Making himself rich off idiots cosplaying as socialists?
Yeah... great guy.
EvolvedApe33 lmao how are we cosplaying being socialist?
Prof. Wolff being in Academia who should know that Capitalism is about the employer taking the lion share of intellectual property rights simply because they employ you.
Even though the university administration had no part in the intellectual property. Paying Deans of schools of departments a cut of profitability derived by ipr demand of the university is not a success of capitalism.
@@evolvedape3341 how long ago did they brainwash you?
highwayrockstar1 Dont you remember? I was right next to you at the gulag! I’m so sorry what happened to you there...
Professor Wolff, I appreciate the clarity and concise answers that you bring to economic matters. I'm from Denmark and I can confirm that the Danish welfare system is strong and economically sound. Our welfare system follows a hybrid model where the government provides first class social services combined with a modern but regulated market. The best of both worlds, socialism and capitalism combined. When we look to America we simply don't understand how Americans, for decades, have rejected obvious rational socialist ideas such as free health care and free education etc. As you have so brilliantly explained, this is the result of 75 years of anti-communism hysteria and 40 years of neo-liberal politics that have demonized and removed socialist ideas from public discussion in America. This must change. We are observing America, hoping they will do the right thing and vote Bernie 2020! The world depends on it.
It isn't "free" if someone other poor soul had to pay for YOUR choices with their labor "taxes." It would be free if you had your own "account" that was funded with natural renewable resources such as planting tree farms that are harvested for paper and lumber. No one is entitled to another's time or labor. Income taxes = slavery.
@@TobeornottooB you are slave🤣🤣 no property taxes are wery good
Trump will win 2020 but his office will not last to 2024.
@@pasaulissurezisuotas2617 I do pay property taxes and so do all renters. Renters just pay for it as part of their "rent." And, that is why no one really "owns" property.
What is possible in Denmark, a nation with a relatively small and homogeneous population is far more difficult to achieve than in a society where these conditions are absent. Thanks, in part, to the initiatives advanced during the first half of the 20th century by the Retsforbundet (Justice) Party in Denmark, your society has escaped the wealth-concentrating consequences of landed privilege. One of the great political leaders produced in Denmark was Bue Bjorner. Others who helped form and served in the Justice Party also deserve credit for work on social policy. Dr. Viggo Starcke also comes to mind, who served as Premier during the 1950s.
I have always struggled with conceptualizing economics in general. Mr. Wolff just makes it all click! 💡 Thank you!
I recommend Varoufakis' book "Talking to my Daughter about the economy". It's not too long, and written in a very accessible way. You can get the e-book version for free at libgen.is
Link:
libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=2647147612B3A216E4135DDFA4F172A6
You need to listen to Prof. Michael Hudson. Best economist alive today. You will want to see all his videos. He has written many books on debt and the social consequences. More importantly, how to solve the crisis...
ruclips.net/video/XpG_BCDQ-jE/видео.html
so do I ...and thanks all for the links
*Allicia* - I subbed to Economic Update after watching two videos. :) I also watch every video that Stacey Herbert and Max Kieser make too. It seems to me that both hosts do not use esoteric speech.
Allicia Michael Hudson said , “ If you follow economics that is taught in The universities history doesn’t make sense but if you follow history then the economics taught in the universities don’t make sense” so don’t feel bad because we’ve all been duped and confused. “ when the truth comes it knocks out falsehoods brains” Holy Qur’an.
Worker cooperatives are successful around the world. Shhh, don't tell anybody.
One of the biggest mobile rechnology firms in the world and world leader in new tech is a 'workers cooperative' - the ceo and founder of that tech giant as an individual owns the lion's share of the stock - he owns 0.5%. The bilk of the shares are owned by the workers. Of course that company is Huawei - I guess that's why rhe US is so afraid of them - that sort ownership is so unamerican better to have the wealth concentrated in the hands of a few oligarchs (sarcasm).
@@photon-9551 Although, it looks like Huawei is not a workers coop as this is usually understood in the West. From Wikipedia (not sure how accurate this is), around half of the shares are owned by a 'trade union commitee', which apparently is under control of the Communist Party of China.
In any case, I wouldn't say Trump even knows any of this, let alone it being the reason behind the attack on Huawei.
LOL you act like the USA doesn't have a 100+ year old multibillion dollar cooperative network. I'm guessing you haven't heard of the NCB, CHS inc, the NRECA, or the NAHC? Are you familiar with ANY co-op in the USA?
Yes, there are stunningly successful ones here in Italy... And the best run regions are by far the socialist regions...
In addition to Wolff's points, here are a few more:
To promote an economic system purely based on its increase in its standard of living is judging a single tree in a forest. Economic systems are inevitably tied with political systems and the ramifications there of. Looking at past history, if you make a comparison, the USSR achieved great economic development and reduced poverty, so did the Nazi party to post wwi Germany, as did ancient China under the emperor system, as did the slave system between 1750-1850s. To evaluate systems, or worse yet, to justify the lack of morals of a system by economic development is not a sound point. The key advantage of the type of socialism that wolff preaches is to remove the transactional element in human dealings, getting back to respecting individuals and having some intrinsic value other than just 'how much can you work and how much do i have to pay you'.
