Richard Wolff has a gift of taking something complex and simplifying it to where average people can understand it. I really wish he was more present on mainstream media.
He would be branded “socialist” or “communist” and you would be expected to hate him. That’s what the media is for-just a buffer between the poor and the ultra-rich, same as politicians.
In my opinion, this video is oversimplified and manipulatively plays on people's emotions to hate the class system in America. The American economy is flawed, but he gives no actional advice and treats this issue as almost unfixable and out of reach for anyone who is not rich. also, he tries to predict the future for a "happy ending" which has not happened.
@@jonahmassey3260 He does talk about a solution, loudly and often: Marxism. And unless you're one of literally 10 people in America, you should be all for it.
Watching this six years later is depressing. Instead of rediscovering the language of class, we have rediscovered the language of intra-class hatred, i.e. racism, sexism, homophobia, and xenophobia that keeps true class allies divided.
I think what Dr. Richard Wolf is trying to convey is if we want to solve the problems in capitalistic society we must begin to see ourselves in view of class not race or political affiliation. At the end of the day, biologically we are all the same but in capitalistic society we are divvied up by levels material accumulation. We keep getting pushed toward dividing ourselves up into these tiny little groups and competing against each other when there are really only two classes in this current capitalistic structure. The laborers and the profit takers. We have to stop hating on the profit takers and look at the system. Don't hate the players hate the game.
Inevitably they furnish themselves with their philosophy out of their scanty stock of acquired ideas, and these ideas and general conceptions seem almost imbecile to civilized men
Race isn't separable from class though. There's also the gender division of labor/ domestic mode of production. All of this is inherently apart of class.
Naw. Gotta hate a player who fucking hoardes wealth. You supposed to aquire wealth then use it to better society. Cant do that if you a stingy money grubber.
TheGlass50 Yes, there needs to be non-Racial non-Sexist solidarity. But it's the division of the working class using Race and meritocracies that undermines that solidarity, as people try to associate with the Ruling Class.
@Bill Simmons DID you got your welfare / SSI / or disability check ?? Did you got your free public defender for crimes you did ?? That is also " usury " with big impact on society .
Like most Americans, I have grown up listening to fawning emotional appeals to the wonders of capitalism and like most others taught to believe in this bizarre concept of "The American Dream". Working in generally lower paid jobs most of my life, I have literally destroyed my body trying to get a slight taste of this abstract ideal. The idea that we spend our entire working lives contributing to society in the form of taxes, and working to make various employers wealthy without any real benefit other than a marginal existence of living paycheck to paycheck is absurd and pointless. Without some major paradigm shift, or either political or violent revolution I suspect this will never change. I am hopeful that with the candidacy of Bernie Sanders we (the working poor) might be able to leverage a more equitable existence. Today I am an unapologetic Socialist with absolutely no faith in the ideals and promises of Capitalism and will work the remainder of my life to, hopefully, peacefully destroy the plutocratic cabal running this country and work for a future that involves all members of society in the process of government. Any changes that bring about that more equitable existence is worth my time and efforts.
have you ever live in a communist state,your very lucky you can argue about wages,have u ever known a man namelechwalesaoreverreadpoliticalpilgrimsbypaulhollander.Marx said he's not actually talking about humanrightsanditsinterpretationisveryloose.
Curiously, historically, the middle class refered to those non-nobles who had gained wealth and had considerable levitt in their own lives, the people who would eventually be known as the bourgeoisie.
I am extremely angry by this. I am a human being. How come other human beings aren't enraged with this going on. Are there other human beings out there?
France Filiault Sorry mate, Bernie seems like a nice honest guy, but I live in Australia. In our political system here voting is compulsory.... to me, that is a form of slavery, and so, consequently, I refuse to vote.
This is quite well explained, isn't it? Now comes the tricky part of changing things. The small group of people who own most everything will not let this happen without a good fight. They kinda like the situation they are in and will not freely give it up in the name of equality or a just society. They also happen to own the means of informing people so they will make sure people are either uninformed, ill informed or plainly uninterested in such matters (using entertainment and sports for example to divert attention away from crucial matters!)
The other great source of borrowing was student loans. We sent the kids jobs to China but so that we could keep going to the big box stores and buying junk to stuff into our garages we sent those kids off to universities for years, made them borrow the money to spend back into the economy, and made them promise to somehow grow the economy in order to pay that money back.
Lol, your example sounds almost anecdotal but I wouldn't doubt it as a representation of how things went down or that it was at least a major contributing factor.
The problem with student loans is there's no risk in making the loans. Should the loans not be protecting by a prohibition of bankruptcy or being federally backed. Now, loans can be made with a guarantee of a payout so banks are incentivized to loan money to students for any course of study regardless if that course will generate an income to pay it back.
@@jaedanbellamy66 I mean, you don't "HAVE TO". You choose to. If you develop valuable skills that will allow you to land a job that pays you enough to only work 40 hours per week (although most office workers don't actually do 40 hours worth of work each week), then you won't need to sacrifice your health to survive. According to Glassdoor, the average Software Engineer makes $92,046/yr. In order to earn that, you don't need a degree. You need to work hard to develop valuable skills. That is fair. From there, you can use the excess income to start your own business. Become the one making the decisions at a large scale. However, it starts with you making the decision to develop valuable skills. Good luck man!
