As a rank and file member I wrote a petition that would cause, if voted for by a simple majority, a vote of all members for our representatives at the negotiating table. Out of 10,000 members nationwide 1500 signed it. This was then noticed by the National President who named me to a committee to review all of the by-laws as promised when we became Teamsters. We wrote a proposal that provided all members a vote on all important positions in the Union. Less than 30% bothered to cast a vote and it was voted down for reasons that were all political and fallacious. Members voted to not have say; mind-boggling. This made me realize, in part, how extraordinary Debs was. Organizing workers is harder than herding cats and to my eye we seem to have nearly given up as movement. Cheers.
Low participation rates are a sign of a problem not an excuse for failure. Which it inevitably becomes. People love to participate in winning organizations and higher participation levels follow. When a local is constantly losing for whatever reason participation rates are low. Quiet quitting from participation is also a sign of infighting at the local level and section levels. Constant infighting dissuades participation. People with winning attitudes and skills are often shot down democratically by management's useful idiots that form cohesive groups usually for personal gains. I've seen group quid pro quo many times. Why participate if it makes your job more difficult dealing with aggressive union internal politics. Organizing workers is harder than herding cats especially when you are losing all the time. I know school districts that haven't seen an already state mandated and approved yearly cost of living increase in seven years. The district simply takes the COLA and higher ups in the union are oblivious. Low participation rates? Yea, I get it. I'm grateful for the pension, but getting it was way harder than it should have been.
There is no way to have democratic politics without democratic economics and hence democratic labor unions. But democratic anything is only possible with a democratic mentality, culture, and social order that is instilled and modeled from childhood. And that is only possible in a physically and mentally healthy society like the Scandinavian social democracies.
Finally. This comes up all the time from other people in other kinds of videos talking about unions. It’s always “I’m in a union, but…”, and it becomes clear to me that their representatives have been bought out and corrupted. Yet, these union members blame unionization itself for their woes and use the corruption as the impetus to say that unions aren’t worth it…. when the problem is that the union itself in these circumstances is vulnerable for precisely the reasons Prof. Wolff is stating: there are few significant members wielding the union’s power, and they are not swapping positions democratically or often enough to disarm attempts from the capitalists to corrupt them. Whether these naysayers are real, genuine observations or undercover capitalist spoilers, these voices need to be overwhelmed and mooted with better public knowledge about how unions are working for most and how they should be working to prevent exactly these kinds of problems.
@@vivalaletaI’m currently fighting this issue and the truth is it’s hard to chase these issues as the national level unions often prefer to side with the local leadership.
I've observed this union cooperation phenomenon first hand in higher education. Over and over and over and over again. College campuses are one of the most political work environments you can get yourself into. Useful idiots are everywhere and you cannot exclude them from a union membership, but you should for the greater good. Dunning Kruger effect is particularly problematic at the locals level. You have professional negotiators on management's side that sometimes get hired based on a track record of union suppression. They hire consultants, law firms, to develop strategies, etc. On the labor side you have high school clicks with little or no negotiating skills, but think they can, vacillating with some pretty decent antagonistic negotiators. They hate each other and the cooperation clicks can do a lot of well meaning irreparable damage when they are in charge. Never attribute to malfeasance that which can easily be explained by incompetence.
This described my ups hub perfectly. I worked in the older seattle hub, which was represented by teamsters local 174. Absolutely astonishing how the only two stewards that building had was willing to work with management. The collusion was plain to see and as someone who was an insider, it became difficult for me to remain pro union. This was all recent and ongoing for years and years. Part timers started catching on, which is unfortunately for the better. Its better to be aware, rather than be ignorant. Fellow part timers that I knew often would discuss this. I have stories for days. Im not anti union but the corruption is real. Dont think for a second that your stewards won't sell you. I have seen it with my own eyes, even though it didnt happen to me personally. I dont know what solutions there are to this except to maybe quit or stop paying dues if you live in a so called right to work state. I wouldn't suggest not paying dues, but I have witnessed things that warrant not paying dues. It's a choice you have to make for yourself. Thank prof Wolff for this wonderful and insightful video. I appreciate your hard work and effort in the pursuit of educating the working class.