Secondly, the world improvement in standard of living, since 1970 to now, is largely not the result of capitalism. China and India, by numbers, contributed to the vast majority in reduction in absolute poverty. While there may be arguments that China is not entirely socialist and it is true, but their state controls most of the key industries and have maintained so many interference in markets and foreign exchange, it is hardly capitalism by the neoliberal definition. They lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty while US income stagnated. The argument that 'capitalism should be maintained since it reduces poverty' isnt even true for the last 50 ish years.
With all this said I won't vote for Donald Chump again.
Thank you for pointing this out. Prof Wolff continues to refer to China as socialist, though many would hardly describe it as a socialist economy. Indeed, describing today's China's economy as socialist is to fall for the propagandistic trick employed by the Communist Party of China that their economic system is "socialism with Chinese characteristics". What it is instead is a highly regulated mixed economy dominated by an authoritarian state, similar to yet different from Singapore which the neoliberals love to bits.
That's right but the poverty rate of u.s.a is 12% right
To quote from one Singaporean political leader; “Governance is fundamentally about improving the lives of our people, to enable them to fulfil their potential and aspirations.” This would be one great aspect (a very important one) to judge the achievement of the current ruling party, political system, or administration. I trust this reinforce one of the point Prof Wolff has been expounding.
Hope these ideas get rolling in the US soon
Gustavo Coelho people have such short attention spans, I hope they’re holding back for the push.
Gustavo Coelho take notes make this into your own words and spread it
What ideas? He made some extremely reductive arguments against criticisms socialism receives, said communist Russia and China weren’t that bad by a certain metric, again reductionist, then said the Scandinavian countries call themselves and or lean socialist, when they are clearly hyper capitalistic even more than the US.
@Gustavo Coelho yeah don’t count on it comrade
Gustavo Coelho HOPE does not work. you need AK47, revolution, blood. to kill billionaires and confiscate their posessions for public by force.
Also, saying the USSSR and China did not succeed because they have only one political party (completely ignoring the theory if the dictatorship of the proletariat, by the way), does not take into account the fact that in EVERY capitalist country, the political parties in power are only changing faces and colors, but the policies remain more of less the same; policies that benefit capitalists (corporations and big businesses) and almost never benefit the people at large. So, if you're gonna measure the success or failure of a system by their political freedom, then capitalism has been a BIG failure.
Love hearing you talk about the economy. Keep up the good work!
Well he is an economics professor, so that's what he likes to do! haha.
@@miguelthealpaca8971 it's literally free knowledge, usually you have to pay for what he saying for and sit in a college class. That just why I appreciate what he does.
@@danpowell9803 Yes, indeed, me too!
Dr. Wolff : I like the comment that you may have made earlier in one of your videos : “ . . . we have socialism for the military industrial complex . . . ‘“.
Amazing response, I will use this extensively in arguments. Thank you for putting what I have been feeling into words in a clean and effective manner
Cheers to all the truthtellers.
Thank you professor Wolff and team.
#WeAreTheSerfs #TruthTellersUnite
You might want to read The Road to Serfdom
These are not criticisms but emotional defenses against ideas that challenge the legitimacy of a certain way of life.
Damn, you're so insightful that I wanna date you.
Better post your stats Billy, you're gaining a following!
What state are you in?
Free Friday night?
;)
I had been living in China for many years and I can tell you that most of Chinese people have quite high standard of living. In fact the life there is much more convenient and comfortable than most of the western countries, not to mention it has got the best infrastructure.The most impressive thing is it’s safety, yes it is one of the safest countries to live. I have to say that China is a country has been long misunderstood and undervalued due to the western political propaganda.
I like this ethos! Honestly responding to critics is the best way for your ideas to gain ground. If you only refer to people that already agree with you you won't make much of a progress. Thank you Dr!
Hello comrades, time for another economic update
“Socialism" is a dirty word to many Americans but not for those who are "too big to fail"....So make sure you get big enough, then you can be "protected" from becoming the statistics of poverty.....
Based on my experience I expected the 3 criticisms to be as follows:
1. Communism is bad because it’s bad, so you’re wrong I win
2. Capitalism is good, and the free market is good; therefore you’re wrong
3. Haven’t you heard of Venezuela and the Soviet Union
Capitalism is the worst of all economic systems - except for all the others.
@BoulderPM Your comment is called "confirmation bias". FYI.
__ comRED __ thats a good one too. I forgot it
The socialist not at war with US of A do well.
Thanks Mr 🐺f
"Greater" is the word you sought: the risk taken by the employees is greater.
I highly disagree-- There is risk, but the inventors take on a much larger risk portion-- most of the time.
@@JordanService a shareholder or director or whatever can far more easily walk away from a company than their employees
@@ac1dP1nk and nota. I feel your reasoning, but I do not see the mechanics of your points playing out. I think with out the profit motivation why try something? This is not to defend the profit motivation but to critique the systems that only support the profit motivation with in innovation. So how do you provide incentives for non profit behaviors. Enter valueism.
The risk is so significant. I've experienced how it works. Also, the opportunity cost of allowing blocking of progress is rarely calculated or estimated. It is a very high cost.
this is a very good program *in terms of* learning the way to criticize in a good manner.