@@wolffofcinema3448 The American dream is dead. What class you are born into is the best indicator of what class you will end up in. The majority of people do worse than their parents unless they are privileged enough to be born into the upper class. The majority of businesses fail and even in software engineering which is literally rated as the best job in America has pleanty of barriers to entry.
We are born into this system, educated this way by society.. Very difficult to break out of this but it leads to resentment, depression and much anger and eventually defeat. Very sad for human beings.. How to change it when it is so ingrained in our very being?
I remember when I graduated High School in 2000 it was all the rage to flip houses and or take out home equity loans (with variable interest rates that let financiers pull the trigger on their clients any time they wanted to). People were going apeshit over it and spending like there was no tomorrow and the banks were about as responsible about it all as crack dealers. I remember looking at it and thinking "Where is this going and how can it possibly end?" It seemed insane at the time and proved to be just that in the end. I really feel for the people who lost out in the crash and I wonder if the younger generations will have learned anything from it. I know I have; infinite expansion in a finite reality, even if it's only on paper and fueled by essentially fake money, doesn't work.
True indeed, the banks may be at fault and human nature just presented itself that led to this crisis. The banks let it happen and the people didn't pay attention to what they did.
I think we’re on the precipice of that change currently. No one is happy but the 1%. And there have been conversations about leaders just being puppets of their own words and actions. It’s a stark contrast from 10 years ago when I even had little clue. Please keep it up! You’ve done amazing work!
This is why I took my own bailout with unsecured debt. I knew how to fight back. But what provoked me actually was the system itself. The bailout amount I took was equal to the amount of equity I lost in my home on paper.
I think an important component is missing from this: the debt has been engineered. As Wolff says this began in the late 1970s, that is when the power elite became very concerned about campus protests and radical politics. You can read it in the famous Powell Memorandum and the writings of James McGill Buchanan and other libertarians. They were particularly concerned about people going to college to study law and becoming public interest and environmental lawyers, and they showed their class consciousness with their contempt for the children of the working class getting into college too. Someone somewhere figured out that debt would be a way to constrain people. If you come out of college with a big debt you aren't going to have time for any politics you're just going to have to go to work at some big corporation to pay it off. Pretty soon this became applied across the system.
9 лет назад
We accept we live in a democratic society. Yet we eschew any thoughts of democracy when talking about the workplace. Why? Why do we accept totalitarianism in the workplace? Businesses are, more or less, setup like some kodoku curse, and the end result is often not pleasant.
+Gracchus Babeuf ...which is why so many workers reject socialism outright. Gimme more money, sure, but stay the F out of my "castle!" I'd sooner be poor and lord of my (humble) manor, than comfortable and in a commune.
8 лет назад
bcubed72 People reject socialism out of ignorance of what socialism is. It has worked very well so far.
+Airis Dämon Well if socialism is what Gracchus says it is, I don't want any part of it! Any system of governance that invades the family unit is one too big for its britches.
8 лет назад
bcubed72 Socialism is a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. It is not as Babeuf has said. The "home" will change, sure, but it is not by some _invasion_ from the state.
"a society that has millions of empty homes, side by side with millions of homeless people"... this is something that should never happen in a society.. I can understand if you own multiple homes (investment) that they can be taken away from you, but your last home (the one you live in) should be an exception to the rule, especially in messed up economy situations. MOST people will eventually pay it back, and banks should be forced to wait, as no one forced them to give people loans in the first place
that was a powerful presentation.....just made me realized the car house cloths food that I buy with credit doesn't belong to me ...but to the mortgage lenders...
If you move to a socialist country, credit doesn't exist. Your car and home loans are made possible because those loans are money invested by rich people. The money you get for your loans comes from the wealthy and rich putting their money in banks. Those banks use that money and give it to you so you can have things you otherwise can't afford. A world without the wealthy business owners means a world without loans. - The presentation is actually very poorly thought, with no investment in cause-effect or a sense of history. In the late 1800's during the Industrial Revolution, poor immigrants from all over the world came to the United States to GET AWAY from socialist countries that HAD extremely rich aristocrats and very poor peasants. These very poor people had children who became the first billionaires in the world. In a true, free economic system, your capability determines your class. If you are at the top and you fail, you will fall and become poor. If you are poor and you succeed, you become rich. Any other system requires government interference or a lot of control by a selected aristocratic few who will otherwise deadlock people into their class, as it was throughout Europe for centuries. - Back to loans, you get a loan for college or a loan to start a business. You do these to invest in a future that is better then what you have. If you succeed well enough, you can crawl out of your poor situation and become wealthy.
@@WritingFighter people left europe to get away from socialist countries? hahaha you are stupid yep, the 2-month paris commune pushed millions of people to flee europe
You never own those things, even if you buy them with money. Money is currency backed by the government, meaning what you paid for your stuff with does not belong to you nor can it be guaranteed by you. Also, you pay property taxes every year on your land, house, and vehicle. Even if you don't owe a dime on them from the purchase, you pay every year on them as long as they are in your name
_"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."_ - *Henry* *Ford* 99% of people do not understand our banking or monetary system. For a introduction to modern banking & monetary theory, see the introductory educational series MONEY AS DEBT. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-2nBPN-MKefA.html
I work in a wine bar, 6 customers today were debating who was working class, i was fortunate to over hear and join, i tried to explain that none of them own a business or own property and all work for there living making them working class, one said "well she is upper management" but she worked a 9 to 5, 5days a week, she was still working class, one said " well im an estate agent", that is not owning for a living, they left after a finishing their wine but hopefully with more understanding of how class works, they all believed them selves to be middle class while working for a living, the lies and belief of a middle class separating them from the other working class they were apart of, they refused to believe that we were the same class, i served them, to see them look down from a parallel was very interesting. The belief kept them separate, the belief in status and prestige kept them from identifying with workers, I wish i had asked who they voted for but the alcohol was definitely getting there convo more heated and more politics would of added to the fire
Do you think employers cared about their employees in the period 1820-1970 when wages were rising? No, the employers were forced to raise wages lest they lose too many workers to the enticements of "going West" and watch their businesses and factories fail. And now, with a surplus of employees fighting for a shrinking employment market, is fifty years of job destruction, wage stagnation and exploding debt proof enough to you that U.S. employers don't care about you, never cared about you, and never will care about you?