It's ironic to me that a conservative relative of mine points to union corruption as a key reason to undermine their validity, when it is the managers of conservative companies that causes the majority of the corruption in the first place.
Coincidentally my wife and I were talking about this today before I saw your video and concluded that part of the problem is paid union leadership as opposed to simply elected rank and file leadership. In her father's (RIP) NYC based union, agreement had to be reached even with a much disliked and untrustworthy real estate developer (who was known to use bankruptcy as a business tool) even though the union might lose some income, because leaders might lose their leadership income if workers were left idle. It had to appear that leadership was doing all that was possible to keep the workers viably employed, even though some of the wages may have to come out of the worker's own wallet's as union dues redirected.
I've always worked for small business owners Never really seen the kind of greed that you hear like that of giant corporations. Seems like if you just get rid of the big money everything would work out for everybody Lay offs start with CEO's
Dr. Wolffe, what I feel we need to hear most is why you communicate about capitalism and socialism the way you do. Specifically, why do you say "we need a system change" as opposed to hating on rich people. I assume you're been in contact with those of that class, so how could we talk to people we know that are well off but have a heart? You have a reputation for trying to make things sound as simple as possible which is good. I've seen your academic writings. It wasn't at all deterring to me, but leftists have a reputation for "text walls" and being incomprehensible. What can you tell us on how to be more comprehensible?
Keeping things simple is an art, and indeed Richard D. Wolff is an expert at it :o in my experience I learned a lot from simply discussing with apolitical/rightwing-ish friends and family, always a friendly, open discussion, no shaming. It's a clash of ideas and it forces you to be clear, concise and understable.
This is why labor unions need to be deregulated and treated like any other business, much like the airlines were deregulated and forced to compete. And the way to do this is to have “easy in” or “card check” for easily organizing new bargaining units BUT along with also having “easy out” so that bargaining unit members can democratically decertify (fire) their union at any time (like clients who can easily fire their lawyers) and hire another union if they want or just represent themselves independently without needing prior permission from a state or national labor relations board to do so. This can all be done by Congress and State Legislatures ending the contract bar rule which makes labor unions legal monopolies for the life of a collective bargaining agreement. If such deregulation ever happens, then watch AFSCME and SEIU likely go the way of Pan Am and TWA because they couldn’t compete with the newer market actors.
No ism is going to save people in the long term. Not capitalism, not socialism, not co-ops or anything else. All institutions are a mess, or end up a mess, because all institutions have people in them, and people are a mess. You can certainly make improvements and you should try to make improvements, but any benefits will always unfortunately be limited, until people change their ways.
That's exactly why democracy is out best bet, because it's the best safeguard possible against the flaws and abuses of human nature, and risks of centralized power in the hands of humans
A lot of “might” and “possibly” and “maybe” kind of language here. Which means the video is just wishful thinking. It won’t play out that way. It’s utopian idealism.
The Nutty Professor is still chained to his theory of worker cooperatives without any real life knowledge, real life experience or documented objective data to support his philosophy. At 1:14 "Let me respond", 2:07 "I think worker cooperatives" 3:56 " I think worker cooperatives" 4:17 "the second thing about worker cooperatives I believe" 5:58 "worker cooperatives are more likely", 6:12 "and that might enable them" 6:28 "it might enable them" 6:38 "might give them". Wolff is obviously clueless about how a worker cooperative really operates. There are less than 500 registered worker cooperatives in the entire nation. Has Wolff ever called one for an interview? Has Wolff ever visited one in person? Has Wolff collected any objective data or documentation on how effective or ineffective a worker cooperative really is ? All of his videos on worker cooperatives are based on nothing more than his theory on how they "might" work. Wolff has zero credibility on this topic. He reminds me of my high school auto mechanics teacher who never turned a wrench in real life but taught the class.
Do you know that there are a lot of very successful Coops in other countries, the most being in Spain & Italy? Thousands of them. Mondragon is one of the biggest and most successful, having a profit of $12.1 billion per year & 24 billion asserts. Also did much, much better for workers during economic downturns in last 70 years.