Fundamental difference between slavery and capitalism is slavers had to buy their workers, capitalist rent them. What do you treat better, your own car that you purchased or the rental you picked up at the airport?
One of the most insightful and intelligent comments I've seen in a long time.
i got your point. but you also open the possibility for some racist people to say that slavery is better...
I get your point, but I must say that given the choice I would rather rent myself out than be property. I think the term "wage slave" actually diminishes the concept of slavery as the abominable practice of owning people. Capitalist wages for labor is not fair and keeps the wealth gap growing, but it is not as immoral as slavery.
@@munstrumridcully However, in slavery the slave is livestock at least and must be housed and nourished. Not true in capitalism. Look at the Disney workers living in tent cities and requiring food stamps to simply exist. Freedom like that has all of the privations of slavery with none of the benefits. Like livestock abandoned and left to die in the desert.
@@munstrumridcully I disagree. In fact, I think all that rationalization serves is to obfuscate and downplay the immorality (and irrationality) of wage-slavery. It's almost another form of 'whataboutism' as well, because it's like saying 'at least your not chattel slaves, it could be worse, count your lucky stars, be grateful, etc.'
It also reminds me of 'Stockholm Syndrome.' We are conditioned to accept this level of slavery much like the population back in the 18th and 19th Century US was conditioned to accept the reality of chattel slavery. It's just more difficult for us to recognize this from the inside I think (like it seems to have been for all of the primitive cultural customs/traditions throughout history.) But give it time. The more I learn, the more clear it all becomes.
The argument that capitalism pulls people out of poverty is based on the idea that growth for the capitalist and growth for the worker is connected, and that both groups' interests complement each other. In reality it's the exact opposite. The capitalist makes money precisely from denying more to the workers, and by accumulating more and more. The rate of profit is constantly falling and the capitalist needs to exploit us more in order to maintain more profits. Imperialism, social democracy, and credit are the only things keeping capitalism remotely alive. The crisis gets stronger every day hence why the capitalists continue to try and reduce what the workers have. The less we have, the more they have.
Very telling truths ,thanks Professor Wolff,as always honesty and accuracy are your trademarks.
7:23 I believe there's some textbooks in Texas that actually make that exact claim about slavery.
Hi professor, here I am watching an old show of yours. Boy howdy do I enjoy listening to you. Once again, although belated, I have concurred on every word of yours. Thank you sir. Peace.
Good stuff Dr. Wolfe.
Dear Prof. Wolff, you look somewhat tired. Please, please, take care of yourself. We need you !
Another criticism of the "capitalism reduced poverty" claim: The gains came from industrial production. In capitalist societies it was driven by profit incentive, and in more socialist countries by the pressure to improve standards of living (for example, to improve the lives of destitute Russian serfs). This huge increase in productivity allowed for fewer and fewer people to live in destitute poverty. But in capitalist societies, the bulk of production was aimed at those with the money to buy it - making it an absurdly inefficient way to distribute the increased production of industrialism. The very system itself meant that increased production reached those who needed it last.
The reason why some capitalist countries have low levels of absolute poverty is firstly, as Prof Wolff says, because people agitated to demand the government step in and distribute production more evenly, but secondly because the levels of production got so vast that even the crumbs that fell to the floor were enough to keep people from starving or going unclothed.
But that's a criminally inefficient way of using production - only addressing the needs of the most desperate when the amount of production is so overwhelming that it's pretty much cluttering up the place. Even the social-democracies of Scandinavia and Keral, India, were able to easily take a short-cut by mandating more efficient distriubtion - which is why Kerala in the '70s, despite being in an impoverished 3rd world country, had health outcomes equivalent to the United States which was then, as now, the biggest economy on Earth.
@BeGood 2Me Do you even know the inequality in Russia since the end of the USSR, troll?
@BeGood 2Me eh not realy thinga got much worse after the Soviet Union. i.e. only now aftet 30(!) Years are standars of life expectancy recovering.
i.stack.imgur.com/8Fj8E.png
With far better trchnology available 2day mind you.
Also if I recall correctly the GDP dropped by 30% would have to look that up again...
So tldr life was objectifly worse under capitalist oligarchy
@@thecaveofthedead are you from kerala
I am from Kerala and you are right Kerala have the best health facilities as compared to other states in india
@BeGood 2Me USSR was the second strongest economy during that time not a poor country
On "capitalism"and "poverty" the argument of proponents of minimal government intervention argue that "free markets" will operate to reduce poverty. The less regulation, the less poverty. This is a theoretical and philosophical argument. There has always been significant government intervention but throughout most of history intervention to secure and protect a privileged elite. The system that existed prior to the establishment of labor unions and progressive legislative actions was in reality, driven by privilege under law, by monopolies protected by law and the police powers of the state. So, a real question to be discussed is what would happen to poverty in the absence of monopoly privilege? Would we enjoy true full employment and an end to poverty (by all meaningful measurements)? Would the current redistribution of wealth that occurs from producers to non-producing "rentier" interests end? Would we experience a just distribution of income and wealth?