@@coopsnz1 But you forget that the Capitalists ALSO take that as well, at least, if we had a government that had the working classes in mind rather than those greedy pigs, you wouldn't mind because, your labor would go towards the things you need in life, Healthy food and Purified water, a better, nationalized healthcare, better housing and utilities, and improved infrastructure. BUT, because these rich thugs exist to mooch off of your labor for as much time and little money as they can AND bribe the government also, it makes life for you hard, so what would be better than this shitty existence is to get rid of the rich pigs that run the nation and impose our will on the government AND our work places, the very places we spend almost our whole lives in, without any choice on what we collectively get to do with it and not to mention work our asses off for shitty UNEQUAL pay to do what we want instead, in order to serve our general welfare LIKE WAS SUPPOSELY PROMISED 200 YEARS AGO UNDER THE CAPITALIST CONSTITUTION.
@@davidmartinez688 new cars in Australia sold the government profits the most not small and medium businesses owners. In USA if your state has sales tax the government profits the most of new cars , c63s is tax $13000usd = $13000usd to Government not dealership owner+ government takes there share in business tax, regulations costs = more much more profit to government . The rich aren't the problem in Australia there fk all of them, it socialism policy the problem, middle class and upper class voted for less government decades
Adventures in the Free World just get a job and do the best u can... if u want to do better than minimum wage... learn about business, accounting, entrepreneurship or get an it degree or something and face the facts... revolting will not change your reality... you need to travel to other countries adsp
looks like that is coming up, the social democratic movement, while not exactly revolutionary, should wipe out the current gov. when the economy crashes in a year or two.
@@hildegardvonbingen9092 is not about who is better , is inhumane to even have a view like that , and is not just about us is about everybody, you sound as if you are ready to go by their rules and let yourself get slaughtered ... is not even a fair game and even if it was, it shouldn't be a game of competition, are we in Society? Or in jungle , or after all society is an economical jungle itself You guys are not quite clear with what you are what you do and where you live on
I know Richard Wolff has been an economist for decades and would run circles around me on this topic, but I nonetheless feel like he oversimplified the causal factors that led to the 2008 housing crisis and economic collapse. There were dozens of different factors that contributed to it: good ratings for poor investments, recklessness on Wall Street, the policies of the Federal Reserve, etc. To act as if the lack of wage growth in recent decades is primarily responsible for the housing crisis seems to me to oversimplify things, although undoubtedly it was a contributing factor.
He did touch on the financialization of the economy, but not in depth. This whole change and the drive to austerity and neoliberal policies are a part, along with the deregulation which actually started in the Carter Administration. The duopoly elite all supported this transition. Still, in a short, clear video Wollff did a remarkable job of educating people.
I think he puts out short quick vids so people understand it and more people will watch if not very long drawn out with too much detail, so uses quick easy to understand highlights.
A Skeptical Human - I disagree, It’s exactly where it all started from, the credit/debt burden is exactly the problem. Of course there are other factors, but this is the core of the boom/bust that we keep experiencing.
In an ideal world CO-OPS are the solution. All employees while employed there are part owners in a company or corporation and share the profits fairly depending on how much value and profit you bring to the company.
@Tom Scot I'd say Coops work, I mean just look up the numerous amounts of them in the UK. How much they work, and how efficiently they work can be of course debated, but to just say they don't work is preposterous. I also think that it's quite worthy to note, that the fact everyone usually grasps the concept of a capitalist business as children, while only to much later in life grasp the concept of what a coop is, has something to do with how our society functions
***** _"You touched on a very true concept Z-Scart, children understand capitalism intuitively because it is part of our human nature."_ No, I said that it's due to social conditioning, and if you think greed is a trait that we should be preserving, than maybe you're the problem.
***** _"Socialism is greed._ _Socialism is about taxing other peoples hard work and then giving it to others."_ You either legitimately don't know what socialism is, or you're purposely misrepresenting it. _"The reason you consider capitalism evil is because we no longer have capitalism, we have a toxic mix of capitalism and socialism."_ Yet, you're most likely quick to point towards inventions and credit them to capitalism, even though "we no longer have capitalism".
***** You seem to think that socialism is high taxation _["Socialism is about taxing other peoples hard work and then giving it to others."]_ which you appear to be *conflating* it to a social democracy which creates a welfare state by imposing high taxation for public services. Socialism is about *advocating for the means of production to be owned by the community* (ie the working class).
***** _"Socialism never works that way, just look at Russia, China, North Korea, _*_Nazi Germany_*_, Cambodia, Cuba, etc."_ One at time, so I'll ask you this, how was Nazi Germany socialist?