Spot on t c he fails to address the causation. But has all the answers. The system failed time to present something new. Current system is beyond reform!
@@geraldcollins7103 Yes he does, he says the cause is Capitalism (an economic system where it is believed that the freedom of financial elites to maximize profit & power at the expense of everyone else, is best for society). You didn't respond to what I said to you. Was it new info, and does new info - the fact very successful coops exist - change your mind? It was are a "never change your mind when the facts change" kinda guy then so be it, but there you go.
@@pebblepod30 Of course, the problem with citing Mondragon as the largest or most successful co-op, is that it is comprised of over 200 companies 60% of which are NOT co-ops. Information regarding income or assets is therefore not indicative of the relative success of co-ops as a part of it, nor does it indicate any degree of success for workers of co-ops vs the workers in the non-co-op majority, nor does it offer any information, regarding which of the co-ops are worker owned, and those who employ persons who are not participating in the ownership aspect. So the devil is in the details...and you have managed to avoid providing any. which is what the Professor does...as well as insulate himself from having to answer any questions regarding his avoidance. You, however, do not have that luxury, although you can ignore the questions... you cannot avoid the fact that they have been asked.
Too bad you still haven't figured out what inflation is and where it comes from. Once that was permitted to happen, unconstitutionally, you now have an insurmountable problem and increasing pressure that can only end in the collapse of the "system" and any number of diabolical schemes that might be embarked upon in an effort to preserve the status quo. While the inflation numbers have been posted for the years between 1860 and the present and by decade since 1939 when inflation became of permanent feature of the U.S. economy, we have the "mythology" of our Profesor making claims that inflation was "stopped" by rationing during the 40s and by wage and price control in the 70s, yet the inflation rates of both these decades, are historically higher for these decades than any other period. So since the decade numbers are insufficient, although verification of them is easily found, let's look at them year by year for both periods in constant 1860 dollars...where we begin with the 1939 dollar, so that what cost $1.00 in 1860 cost $1.67 in 1939...so total inflation for this 80 year period was 67% 1939 $1.67...... -1.42% 1940 $1.68..... 0.72% 1941 $1.77..... 5.00% 1942 $1.96.... 10.88% 1943 $2.08. 6.13% 1944 $2.12..... 1.73% 1945 $2.16..... 2.27% 1946 $2.34..... 8.33% 1947 $2.68..... 14.36% 1948 $2.90..... 8.07% 1949 $2.86.. -1.24% 1950 $2.90.. 1.26% As you can see inflation was continuous and steep, with only 1949 showing a deflationary recovery of an insignificant -1.24% So what cost $1.67 in 39 cost $2.90 in 1950...total inflation for the decade 73% Now for the 70s we have the following numbers... 1971 $4.87 4.38% 1972 $5.03 3.21% 1973 $5.34 6.22% 1974 $5.93 11.04% 1975 $6.48 9.13% 1976 $6.85 5.76% 1977 $7.30 6.50% 1978 $7.85 7.59% 1979 $8.74 11.35% 1980 $9.92 13.50% So what cost $4.87 in 1971, cost 9.92 in 1980 an inflation rate of 103% So Wolff's claims are clearly false and as noted previously, not only did inflation not stop, it was worse in the cited periods than in other decades. What cost $1.67 in 1939, cost $2.90 in 1950, inflation rate 73%, $3.57 in 1960, i.r. 23%, $4.67 in 1970, i.r. 30%, $9.93 in 1980, i.r. 112%, $ 15.75 in 1990, i.r. 53%, $20.75 in 2000, i.r. 31% $26.27 in 2010, i.r. 26%, and $35.90 in 2022, inflation rate 30+% Total inflation from 1860 to 1939 = 67% ( these include highs of 95% in 1865, and 113% in 1926. From 1939 to 2022 = 2049% and in terms of the gold price since 1970 = 5397% As for the minimum wage, it has increased from $.25 to $7.25...or by 2800% although it did increase to $.40 rather quickly so that calculation is 1712% I wonder what could possibly account for this radical difference???? WARNING!!!!!! we shall now hear from the "willfully ignorant, functionally illiterates" so described, who will insist on confirming the description, while having no relevant response or argument to what has been written.