"Employment" is a metaphor it means many different things. Full employment - what does that mean? Taxable labor?
@@TobeornottooB Good question to raise. From my perspective, full employment is a state in which there are always more jobs looking for people than people looking for jobs. Thus, anyone who needs the assistance of other persons to perform any activity will always have to compete for them by offering full wages, acceptable working conditions and benefits.
@@nthperson Why isn't everyone "self employed?" Are you aware of the "trust" accounts that are set up with the "birth" certificates? If we arrive here and are assigned "trusts" then why don't individuals have direct access to them? I don't want to be a slave so some entity can harvest me like a crop for time/labor, do you? It astonishes me that some other entity could feel entitled to "tax" my time and energy. And, politics is crafted to create individuals who feel entitled to parasite off others.
@@TobeornottooB The explanation to your question was provided by Henry George in the late 19th century. Powerful vested interests have succeeded in protecting unearned income from much taxation, requiring government to impose heavy taxes on earned income from wages, on tangible (meaning real) capital goods and on commerce. What political economists termed "rents" were income that flows from locational advantages and advantages created by other public policies that restrict competition (eg.., liquor licenses or taxi medallions or limits on how much in fish can be taken each year from the seas). Rents from all sources are what should pay for democratically-agreed upon public goods and services. Taxation would then not be needed for revenue. We might still want to tax pollution heavily because the costs of remediation are socialized.
Thank You Prof.
It would be nice for Dr Wolff to lay out what a better system than capitalism- or socialism, for that matter- would look like and how it might work. It's all very well to criticise, but it's important to have solutions to work towards. Inventors do that very thing. Economists would do well to abide by the same standard.
I've enjoyed every video!!..**I was one of those guys who disliked socialism..but after visiting Sweden Norway and Finland..i see it works
Professor Wolff, you are doing a really fantastic job in educating the masses about this very important topic. Something that bothers me about the capitalists: have they considered that in depriving the working classes from earning better wages, they are also shooting themselves in the foot? Do they really believe that by expanding credit, they can continue to expand their wealth ad infinitum through the use of this unsustainable practice?
One point you made here that seems to go unnoticed by these capitalists: there is a lack of impartiality with regards to employees; they operate in a unilateral way; their thinking is so one-sided that they fail to notice that in order for motion to be sustained, there must always be resistance; for if there is a loss of resistance, there can be no motion; everything will come to a standstill.
It's like someone decided to paint the road surfaces with oil so that there would be no resistance to the tires, forgetting that the tires would spin uncontrollably but the vehicle would go nowhere. It's like men deciding that women are no longer important so we can do without them, forgetting that the human race would become extinct; and lastly the battery inside an automobile had one of its poles badly damaged but the owner thinks that he can still get his car started.
There are several other examples we can give. I can only hope that common sense will ultimately prevail.
I love this episode! I've been listening to Democracy at Work for about a two months now. I've heard lots about why why should move away from the hierarchy in the capitalist enterprise (which is a very new idea to me), but I didnt hear much of the criticisms to this idea. I like hearing Wolff not only bringing them up but also responding to them really well. Keep up the great work :)
Thanks for your passion and for the passion of Prof Resnick!
David, I swear, I listen to your soothing messages like you're my adopted grandfather. Thank you.
Kudos to Prof. Wolff for sharing your knowledge and wisdom supported by comprehensive and empirical evidence on socialism.
Right on! Happy holidays prof.
billy ruclips.net/video/bX3EZCVj2XA/видео.html
Thank you for the education. I recognize that I have just attended a college-level classroom for free. And I appreciate it thank you.
Harry Truman denounce the use of “socialism” as a “scare word”? "Socialism is their name for almost anything that helps all of the people."
It occurs to me that many major inventions are made in publicly funded research universities but once they are invented the universities sell the patents which they own to private business. If that is true then it seems like capitalism does not reward an inventor better than socialism would.
Patt
Patents are the leading cause of poverty and the number one blocker of innovation.
Dr. Wolff's arguments in this video are both profound and equally alarming. When he speaks, I listen.
great episode. thank you.
I am so thankful for this video! I have heard these criticisms so often and knew they were wrong but I didn't know how to explain it.
I took two pages of notes on this
I really wouldn't call Western Europe and ESPECIALLY Germany "socialist".
He made the distinction of social programs being tools for a higher standard of living for the populace.
@@amandaharig1978 Yeah, but these programs are paid for by exploiting workers in other countries... (imperialism)
@@mirror452
Imperialism is an inherent trait of accruing and consolidating wealth -- to "cap" markets/regions -- for primacy. Paying for social programs out of that system is a pittance compared to the accrual of said wealth. Especially in the case of Germany.
Furthermore, that exploitation occurs where there is a hierarchy primarily concerned with consolidation. Worker-owned enterprises would rather keep the employment/production local for the benefit of the community over cheaper wages in another country/region.
You're trying to assign a higher standard of living as a benefit of imperialism (or detriment of colonialism) is asinine.
@@amandaharig1978 Why else does a European or North American worker generally have a higher standard of living than a worker in the so-called third world?
Also, what stops worker coops from competing with each other for costumers?
@@mirror452
Question 1: Organized Labor.