These trade deals also,starting with NAFTA ,and right down the line have proved to be bad for american workers,wages have not just stagnated ,they have regressed.Workers cannot afford anything,with rising healthcare,housing,education,and everyday goods and services an individual needs to provide he and his families needs far beyond his grasp,it is a nightmare.We are moving toward a point in our history that could get ugly fast.
There are health consequences as well as crime consequences. Some people who feel abandoned by society are more willing to break the law to shield their children and themselves.
Wage earners should not have fallen for the extension of credit. It has made them poorer. Every time I see an ad for payday loans or reverse mortgages (thanks Fonzie and Magnum P.I.) it sets my teeth on edge.
"If billions upon billions of dollars were lent to people who couldn't pay it back"... In what desperate, underdeveloped, and sketchy society would that ever take place?!!!
America... A few years ago... Banks then immediately sold that debt to other banks and debt collectors. It actually caused a small crash around 2008 and 2009. I understand if you didn't notice - it wasn't that big of a deal or anything.
and you don't ask "why" - you realise the only way banks were able to do what they did was because federal legislation forced them to find ways to finance low income households to buy homes... the GFC was entirely government constructed, it gifted government sweeping powers, increased dependency upon government and eroded your libertys.... but sure - coummunism where we forcibly give poorer (and often less intgelligent) people more resources will certainly prevent this from happening.... it worked so well prior to 2007.... why not do it again.
+aldur84 Corporations are governments, and governments are corporations. The only distinction is that a government has guns, but you don't need guns to violate other people's freedoms. Poor people have lower average IQs because of conditions in the womb being affected by what the mother eats. Want more people with higher IQs? Feed the poor better food. Giving the poor more resources isn't even Communism, its *charity.* Communism is giving the *worker* the means of production. Its the difference between giving a man a fish, and teaching a man to fish. Or, more accurately, giving a man a fish, and not taking the surplus the man produces when he knows how to fish from him simply because you know how to gain the stock market. The Soviets failed for two principle reasons: (1) they never gave the workers the means of production. The revolutionaries were axed, and the means of production were held hostage by a central government. (Hence the term "centralized economy." Not "COMMUNIST economy.") (2) Lysenkoism, a stupid idea about how feeding plants less fertilizer would magically make them grow more.
even when I was a little kid I thought it was silly for people to spend money they didnt have, in anything but the most extreme situations. That includes for houses.
Boiled down, it's like this: 8:28 - EVERY house, and for that matter most essential things that trend expensive required financing. You have to borrow...you simply have to go into debt. WHY? 9:48 LOW WAGES driven down by decades of stagnated wages. As a result, people used whatever trumped up equity in their homes they could, largely because they had no choice. They had to do it to live and to educate their children for the ever rising bar of competition. So what do we have today as a result? The most oppressive educational debt and mortgage debt in history, and no jobs or homes. And once again WHY? Because we accept being told we cannot earn enough any longer to support ourselves. What does it take people? Honestly?
You know a little secret? THEY could do what the capitalist did...he saw he had a bit of equity in his home... he borrowed on that...rented a factory, employed an engineer... bought some raw materials and came up with.... A PC and his name was...Bill Gates or Dave Packard or Bill Hewlett or Harley Davidson... or any number of people who PUT IT ALL on the line... to create something they could sell... now.. this drongo from the drainpipe wants to TAKE/STEAL it from the owners... and be protected from ALL RISK.... and then without paying a cent.. run the show... for their benefit. Mate..that is a crime against humanity!.
Hugh Pearson This is certainly one way to explain what taking risk means, and what it entails. It just so happens I have 1st hand experience in the process you described, and more than once. In every instance there is a point. One in which you choose to either share or assume most if not all of this "risk". People, ie. labor agree to receive less for security of not taking that risk. btw..I've taken both courses with various outcomes. But to your pointed point... what has evolved on the ground (with the destruction of labor power) is not a fair exchange of risk for security. And this is the topic of the discussion. You can choose to believe any kind of fiction you wish. But excess can only be created by coercion or consent...and these butt wipes don't have the consent, and they are spreading the risk, so what does that leave?
Hugh Pearson - Let's be brutally honest, it does help though if you come from an extremely wealthy family. Bill Gates' Dad was a very well known, respected Corporate Lawyer, his Mum was on board of directors for several different multinational companies and his maternal Grandfather was a national bank president. He was always guaranteed success in his life. In 99.9% of cases, you don't get as rich as Gates' unless a) there are a lot of circumstances in your favour with regards to your childhood b) luck and timing with regards to bringing your product to market c) Contacts d) the ability to shaft people who get in your way (which Gates' certainly has innumerable times) and e) the ability to force competitors out of your market and thus exert monopoly control. This is the story of the vast majority of entrepreneurs regardless of industry. No doubting that Gates' is a very intelligent, driven, ruthless man but the favourable factors that made him so incredibly rich are simply not open to 99.9% of the population. The American dream has always been a facade.
James B Oh...(here's what you'll hear) you have a victim mentality. You are a looser, if you ever really applied yourself you could "make something" of yourself, but no, you are always looking for a reason to fail, not win. ---- That's why you are a loser and not a winner! So naturally, like you, I give this a reasonable margin of possibility. I gave it some 40 years and a couple evictions, corp. failures, personal financial devastation, etc. until I figured this shit out; Both success AND failure are lies. Once you figure this out -- Bill Gates and all the rest of them are just putzes that never did catch on.