Translated as - "This professor emeritus doesn't know what he's talking about but I do. Anyone with a response to my post, defending the picture of inflation that the professor has explained, has an inferior mind no matter what information they lay down." Narcissistic much?
You think he hasn’t ‘cracked the code’ as to what’s behind inflation?? Watch another vid from this channel This time, maybe, look for the word “inflation” in the title
@@hughparker9384 Well considering that you have approx. two equal 80 year periods, where the first cycles between inflation and deflation from 0% in 1860 to 95% in 1865, back to 0 % in 1897, to 113% in 1926, and back to 67% in1939... And then essentially runaway inflation from that point on...all that is required is to determine what was different between those two periods??? It's not hiding and it ain't rocket science...
@@INKonPaper23 Clearly he hasn't...otherwise he would not have claimed that rationing in the 40s and wage and price controls in the 70s stopped it when the facts show this is false. Or do you not let the "facts" inform your "opinion"? ( and you didn't bother to read them.) Most of what Wolff presents as history and economics is factually wrong, and the only people that would believe his distortions are those even more ignorant than he is. BTW if you go and search for videos with "inflation" in the title, you will see this information is posted there as well...which simply means you hear what you want to hear and don't bother to verify it. Maybe you should start?
@@vivalaleta The warning is there to discourage people like yourself from responding like you have, but you ignored it and insisted on confirming the description. So why don't you present the argument that shows Wolff to be correct, instead of assuming what my response to it will be? The facts do present a problem for you and Wolff, so you will have to deal will them first. If Wolff had done THAT, maybe he wouldn't have made a claim which is clearly FALSE? He also would make the claim that employers raise prices because they can...to also try to explain inflation, and that is also clearly not true...as history shows, since those greedy "robbers barons" who had monopolies did not raise prices, those prices fell precipitously, while the dollars purchasing power increased from 1865 thru 1897, when it fully recovered to its 1860 value. Meanwhile, the price of a barrel of oil fell from $16/12/barrel to less than $1 and stayed there until 1909, when Standard Oil was broken up. So the only problem with Wolff's understanding of economics and history is that none of the FACTS support that understanding. ( and which is why fairy tales are fairy tales and they result in magical solutions...which reality eventually exposes as just that, along with all the nasty side effects that result from believing them. )
You mean American young people??? Ha ha ha... you'll have to pry their phones out of their hands, and explain that Karl wasn't in the Marx brothers... (well they won't know who the Marx brothers are either...and won't give a crap..)
@@josephfrenchrevojuarez2915"Many" is a subjective term... like "value"... Hey since you commies like to rename stuff..like calling profit "theft" or "surplus value".. let's rename the "Labor theory of Value" to the "Theory that ignores who started the business"..!!!!!...or let's change the name "Co-Op" to====>>>> "An idea that investors won't give a crap about"..!!!!!!
@@Rat__Wife Ok sure thing. They're all sitting in starbucks, discussing co-ops and Marx theory of power analysis... so funny...these commie coo coos..!!!(all the cool kids are talking about it!!!)
As a rank and file member I wrote a petition that would cause, if voted for by a simple majority, a vote of all members for our representatives at the negotiating table. Out of 10,000 members nationwide 1500 signed it. This was then noticed by the National President who named me to a committee to review all of the by-laws as promised when we became Teamsters. We wrote a proposal that provided all members a vote on all important positions in the Union. Less than 30% bothered to cast a vote and it was voted down for reasons that were all political and fallacious. Members voted to not have say; mind-boggling. This made me realize, in part, how extraordinary Debs was. Organizing workers is harder than herding cats and to my eye we seem to have nearly given up as movement. Cheers.