Question 2: Financing.
Thanks sir Wolff for your contribution to mankind and humanity! I wish you a long and healthy life sir. The world needs people like you. I find it such a tragedy that we don't have wise and considerate people like you as leaders but instead psychopaths with a mindset that resembles the minds of spoiled children.
Regarding automation and robotics. It doesn't have to be bad on the worker. Many things could be manually done in an automated factory. Helping the machine by offering your services, (when cheaper), to do certain steps in the project (saves money). Overseeing the product as it is developed by the machine to look for defects as they pass. Maintaining and ordering parts that are deteriorating or starting to deteriorate. Keeping the machine and surrounding area clean, etc.
The point is; You NEED to keep a worker busy.
Also, you now have the power to compete with cheaper nations, without whipping the employee if you can't purchase that piece of automation.
Eventually all will be automated - People with nothing to do, get into trouble.
Civil liberties? In Puerto Rico, taxation without representation, and any one that pushes for independence is persecuted, sometimes to death.
I like how Prof. Wolff explains things in a way people can understand clearly. But I'm working some times with ideas here and observation for longer than this. I have a critisicm about this idea of Democracy at Workplace being a solution for most problems of Capitalism (mostly at a social democracy like some European countries). First, there is still the profit incentive. The Capital still has the basic same rules as before to keep expanding. It may be a good idea for countries or places were Socialism already stabilished but not that much for the rest. It's exactly the same issue we have with our "democracy" , at the end people vote for those that defend the interesets of the Capital or the capitalists anyway. The same would apply to a entreprise, it's better in some ways but the rules of the game in terms of what makes a entreprise a sucess or not would be the same, profit and Capital that make it possible to expand. I aggree if this is a good idea would already be in place and becoming dominant, it's maybe because the rules of the game need to be changed FIRST. I always thought about the idea of people receiving a reward for an automation they do, for example, let's say you automate the job you have and you receive 50% of that position wage, if you do that twice or more and you are happy with your income you could go home and retire if you like, so no real unemployment, that would never happen in a Capitalist society because whatever you delivery as extra value goes pretty much all to the owners or capitalists. So, if you don't remove the profit incentive, the Capital will ALWAYS want to grow. That may work with a combination of very strong social rules like a lower and higher limit for salary (let's say in the 4x times scale), and a huge tax rate to profits so very profitable entreprises can distribute their wealth with the rest, like for example, the value you give in return would be 50% to you or a group of people that created something valuable; 25% to the rest of the "country" (taxes) and 25% as capital and profit to the entreprise. Anyway seems this may only work in a closed system, like with other competitions from other countries with different rules other may win due to the profit and Capital hegemony, same as already happen to US today. The Capital tends to stay or move wherever the rules are more relaxed for higher profit margins.
Great show. As for as distribution, RUclips is the answer.
The only problem is, you can get workers anywhere, inventors are not so common.
Precisely! It's all about entrepreneurism.
Thank you so much Mr. Wolff for all of the valuable information you give. I think we the people do need to start working very hard, as communities we need to begin working very hard to become independent of the capitalist corporations that have given us the idea that we can't survive without them. It's definitely going to take sacrifice along with a slew of other changes to start this examples being trying solar panels so we can get away from private-owned power industries who will charge whatever is necessary to maintain their profits. We can start farming in our communities and create our own jobs in our communities essentially. We the people have alot more power than we realize time to start using it, we already have the leverage just gotta figure out how to sustain ourselves while we use it.
One thing I want a good answer to and have been trying to find an answer to for quite some time now are the questions below.
I have also tried to find some way of emailing these questions to doctor Wolff but failed in that too.
Any help in finding answers to this would be greatly appreciated.
"I hear all this talk about debt but what I don't understand and what absolutely NOBODY seems to ask is whom have we borrowed from?
Whom do we owe all this money?
Exactly WHOM are the extremely rich guys and/or institutions that have supplied us with all this money?
And, secondly, where did they get this money? From WHERE is the money coming?
The closest to an explanation I have seen is that the money was created as out of thin air. Like in fractional reserve banking. . .
BUT, If that is true we could just as well let that debt disappear as into thin air.
Otherwise this is just an infernal scheme to make some few smart people very very rich and most of us very very poor.
Thus does anyone know:
1) who have lent out the money and
2) where did they get that money?
You know, I am more and more getting the feeling that NOT answering these questions is what keep hiding from us, the people, perhaps the greatest scandal and fraud done in human history by a few very smart people . . . a system to skim us of wealth and transfer it to themselves.
Ignoring these questions keep us all in the danger of keep being robbed.
Any comments would be greatly appreciated."
Thank you, Maestro.
Ich bin sehr stolz auf sie Herr Wolffs Sie haben sehr prezis Erklaert, Fuer Ihe Bemuehungen sind wir sehr dankbar Ihr gute Freund aus Deutschland Hamburg
I purchased that book. "Understanding Socialism" I find it very good. I have read a few essays on or by Marx, (mostly regarding English LIt) but in the 19th-century language, the reading is a bit thick. I like how Wolfe has simplified things a bit. The book is also short, and very informative. I think that the USA should have more political options, not just the two dominant parties. And also more Co-ops.