@100736020669269634447 Some great points but there are other issues too. People actually want to be the incredibly wealthy, sociopathic, narcissistic, arsehole CEO with the 75 million square foot soulless McMansion with 87 bedrooms and staff on minimum wage. That’s why there are millions of ‘get rich’ quick schemes and innumerable self-help books by charlatans such as Donald Trump. But if they analysed it all for a second, they’d know a) it’s largely a pipe dream and b) they simply don't have it in them. Look at Trump - he’s the last person that anyone should take advice from. He's only rich because his father left him a vast fortune. This man could literally f**k up a cup of coffee. He's been in charge of 4 limited companies that have gone into administration and the only reason he's avoided financial ruin is because he's rich and can afford expensive lawyers and accountants to set up limited liability companies and shield his personal assets from creditors. Bankruptcy for the rich is often euphemistically called 'debt restructuring' whilst for normal people it's an absolute f**king disaster. Furthermore, to get to the absolute top, you need to be extraordinarily ruthless in both your corporate and private lives. Most people just don't have it in them to behave that way and that's not a bad thing.
I just want a society where someone who works 40 hours a week can afford at least a lower middle class life (that is, they can afford to meet basic necessities but also get a few luxuries) edit: also, Ive been debt free for over a year. I went from sleeping in my van to being debt free with investments
The role of government in all this is grossly underplayed. No banker in the world would have made sub prime loans if it weren't for government backed securities provided for them. If it weren't for the government, none of this shit would have happened, or it would have had almost no effect. corporations weren't begging the government for home loans for woefully under-qualified poor people. THE GOVERNMENT asked for these things, and gave it to its self to buy votes. After all, if Obama lends you money to buy a home, why not vote him and his democrat buddies into office for life? Class issues will never be solved by government, or social reform, or any method other than capitalism. It is the very presence of government in the capital system that has created class, and it will only ever make the problem worse.
Are you implying that a classless, non-heirarchial form of capitalism is possible? The reason that Wolff didn't speak of the role of government in this, from what I understand, is because the state and capitalism are two sides of the same coin. Capitalists, i.e. large businesses, use the state as a means of maintaining their control. If you were to somehow create an anarcho-capitalist society, it would be in the best interest of corporations to create a government that they can bribe to make rules legitimizing their power. The "small government" that libertarians want has just enough power to enforce private property laws necessary for capitalism to function. It would protect business owners, but not workers.
Capitalism reflects class issues not because capitalism creates class but because class systems exist regardless of capitalism. The reality is that we have never had a less pronounced class system in the entirety of human civilization than we've had in the capitalist world. Before this century the entirety of human civilization consisted of two types of people: rulers and slaves. the rare individual who existed between these mediums was typically the kind of person who had some moderate wealth, but lacked title and 'class' such as a merchant, or banker. The dawn of capitalism is the very thing that created a middle class in the first place, and since that day governments, in all their various forms, have been struggling to find new ways to oppress the middle class back down into poverty. Socialism is merely the newest fanciest way to do this. The notion that capitalists would create a government to smash their opponents might be true, but we've never bothered to figure out if it is or not because government and the slave/master mentality is older than the capitalist system, and the old system of slaves and slave masters has still persisted into the modern era in the form of government. Libertarians want a small government that protects rights, regardless of who those entities are. Individuals and corporations have rights to dispose of their money, and property as they wish. If a corporation wants to be an asshole within the boundaries of not violating others rights, sure they could be. But you don't have to buy their shit either. More importantly if they DO violate the rights of an employee through some form of malpractice, government has a place there. But "You don't pay me enough!" isn't malpractice, its a disagreement about price. If you don't like what you're being paid, go somewhere else to get paid more money, they don't owe you a living, any more than you owe them your labor. Individuals are just as protected by such a rule of law as a corporation.
Libertarian clap trap BULLSHIT that COMPLETELY IGNORES HISTORY...And you want a justification that BLAMES PEOPLE not capitalism so you can be rich....LAME and weak and antiquated..OHH AND a delusional view of history and economics. You just ignore what has really happened to labor.....You are a CONTRARIAN INDICATOR.....What you say is the opposite of reality.......AND THAT HUMAN NATURE ARGUMENT is crap...Its what CONSERVATIVE assholes use to explain their own greed..YOU ARE THE SMALL MINORITY friend...You are a venal psychopath...BUT YOU And your fellow psychos are RICH (or you wanna be rich) and can pay to lie to the masses through media govt schooling non profits etc...Let me guess you love Ayn Rand? LOL RICH PEOPLE NO MATTER how small a minority will always dictate the morals of the society they live in as long as its a capitalist society like we live in. I mean people worship Steve fucking Jobs..He build his empire by having SLAVES MAKE HIS GADGETS then charging 100s of times what it cost to make. Creating more slaves and less wealth distribution..And what is really DUMB about your comment is this notion of corporations and the workers being on equal ground..Its so absurd its hard to even address.