Low participation rates are a sign of a problem not an excuse for failure. Which it inevitably becomes. People love to participate in winning organizations and higher participation levels follow. When a local is constantly losing for whatever reason participation rates are low. Quiet quitting from participation is also a sign of infighting at the local level and section levels. Constant infighting dissuades participation. People with winning attitudes and skills are often shot down democratically by management's useful idiots that form cohesive groups usually for personal gains. I've seen group quid pro quo many times. Why participate if it makes your job more difficult dealing with aggressive union internal politics. Organizing workers is harder than herding cats especially when you are losing all the time. I know school districts that haven't seen an already state mandated and approved yearly cost of living increase in seven years. The district simply takes the COLA and higher ups in the union are oblivious. Low participation rates? Yea, I get it. I'm grateful for the pension, but getting it was way harder than it should have been.
@@donklee3514 I agree completely...my experience too almost to the letter.
@@Democracyatwork- not sure how to text you...
There is no way to have democratic politics without democratic economics and hence democratic labor unions. But democratic anything is only possible with a democratic mentality, culture, and social order that is instilled and modeled from childhood. And that is only possible in a physically and mentally healthy society like the Scandinavian social democracies.
Finally. This comes up all the time from other people in other kinds of videos talking about unions. It’s always “I’m in a union, but…”, and it becomes clear to me that their representatives have been bought out and corrupted. Yet, these union members blame unionization itself for their woes and use the corruption as the impetus to say that unions aren’t worth it…. when the problem is that the union itself in these circumstances is vulnerable for precisely the reasons Prof. Wolff is stating: there are few significant members wielding the union’s power, and they are not swapping positions democratically or often enough to disarm attempts from the capitalists to corrupt them.
Whether these naysayers are real, genuine observations or undercover capitalist spoilers, these voices need to be overwhelmed and mooted with better public knowledge about how unions are working for most and how they should be working to prevent exactly these kinds of problems.
All it would take is better union rules and a shorter time to be spokesperson or at least an easy out to get rid of a bad one.
Mick Lynch illustrates what a great union spokesperson is.
@@vivalaletaI’m currently fighting this issue and the truth is it’s hard to chase these issues as the national level unions often prefer to side with the local leadership.
Thanks!
Thank you!
I've observed this union cooperation phenomenon first hand in higher education. Over and over and over and over again. College campuses are one of the most political work environments you can get yourself into. Useful idiots are everywhere and you cannot exclude them from a union membership, but you should for the greater good. Dunning Kruger effect is particularly problematic at the locals level. You have professional negotiators on management's side that sometimes get hired based on a track record of union suppression. They hire consultants, law firms, to develop strategies, etc. On the labor side you have high school clicks with little or no negotiating skills, but think they can, vacillating with some pretty decent antagonistic negotiators. They hate each other and the cooperation clicks can do a lot of well meaning irreparable damage when they are in charge. Never attribute to malfeasance that which can easily be explained by incompetence.
This described my ups hub perfectly. I worked in the older seattle hub, which was represented by teamsters local 174. Absolutely astonishing how the only two stewards that building had was willing to work with management. The collusion was plain to see and as someone who was an insider, it became difficult for me to remain pro union. This was all recent and ongoing for years and years.
Part timers started catching on, which is unfortunately for the better. Its better to be aware, rather than be ignorant. Fellow part timers that I knew often would discuss this. I have stories for days.
Im not anti union but the corruption is real. Dont think for a second that your stewards won't sell you. I have seen it with my own eyes, even though it didnt happen to me personally. I dont know what solutions there are to this except to maybe quit or stop paying dues if you live in a so called right to work state. I wouldn't suggest not paying dues, but I have witnessed things that warrant not paying dues. It's a choice you have to make for yourself.
Thank prof Wolff for this wonderful and insightful video. I appreciate your hard work and effort in the pursuit of educating the working class.
As always,the most entertaining educator I look forward to watching their videos every day. Thanks Prof 🙏🙏🙏
thank you
excellent answer as always prof wolff
It's ironic to me that a conservative relative of mine points to union corruption as a key reason to undermine their validity, when it is the managers of conservative companies that causes the majority of the corruption in the first place.
labor unions should use the Constructive Web to implement internal mass consensus for governance oversight and decision-making
look into Meldd
If the same arguments against unions were used against political parties, there would be none.
Awesome
I'm pro union but my old local really disappointed me. corrupt and unfair just being honest we need a new system for sure.