I understand that "Finland" came in for the 2nd year in a row, the happiest people/place in the world this year again.
Lol, Lee. Our southern conservatives would miserable just hearing word "snow", forget "socialism ".
@BeGood 2Me Exactly!
About time you added the background 😂 way better 😎
Dear Professor Wolff,
I know this is different for a youtube video, but could you please put your sources in the description of the video! It would be extremely helpful to learn more and to fact check videos. I've just started watching your Content, and I'm learning a lot. Thank you!
Thank you, very instructive.
Great program Mr Wolff .
This is the first place that makes sense out of what's going on in our government there's other Independent Media that talks about what the government does to us but not with much insight about why it's doing it in the mainstream media has intentionally left us in the dark.
Thanks for keeping up '
SARM SARM2020' appreciated
I'm late! New "job digs" outta the house . . . and what a way to end the day; Democracy at Work. Ear ease, most welcome. No criticism up in here, only like-minded appreciation~~ ;)
Professor Wolff,
Thank you for your insights and responses to critics. Your critique of the "I invented it, it's mine argument" was good, but missing the best argument against it. This is the classic "self-made" myth most Americans are taught to believe most of their lives. I would add to this argument made by capitalists in this way: So, a person has an idea for a product to sell. This person would either need to borrow money through several ways, many of which are government (tax payer) backed programs or already have the capital needed. Next, said person uses the capital to bring the idea to life. At this point, let's say this person produces and sells a few "widgets" and makes a profit. Ok...good for him/her, the result of his/her own labor created a profit. If the person stays at this stage and doesn't grow the business, then the business is truly his/her business (for the most part). Real Socialists think this is a good thing too and insist upon it.
However, the moment said person hires an employee to grow and increase profit, the business owner is no longer the sole owner/decision maker. This is because the surplus is no longer the result of his/her own labor alone, it is a result of both of their labor. Now, does this mean the profits are split 50/50? Not necessarily, but the decisions on what to produce, how to produce, when to produce, where to produce and how to spend the surplus is a joint decision.
Many will argue, "it's my company, I make the decisions, the employee can leave if he/she doesn't like it!" Very true, but then your company will not grow because one person can only produce a limited amount of product in one day. Point being, it takes socializing the workplace (inventors + laborers) to grow and increase profit. Simply put, it takes teamwork to be successful.
All of the profits made by multiple workers should never be the sole possession of one or a few individuals whose sole labor did not produce, that is called theft in a normal world. But, when capitalists write the laws, theft magically becomes legal.
This was the core idea behind socialism. Worker control over the company/production, which will then reduce the need for government to interfere. It wasn't until the late 19th century that socialism started to be defined by capitalists as a system where a totalitarian government controls everything. Ironically, the capitalist definition of socialism is actually Fascism, which big business loves, it is very Orwellian.
It was Otto Von Bismarck who started this manipulation of what most capitalists/Americans think socialism means today. In fact, the idea that government controls production and profit is extremely anti-socialist. Bismarck used government healthcare, minimum wage, free education as consessions to the socialists so they would not overthrow capitalism or the status quo. Bismarck also used these benefits to try and lure members from a strong socialist party to his. Essentially, Bismarck saved capitalism from being destroyed. Franklin Roosevelt did the same thing in the 30s and Bernie Sanders or AOC are trying to the same thing today....Not Socialists, but social Democrats.
Capitalism produces the need for big government interference and control, it is the hegelian dialectic, a way to maintain a repeating cycle of manipulation and control by the elite or as others have called them, "the masters of mankind." Politically this is manifested as left and right, providing the illusion of opposition to perpetuat the same cycle.
The Socialist knew this and found a way to break the cycle or status quo, control over the economy/production. Which made them very dangerous to those in power. Equal or more power to the people is the single greatest threat against the elite and the single greatest power for the people. Which is why Noam Chomsky speaks about neccessary illusions that must be mantained.
Great video, thanks a lot for it. It wonders me about your particular thoughts on Stephen Pinker, particularly. Also, on a good answer to Mark Blyth on the scope of worker coops in the economy.
Richard could also look at Jason Hinkel’s book ‘The Divide’. It is one of the best current works on debunking the myth that capital has been solving poverty. It hasn’t. It’s accelerated it.
Great work Prof.!
Speaking as a german - I´m somewhat dissapointed that Prof. Wolff got this wrong.
We DO have tuition fees in german universities and technical colleges.
It was a hard fight in the late nineties when the neoliberals pressed it through, and finally the federal governement gave the states - and those in part their universities - free reign to demand by-semester tuition fees.
Buuut - most Unis that demanded comaparably high prices lost students like theres no tomorrow and reduced their ask, and several states started taking it and stopped again to continue drawing in students which then pay taxes ect..
Plus: the highest margin was about 1000 Euros (at the moment ca 1100 USD) per semester/half year.
Which makes a bachelor degree about 6500 USD, with an additional master maybe 11k all fees included.
Not a lot compared to american rates,I know.
But thats only tuition, and added with relatively high living cost has considerably lowered the rate of low-income-kids doing higher education.
Just as it was meant to.
What's the average per-semester tuition fee for all the uni's in Germany?