Ahhh the leftist socialist claptrap bullshit that completely ignores reality, history, and peoples arguments and dives directly into hyperbole... As for your allegations 1) I'm not rich, nor do I have a desire to be rich. Well off is enough for me. 2) Ayn Rand isn't a very lovable person, but she DID have a lot of truth to say about socialism, because she lived it. 3) I think Steve Jobs is a sniveling piece of statist shit who made his money not by innovation but by leveraging the power of the state against his peers and others. and as far as rights, no they don't currently stand on even ground because the GOVERNMENT is in the position to decide winners and losers and therefore consider the rights of wealthy organizations and individuals better than the individual.
I'm a Greek-Australian citizen living my life in Melbourne Australia....While was on holidays at the Olympics and then going by the year small visits, till 2009, there were people ''borrowing'' from the Banks, giving their dog name.... ''Living rich with no income giving your dog's name''..
CO-OP'S are a solution to this problem. That way the worker gets all of the profit he makes for the business. Their's is no person putting a gun to your head and forcing you to make a IPO.
The current corporate environment is like apartments in a single building. The workers are like ants surviving on the food they scrounge from each apartment. When the ant problem gets really bad, all the apartment owners get together and buy ant poison to keep the ant population down and keep more food for themselves. As it turns out the ants would be much better off living somewhere outside of the building, where they can thrive by their own industry.
+Sean O'Connor well, you're welcome to come up with a better one if you can. I like my analogy because (a) it shows that the capitalists and the workers are not the same 'species' and have opposite interests, (b) it shows how concentration of wealth limits choices (i.e. only fewer and fewer apartments to choose from), and (c) it demonstrates that there are other ways of existence outside of the 'building' or corporate environment created to benefit the owners regardless of the impact on the workers.
Spot on! This is an excellent analysis of our current economic woes and Mr. Wolff excelled in explaining in a way that is perfectly understandable. Bravo, sir, bravo!
So why as a 9th grade kick out from a family with no connections did i eventually end up living comfortably in a rural home on 5 acres by a river with no debt?
gradostax Co-ops are a nice little step forward, gaining some local workplace control and democracy. But Engels in "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific" points out that such businesses still have to compete in a larger capitalist context. We really need to transform the whole society!
I hope you know a better way than free markets--a better way than the best efforts made to date: Stalin, Mao, Pol Pat, Edi Amin, Hitler, etc.--all smart people with like thoughts to your own about being able to "transform the whole society."
Jim Moore, Capitalism is clearly has an intrinsic tendency to collapse on itself - that's the thing we need to know that it must be changed, we collectively have to change it, preferably before the next Great Depression. Stop looking for dictators in every single human.
In the US, we have been misusing the term "middle class", when we should have used the term "middle income" ,,, for us higher educated (BS-MS) & higher paid Working Class. I felt stupid when I finally realized that unionized machinist had better & more stable benefits than us "elite" software developers.
"The goal of the employer is to get more money when he sells the output then it cost him to buy the tools equipment raw materials and hire those workers" Wholeheartedly disagree with this statement. Amazon literally sold their output for *less* than their costs, and ran a loss for literally 90% of it's existance. Market share matters more than making a fuckton per sale in most cases. Henry ford once said "There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wage possible." That is what a good businessman sets out to do. Sure some don't, but it's generally a good way to build a big business, or at least a large part of it. Unfortunately I agree there is a large and growing problem with inequality in the USA... just a handful of decades ago it was far more equal than it is today in most ways in terms of income.
If every worker was paid by REAL productivity, the world would not be in this condition. It would be a one-to-one exchange. But how do you pay a service worker? pay an administrative clerk etc. How do you measure it? Bankers, Celebrities etc get paid for NO WORK DONE. They don't produce anything, they don't have real productivity, but they get paid TONs. Its unfair, and leads to the CLASSES. The entire financial system and re-numeration in all jobs should be overhauled and re-classified to really make it work.
If our economy was focused on Production rather than "Capital", without a doubt, we would have more for everyone. But that's not the case here. In this system, the green is all that matters. And if you don't have it, you failed at life. And Capitalism seems to be spreading around the world, more and more as time goes on.
In a capitalistic system, the pay and salary is determined by supply and demand. Which is why labor is cheap, compared to higher tier jobs where people have to invest money and time into school and studies. Communism is an ideology to eliminate class and inequality. However, no one would work hard if salary are fixed and not influenced by supply and demand. There is no one ideology or system that is perfect, we will always have to try and find the balance. Even in America, communism exist in the form of tax, welfare, insurance and charity etc to compensate the less fortunate who are at the lower class of the capitalistic system. However, America is incredibly corrupted with its plutocracy. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-PJy8vTu66tE.html Politician and policymakers are responsive to their funders, not its people.
That's not really true about celebrities and bankers - they make enormous amounts of money for the people who employ them and are therefore able to command a high wage. It's not 'work' as you define it, but it is still highly productive from an economic perspective.
@@gavinmiller2590 yes I agree, and also they are not easily replaceable. A heart surgeon makes a lot because it's not a job you can give to anyone off the street. Same goes for actors (good ones) and bankers who had to get degrees and have years of experience. People would pay extra to see their favorite actors perform. It is true that some of these people are grossly overpaid, but their work is very valuable. I can find anyone and give them a broom and some gloves. That being said, buildings need to be kept clean, and the people who do it deserve a fair, liveable wage. Want to see actors make less, stop buying their movies.