Coincidentally my wife and I were talking about this today before I saw your video and concluded that part of the problem is paid union leadership as opposed to simply elected rank and file leadership. In her father's (RIP) NYC based union, agreement had to be reached even with a much disliked and untrustworthy real estate developer (who was known to use bankruptcy as a business tool) even though the union might lose some income, because leaders might lose their leadership income if workers were left idle. It had to appear that leadership was doing all that was possible to keep the workers viably employed, even though some of the wages may have to come out of the worker's own wallet's as union dues redirected.
I've always worked for small business owners
Never really seen the kind of greed that you hear like that of giant corporations.
Seems like if you just get rid of the big money everything would work out for everybody
Lay offs start with CEO's
Dr. Wolffe, what I feel we need to hear most is why you communicate about capitalism and socialism the way you do. Specifically, why do you say "we need a system change" as opposed to hating on rich people. I assume you're been in contact with those of that class, so how could we talk to people we know that are well off but have a heart?
You have a reputation for trying to make things sound as simple as possible which is good. I've seen your academic writings. It wasn't at all deterring to me, but leftists have a reputation for "text walls" and being incomprehensible. What can you tell us on how to be more comprehensible?
Keeping things simple is an art, and indeed Richard D. Wolff is an expert at it :o in my experience I learned a lot from simply discussing with apolitical/rightwing-ish friends and family, always a friendly, open discussion, no shaming. It's a clash of ideas and it forces you to be clear, concise and understable.
Make a video on the passing away of Paresh Chattopadhyay.
Should elected executive board members of the union chapter vote to give themselves stipends?
Hey Richard ever hear of Harvey schlanger?
This is why labor unions need to be deregulated and treated like any other business, much like the airlines were deregulated and forced to compete. And the way to do this is to have “easy in” or “card check” for easily organizing new bargaining units BUT along with also having “easy out” so that bargaining unit members can democratically decertify (fire) their union at any time (like clients who can easily fire their lawyers) and hire another union if they want or just represent themselves independently without needing prior permission from a state or national labor relations board to do so. This can all be done by Congress and State Legislatures ending the contract bar rule which makes labor unions legal monopolies for the life of a collective bargaining agreement. If such deregulation ever happens, then watch AFSCME and SEIU likely go the way of Pan Am and TWA because they couldn’t compete with the newer market actors.
How do I ask a question? First, I have to become a patreon?
Hi Antony! Yes, we offer the Ask Prof Wolff questions as a perk for our supportive Patreon community. Here's the link: www.patreon.com/democracyatwork
@@democracyatwrk Can I pay once and ask a question? Or I have to be a monthly donor.
@@apihut1 you can pay once
The link you sent displays the page in Ukrainian language. I'm in Canada and very little to do with Ukraine.
Ok, I fixed the page language, and I'm a member now. In the patron app I cannot find how to ask a question.
Everything works backwards.
Makes sense. It seems the Cartel system is taking over everywhere.
💓🍃
No ism is going to save people in the long term. Not capitalism, not socialism, not co-ops or anything else. All institutions are a mess, or end up a mess, because all institutions have people in them, and people are a mess. You can certainly make improvements and you should try to make improvements, but any benefits will always unfortunately be limited, until people change their ways.
That's exactly why democracy is out best bet, because it's the best safeguard possible against the flaws and abuses of human nature, and risks of centralized power in the hands of humans
A lot of “might” and “possibly” and “maybe” kind of language here. Which means the video is just wishful thinking. It won’t play out that way. It’s utopian idealism.
The Nutty Professor is still chained to his theory of worker cooperatives without any real life knowledge, real life experience or documented objective data to support his philosophy. At 1:14 "Let me respond", 2:07 "I think worker cooperatives" 3:56 " I think worker cooperatives" 4:17 "the second thing about worker cooperatives I believe" 5:58 "worker cooperatives are more likely", 6:12 "and that might enable them" 6:28 "it might enable them" 6:38 "might give them". Wolff is obviously clueless about how a worker cooperative really operates. There are less than 500 registered worker cooperatives in the entire nation. Has Wolff ever called one for an interview? Has Wolff ever visited one in person? Has Wolff collected any objective data or documentation on how effective or ineffective a worker cooperative really is ? All of his videos on worker cooperatives are based on nothing more than his theory on how they "might" work. Wolff has zero credibility on this topic. He reminds me of my high school auto mechanics teacher who never turned a wrench in real life but taught the class.