@@thanqol
Cant be answered like that, sorry.
There are states like Berlin or Saarland that take none at all, ever,
there are states that take fees for each semester more than "normal" study-time and the "normal" time defined by either college, chair of the field or somebody in the state bueraucracy,
there are states that let their Unis decide for themselves.
There are fees that get rolled into free public transportation or student residential administration ect.
Since you asked I googled the current situation and was surprised that most states seem to have abandoned the fees again, and those that take tuition dont go over 500 Euros - 550 USD.
There will be some extra fees for the official tests or excursions ect, but thats about it - in the worst case 500 E per semester.
In public colleges - mind you - there are several private ones that come near british or US prices.
@@nilesbutler8638 Sounds like the same system as in Norway, where you pay a semester fee (€50-60). This is technically not the same as a tuition fee (it does not cover the expenses of the education, but rather expenses of social programs for the students), so the Prof is right in that regard, although there is some small cost for attending college/uni.
@@thanqol
Not exactly - that smaller semester fee from anywhere between 50 to 150 Euro a semester was already common before Ms. Merkekels second cancellorship. Its about student body organization, public sevices in housing, childcare, councelling, some cheap student insurances ect.
.
Then she followed pressure by her then corporate-liberal coalition partner and the neoliberal arm of her own party an introduced actual tuition fees, respectively made them possible by law, which wasnt the case beforehand.
.
I was in fact just leaving the Uni back then, and remember that some high-ranking schools took 700-900 euros in the first semester they where allowed to.
Since then I read here and there that a lot of the states and chairs reduced or abandoned tuition altogether again.
.
Now I checked because you asked and was surprised than only four of the seventeen states still take general tuition, about half of them do for overdrawn study time - and none take more than 500.
.
So thanks, you moved me to get an information update.
Still seems like a far more affordable deal than what the U.S. deals with. "According to College Board, published tuition fees for 2018/19 at state colleges are an average of US $10,230 for state residents, and $26,290 for everyone else(out of state). This compares to an average of $35,830 at private non-profit colleges. This is annually mind you. When all is said and done, you are looking at a clean 40-60 thousand in debt. This number doesn't include room and board either. If you do stay on campus or nearby, you are looking at about another 5000 a year, factor in food, clothing, and travel, that cost increases further. Each class is about 2-5 days per week, depending on the credit amount/class. Math classes tend to be about an hr long 4-5 days a week, other classes might be 2-3 days a week at 2 hrs or more a day. Some medical science classes can be a 5 hr daily endeavor with a 3 hr lecture and two hr lab. If you are lucky enough to work part time, it's usually at a retail store, restaurant, or on the campus itself, wages are about 10 dollars. You turn 22-23 years old, you have a degree, with little to no relevant experience in your field and about 40-60 thousand in debt. You are now expected to start out making about 14-16 an hr, but factor in the cost of a car, insurance, and housing(if you aren't being charged rent/ living with your parents), cellphone service, gas, electric, etc. You aren't really being set up for success. Law of supply and demand dictates as the supply of bachelor's degrees increases, the value of said bachelors degree decreases, it's almost the equivalent to a highschool diploma. Servers and bartenders at a solid restaurant in a fairly high traffic area make more a year than people with bachelor's degrees. It's a really weird system. Just recently found out that some of the private universities in my area are sitting on something around 3-4 billion unspent dollars, waiting to buy up properties in the downtown to open a new campus/housing area for students.
I'm glad someone said it.
Super AI geared on complete automation of the workplace is a paradise for socialism and a nightmare to capitalism.
Then communism will come true.people even don't need to work,but they could still get what they want for free !
Americans who falsely believe they have a lot in common with Australia should spend time studying world history and understanding what Working and Social conditions we have had for many decades - NO in this respect we are not like you, not even close!
You betcha? Are you from Minnesota? I would love you even more.. Awesome video!
Prof Wolff concedes that on one of the measures of 'success' (democracy and personal liberties on socialist countries) like the USSR and PRC were given low grades. This is perhaps a 'fair' assessment in some respects in others - particularly the PRC it is questionable. Perhaps a better measure would be on how 'representative' the governing structures are of the people. In China a review of the government structures from the bottom up (which is how it functions) indicates those in charge have been drawn largely from the non-elites. In the western democratic systems based on a party and in particular a 2 party system using non preferential voting or first past the the post systems the 'people' are given a very limited vote to select their leaders. The leaders on offer have been carefully handcrafted by a very small percentage of the people i.e. by the donor elite class. The 2016 US election where people were in effect given a choice of Trump or Clinton is a prime example how their choice of leaders was crafted and limited. One of the prime reason Trump was 'elected' and one of the reasons for the very low voter turnout. A voting option for 'Neither of the above' would probably have won that election. The elites long ago realized the way to control the democratic process was to control the nomination process not just the election itself. This same argument flows down through the lower levels of government at Federal, State and local levels.
If you run for an office millions will follow. If you are doing video too long the audience gets tired. We heard you and ready to take action.
Mr wolff can you please make a full length video what you think of Indian economy since 1947...