Richard forgot to mention that greed is present at all levels of society not just at the top. When l was a kid in the 60's we were happy with simple and sometimes home made toys, come the 70's many folk were happy to drive 25 yo cars as l did. When credit cards became available and l received one in the mail, l cut it up. l borrowed the least l could to buy a home well away from where l worked so as not to be in enormous debt. My house was made from timber, ask a young married couple today if they would live in an old timber home 50 miles from their job, share one car and go without the latest iphone and there in is one cause for many of the foreclosures and bankruptcies.
The 1.4k dislikes are a perfect example of "they hated him because he told the truth". None of these people who disliked have any coherent or rational arguments against the very real problem of class warfare that has persisted since the dawn of humanity.
Solution: co-ops. Or at least that's the _beginning_ of a solution. I won't pretend that it's the entire solution. But it's a good place to start because it's a grassroots solution and hence more easily achievable than a total system overhaul! And the more co-ops there are around, the more likely it is that people will notice and start trying that model themselves! Also educate your family, educate your friends, educate your neighbours, your co-workers, everybody. Let them know there are alternatives! (And electing Bernie Sanders might help. Remember to register to vote in the primaries, people!)
+mark moses **** Co-ops are great solution for workers who are complaining about their low wages, lack of benefits and exploitation by employer. So what is stopping them to form a CO-OPS and keep all fruits of their intelligence and labor ?? HERE it is : .. Lack of imagination, not taking responsibility and risk, no ability to organized, laziness, drug and alcohol addiction , gambling problems, behavior problems , no willingness to educate yourself and take action , constantly blaming somebody else, looking for excuses , looking for senator Bernie Sanders, who "will" solve their problems ...... and list goes on .
I tend to think all this crap started during the founding of the Republic. Hamilton and his federalists wanted an industrialized nation (which of course was owned by his rich friends). After the bond and assumption of state debt scandal he openly said his goal was to create a cement that would bing the rich and powerful together with the new federal government. That would seem as a recipe toward disaster, but people thought one word back then as they do today, and that word is "jobs". Way too much emphasis is put on jobs in our society. We would not have class problems nor crazy wealth distribution if this country never took the Hamilton route of industrialization funded by banks and protected by government sanctions. That is not capitalism, perhaps cronyism or corporatism but definitely not the voluntary free exchange of goods called capitalism. Once people are in control of their own fate, the system nor society will ever get better
Devon from 2057 here. I cannot believe our ancestors were basically slaves to the dollar. I'm happy that now a days, our bosses give us half a day off every week and I get to see my family every other weekend. My cage is constantly cleaned every day, basically free maid service. There is no health care costs like 2018! I think it's because our employers force feed us specific quantities of food in an 8 hour window per day. This frees us all up to work around 12-16 hours per day. JK, artificial intelligence took over. The poor murdered the rich and ransacked their properties. The government synced up with the singularity and the singularity removed the government (ironic, right?) It's peaceful, after the removal of the basic genetic code of humans and the cross-breeding of synthetic quantum computers with the "natural" human. We call the naturals ORGANICS from the farms, but that's another story. Life is better after the singularity. Ask me how fast paint dries, I counted once!
David totally missed the point that wages had stopped increasing as a direct result of going off the gold standard in 1971. corporate influence on government to not increase minimum wages together with inflation caused by not being on a gold standard erodes wealth from the poor and middle class
Correct. If we'd stayed on the gold standard our GDP would likely be only 1/3 of what we have now. To paraphrase Dean Wormer, "Smaller, slower, and less innovative is no way to go through life, son."
Want to discredit the video? Call it marxism OR leftist and that is it. People seriously cannot think for themselves without labeling something as marxist to justify not considering the arguments made in the video.
What arguments? That the rich are evil oppressors? I know a number of rich people that started off with *_nothing_* and worked their way to the top; most are business owners or happily retired at this point. This video pushes the fallacy that people are more or less "locked" into classes, which is BS. The New York Times recently released an interactive wealth mobility chart, and there's plenty of mobility. Only 26% of blacks and 37% of whites who are born rich will remain rich as adults, and 13% and 11% (respectively) will actually end up as poor adults. Conversely, only 28% of poor black kids and 27% of poor white kids will remain poor as adults, 6% and 10% (respectively) will end up rich, while another 11% and 15% will end up in the "upper-middle class" category. Asians, by the way, had much better upward mobility than whites, (and less downward mobility) so racism isn't the cause of the disparities. In any case, this *isn't India,* we don't have a caste system holding people down, and I'm not interested in hearing a "Marxist ecomomist" (talk about an oxymoron) tell me otherwise.
michaelrose93 michaelrose93 michaelrose93 consider the source. The editors of the nyt are on the record of being pro capitalist. Do you think the editors of the nyt would undermine the institution of capitalism? Don’t expect pro capitalist sources to provide the analysis of capitalism’s failures, yet alone consider alternative more visible socioeconomic models. Mobility? Interesting. Given that we are living in the modern guilted age. Wealth inequality is devastating in this country. The poverty levels are staggering and severely underestimated. The UN recently issued a scathing report on US poverty. Are you aware of it? Google it. Perhaps you mean to say that a few end up rich-bc that is true. Bc by the design, statistically speaking, only a few can ever reap the rewards bestowed by capitalism. Poverty and wealth inequality are built into capitalism structurally-no matter how hard one works. Racism isn’t built into capitalism? You need to do your homework. I’m not going to even try to explain the laundry list of examples.