Do you know that there are a lot of very successful Coops in other countries, the most being in Spain & Italy? Thousands of them.
Mondragon is one of the biggest and most successful, having a profit of $12.1 billion per year & 24 billion asserts. Also did much, much better for workers during economic downturns in last 70 years.
So what do you make of that?
I did know anything about this topic for most of my life until quite recently too, the media just doesn't tell us.
Spot on t c he fails to address the causation. But has all the answers. The system failed time to present something new. Current system is beyond reform!
@@geraldcollins7103
Yes he does, he says the cause is Capitalism (an economic system where it is believed that the freedom of financial elites to maximize profit & power at the expense of everyone else, is best for society).
You didn't respond to what I said to you. Was it new info, and does new info - the fact very successful coops exist - change your mind?
It was are a "never change your mind when the facts change" kinda guy then so be it, but there you go.
@@pebblepod30 Of course, the problem with citing Mondragon as the largest or
most successful co-op, is that it is comprised of over 200 companies 60% of
which are NOT co-ops. Information regarding income or assets is therefore not
indicative of the relative success of co-ops as a part of it, nor does it indicate
any degree of success for workers of co-ops vs the workers in the non-co-op
majority, nor does it offer any information, regarding which of the co-ops are
worker owned, and those who employ persons who are not participating in
the ownership aspect.
So the devil is in the details...and you have managed to avoid providing any.
which is what the Professor does...as well as insulate himself from having to answer
any questions regarding his avoidance.
You, however, do not have that luxury, although you can ignore the questions...
you cannot avoid the fact that they have been asked.
Too bad you still haven't figured out what inflation is and where it
comes from. Once that was permitted to happen, unconstitutionally,
you now have an insurmountable problem and increasing pressure that can
only end in the collapse of the "system" and any number of diabolical schemes
that might be embarked upon in an effort to preserve the status quo.
While the inflation numbers have been posted for the years between 1860
and the present and by decade since 1939 when inflation became of permanent
feature of the U.S. economy, we have the "mythology" of our Profesor making
claims that inflation was "stopped" by rationing during the 40s and by wage and
price control in the 70s, yet the inflation rates of both these decades, are historically higher
for these decades than any other period.
So since the decade numbers are insufficient, although verification of them is
easily found, let's look at them year by year for both periods in constant 1860
dollars...where we begin with the 1939 dollar, so that what cost $1.00 in 1860
cost $1.67 in 1939...so total inflation for this 80 year period was 67%
1939 $1.67...... -1.42%
1940 $1.68..... 0.72%
1941 $1.77..... 5.00%
1942 $1.96.... 10.88%
1943 $2.08. 6.13%
1944 $2.12..... 1.73%
1945 $2.16..... 2.27%
1946 $2.34..... 8.33%
1947 $2.68..... 14.36%
1948 $2.90..... 8.07%
1949 $2.86.. -1.24%
1950 $2.90.. 1.26%
As you can see inflation was continuous and steep, with only 1949
showing a deflationary recovery of an insignificant -1.24%
So what cost $1.67 in 39 cost $2.90 in 1950...total inflation for the decade 73%
Now for the 70s we have the following numbers...
1971 $4.87 4.38%
1972 $5.03 3.21%
1973 $5.34 6.22%
1974 $5.93 11.04%
1975 $6.48 9.13%
1976 $6.85 5.76%
1977 $7.30 6.50%
1978 $7.85 7.59%
1979 $8.74 11.35%
1980 $9.92 13.50%
So what cost $4.87 in 1971, cost 9.92 in 1980 an inflation rate of 103%
So Wolff's claims are clearly false and as noted previously, not only
did inflation not stop, it was worse in the cited periods than in other decades.