Dr. Wolff should add that like in Northern Europe, healthcare and education through the university are free to the population and are of good quality in Cuba and similarly in the USSR before its dissolution. Also, one may wish to question the dominant model of democracy in the US, that allows capital such control over the political process.
Uh, make that a partial escape from poverty because according to some we have 150 million living in poverty in the USA. Great show.
I am a capitalist. I provide housing at fair market value. If socialism is so great, why don't more people want to live in public housing?
We're all slaves. We don't even know what the outside of our cage looks like because we've never seen it. This is not the doings of capitalism. Credit belongs to bureaucrats, secondary to politicians.
Capitalists work hand in hand with bureaucrats to keep our system stagnant and terrible for most people. The heads of the largest companies are akin to bureaucrats in that sense, just with even more control in the confines of their company. At least we have some chance of voting the worst politicians out.
thank you
He is right on countries. All European countries have a strong socialist element.
Italy has a philo-socialist constitution, something very few people know.
There are three socialist parties in the EU Parliament:
The Socialist Party (the second biggest in Europe)
The Green Party (I think the 4th)
Another party left of the socialist party with about 6% of the votes.
Breakthroughs in public tranport are stopped poltically, an immortal lightbulb costs more and uses way more electricity. He just spouts things and waits for clapping.
And the politics is driven by money. Public transit systems are literally lobbied against by car manufacturers.
And no, long lasting light bulbs do not necessarily cost more or use more power.
LED's for example.
@@antediluvianatheist5262 the bulb he so ominously spoke about is one of the first incandescent one's ever made. LEDs are here now and last long even though they're an evil capitalist product.
And the lobbies pay who to use what power to screw with people?
" Democracy at work." " In a true Democracy, 51 % of the populous lord it over the remaining 49." T. Jefferson.
Great stuff, thanks.
To be fair, the people who use these arguments usually don't use the terms capitalism and socialism in the same way.
So for example, when they argue that capitalism has lifted people out of poverty, it's really the private enterprise and having access to a market that they're referring to; not the system of having an employer and employees.
For this argument, I would stress what we mean by capitalism and what we're advocating for is a change to a workplace system, so that every worker benefits more from the business.
i 've always wander which company invented and owns the patent for fire ?...
I mean , I could not have been invented without capitalism ....
A great example of capitalism is the Sean Connery movie "The Molly Maguires". It is also interesting to see the role of the church. After the soccer game the minister rides away with the mine boss in his car. Toil in this life and you will be rewarded in the next. Socialism for billionaires and capitalism for the working class.
Some see 2 realities, check with your colleges about the geometry. 21st century, pi, fractals, phi, this is our reality.
Very good content thank you
If they were going to end poverty, they would have done it by now.
Mr. DeForve can you tell me how anyone or any economic system has ended poverty ?
@@Sondan1988 social security is an example of a system that brought people out of poverty.
Before S.S. the elderly, largely, either lived in extreme poverty or were a tremendous burden to their families.
@@garydeforve5055 that same social security that is going broke ?
'Social Security benefits will start to exceed the program’s costs in 2020, and the program will deplete its $2.9 trillion reserve fund in 2035.'
www.barrons.com/articles/social-security-deficit-reserves-check-benefits-payroll-tax-51555958282
@@garydeforve5055 if you don't like the Barons link...you can go directly the the Social Security Administration annual report and read it for yourself.
www.ssa.gov/oact/TRSUM/tr19summary.pdf
@@garydeforve5055 we still have half of America that hasn't saved a dime for their retirement and we HAVE social security.....what happens when it goes broke and people didn't save anyways ? See Social Security was NEVER supposed to be your retirement , it was only supposed to be a supplement to what you saved. Why save though when you think the Government is going to take care of you ? Also you didn't answer my question, because we still have poverty and socialism in this country.
Capitalism isn't working for a lot of people after 40 years of Reaganomics. After prez Raygun did away with a lot of the policies FDR enacted in the 1930s, doing away with the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890, and destroying the power of labor unions, things have gotten worse. Now most workers have no protections whatsoever, a lot of people today are working crappy Gig jobs, like driving for Uber, Task Rabbit, and working part time temporary jobs. The quality of the jobs and protections for workers are gone, so a lot of workers are basically no better than sharecroppers.
Same capitalist that is against universal health care. I think taking the burden off employers will allow wage growth. Can someone explain how that logic is incorrect?
I saw an article about the prosperity around us and how people don't see it because people are sitting at cafes on their tablets and phones, etc. But if those drinks, tablets and phones are gotten on credit then it is McProsperity because as anyone of my age whose parents lived though the depression know that our parents only bought their houses on credit as it is a secured loan. Credit cards and car loans were not usual because they did not trust credit and it was not easily available as you could not get it if you did not have the assets to pay it off if need be. So our prosperity is not real it is an illusion. My Dad paid for his car with his bonus. Our house had a mortgage that he paid off. Our possessions were only bought if we had the money to pay for them. Our furniture and appliances lasted decades. Today the young owe more money than 3 houses back then just for college. BTW very few people I know who went to college owed anything as they could work the summer and pay for college or their parents even though just middle class could pay for it. We are a debtor society which is a slave society so our prosperity is a farce, an illusion.
Do U.S. defense contractors charge to market?