What cost $1.67 in 1939, cost $2.90 in 1950, inflation rate 73%, $3.57 in 1960, i.r. 23%,
$4.67 in 1970, i.r. 30%, $9.93 in 1980, i.r. 112%, $ 15.75 in 1990, i.r. 53%, $20.75 in 2000, i.r. 31%
$26.27 in 2010, i.r. 26%, and $35.90 in 2022, inflation rate 30+%
Total inflation from 1860 to 1939 = 67% ( these include highs of 95% in 1865,
and 113% in 1926.
From 1939 to 2022 = 2049% and in terms of the gold price since 1970 = 5397%
As for the minimum wage, it has increased from $.25 to $7.25...or by 2800%
although it did increase to $.40 rather quickly so that calculation is 1712%
I wonder what could possibly account for this radical difference????
WARNING!!!!!! we shall now hear from the "willfully ignorant, functionally illiterates"
so described, who will insist on confirming the description, while having no
relevant response or argument to what has been written.
Translated as - "This professor emeritus doesn't know what he's talking about but I do. Anyone with a response to my post, defending the picture of inflation that the professor has explained, has an inferior mind no matter what information they lay down."
Narcissistic much?
You think he hasn’t ‘cracked the code’ as to what’s behind inflation?? Watch another vid from this channel
This time, maybe, look for the word “inflation” in the title
@@hughparker9384 Well considering that you have approx. two equal 80 year periods,
where the first cycles between inflation and deflation from 0% in 1860 to 95%
in 1865, back to 0 % in 1897, to 113% in 1926, and back to 67% in1939...
And then essentially runaway inflation from that point on...all that is required is
to determine what was different between those two periods???
It's not hiding and it ain't rocket science...
@@INKonPaper23 Clearly he hasn't...otherwise he would not have claimed that rationing in the 40s
and wage and price controls in the 70s stopped it when the facts show this is false.
Or do you not let the "facts" inform your "opinion"? ( and you didn't bother to read them.)
Most of what Wolff presents as history and economics is factually wrong, and the
only people that would believe his distortions are those even more ignorant than he is.
BTW if you go and search for videos with "inflation" in the title, you will see
this information is posted there as well...which simply means you hear what you
want to hear and don't bother to verify it. Maybe you should start?
@@vivalaleta The warning is there to discourage people like yourself
from responding like you have, but you ignored it and insisted on confirming
the description.
So why don't you present the argument that shows Wolff to be correct, instead of assuming
what my response to it will be? The facts do present a problem for you and Wolff,
so you will have to deal will them first. If Wolff had done THAT, maybe he wouldn't have
made a claim which is clearly FALSE?
He also would make the claim that employers raise prices because they can...to also
try to explain inflation, and that is also clearly not true...as history shows, since
those greedy "robbers barons" who had monopolies did not raise prices, those
prices fell precipitously, while the dollars purchasing power increased from 1865 thru
1897, when it fully recovered to its 1860 value.
Meanwhile, the price of a barrel of oil fell from $16/12/barrel to less than $1 and stayed
there until 1909, when Standard Oil was broken up.
So the only problem with Wolff's understanding of economics and history is that
none of the FACTS support that understanding. ( and which is why fairy tales are fairy tales
and they result in magical solutions...which reality eventually exposes as just that,
along with all the nasty side effects that result from believing them. )
You mean American young people??? Ha ha ha... you'll have to pry their phones out of their hands, and explain that Karl wasn't in the Marx brothers... (well they won't know who the Marx brothers are either...and won't give a crap..)
Many millennials and Gen Z especially are very familiar with Karl Marx and advocate for his ideas. Don’t be mistaken
@@josephfrenchrevojuarez2915"Many" is a subjective term... like "value"... Hey since you commies like to rename stuff..like calling profit "theft" or "surplus value".. let's rename the "Labor theory of Value" to the "Theory that ignores who started the business"..!!!!!...or let's change the name "Co-Op" to====>>>> "An idea that investors won't give a crap about"..!!!!!!
The phones in their hands are exactly what is introducing them to Marxism….
@@Rat__Wife Ok sure thing. They're all sitting in starbucks, discussing co-ops and Marx theory of power analysis... so funny...these commie coo coos..!!!(all the cool kids are talking about it!!!)
fuckin boomer