Like I said before, I have *_witnessed_* many people rise through the ranks, including my father, who went from an entry level computer programmer to a senior vice-president of a huge multinational corporation. Or my last boss, who went from working from dark to dark, stacking tires in his dad's auto shop, to being a very wealthy businessman with a bunch of rental properties, (no, his dad did not help him in any way, other than to cement his determination to become wealthy as a young man) and many other examples. As for the statistics, the NYT article was originally compiled to push your false narrative of the inherent racism built into western society. [Oh yes, I've done my homework, far more than yourself, I've studied the topic independently for years, with reams of information from the US Census to back me up.] The first article was entitled, *"Extensive Data Shows Punishing Reach of Racism for Black Boys."* The NYT then made the mistake of then providing an _interactive chart_ in a follow-up article (*Income Mobility Charts for Girls, Asian-Americans and Other Groups*) wherein you can freely compile the stats in any manner you choose, smashing the false rhetoric in the first article. The source they used was an independent study entitled, “Race and Economic Opportunity in the United States: An Intergenerational Perspective” by Raj Chetty, Nathaniel Hendren, Maggie R. Jones and Sonya R. Porter; The Census can show you very similar information as well, you just need to crunch the numbers yourself. You might also want to consider that communism has never been a financially successful system, whereas capitalism has produced the strongest economies in the world, and will continue to do so. Yes, it's true that the system isn't so kind to those of low intelligence, but then again, the labor of such people isn't worth as much as the labor of, say, a brain surgeon. But I suppose in your "perfect" society, a ditch-digger and an airline pilot should get equal pay. LOL
The issue isn't a matter of equal pay for different labor occupations. The real issue is that we live in a nation of material abundance, abundance the world has never seen, and abundance that will continue to grow due to technological innovation, yet the economic system subjects millions of hardworking people to artificial scarcity and deprivation. No one is denying that some people, with hard work, are lucky enough to increase their incomes or even become capitalist owners themselves. The truth is, though, that most people will not--no matter how hard they try. There are only so many high paying jobs, and the economic paradigm can only support so many landowners. This is a statistical reality. Think of the game monopoly. The game, like capitalism, is designed so that wealth and resources systematically funnel overtime to those winning the game. The more resources and wealth you have, the easier the game is, and the easier it is to squeeze competitors out. Here is the point. The system of success and loss is more of a struguctutal reality than it is an individual one. The real issue isn't one of individual behavior, because, if we are all honest with ourselves, no one chooses to be poor, and the working class and poor have not option BUT to work hard. Blaming the poor for being poor bc they are somehow less deserving, don't work hard enough, are not smart enough, over looks the systemic influences that keep the poor poor.
_"The real issue is that we live in a nation of material abundance"_ < Indeed we do, thanks to capitalism! _"yet the economic system subjects millions of hardworking people to artificial scarcity and deprivation."_ < and yet allows millions of others to thrive. The majority of people are doing fairly well here in the US, less than 1 in 5 are impoverished, which is better than most places in the world. _"The truth is, though, that most people will not"_ < That's not the truth, most people will, a _minority_ of people won't do well in the US. Although it's true that some people, generally untalented people, will work hard their entire lives and merely get by, but that's just how it is for the majority. . Very pretty women don't even have to work, just look pretty and not be a b!tch and their income is probably secure. So tell me, should we do something about that? Like, make society "fairer" for ugly chicks? Because that's exactly what you're shooting for. Life isn't "fair," it never has been. It's so unfair, in fact, that unsuccessful or deformed animals don't live to reproduce. They die. And you can be thankful for this fact, for without it, you wouldn't have nearly the heath or as good of an immune system as you do. It's only for the fact that countless of your unhealthy / unfit ancestors *_didn't make it_* that you are as healthy as you are today! Capitalism is genius, because it *_mirrors nature._* It has the same rewards, and the same punishments, and thus it is an incredibly productive system. While I *_do_* agree with having some sort of safety net for those who fall between the cracks, I want such programs to be limited. Not everyone will manage to get rich in the US, that is true, but the vast majority will certainly get by, which is all that can be expected in life. If you've got a roof over your head, air conditioning, hot water on tap, the internet, etc, you are doing _so much better_ than most of the people on the planet, so quit complaining about the so-called oppression. Don't you realize that there are billions of people who would *_love_* to come to the US and be "oppressed" in your place? You have no idea how good you've got it. True, there are only "so many high paying jobs," and equally, there are only "so many" people _qualified_ to perform them. Hard work is only one qualification. A ditch digger works hard, but he'll never be paid much. _"The more resources and wealth you have, the easier the game is"_ Absolutely true, but most people aren't even trying to play "the game." The vast majority of people are quite happy if they're making something like 80K a year and up. Many are happy with much less. It is only a small percentage of people who actually _want_ to be "rich," most people are just happy to get by. Which is one of the distinguishing characteristics of the rich, they are always trying for more. How many millionaires have lost it all, only to become millionaires again? PLENTY of them, which only goes to prove that the money didn't really come from without, it came from within. It was the drive to succeed, not the external circumstances, that was the most important factor. Marxists twist this fact around, pretending that we live in some sort of feudalistic society, which hasn't been true for a long time. _"no one chooses to be poor"_ < Not the majority, but some do. I used to hang out with the homeless, to see how they lived. Most of the ones I met had no aspirations to rise above their homelessness, they seemed to enjoy it in fact, or at least they enjoyed living without responsibilities. I know another guy who's immensely talented, yet somehow manages to remain poor. He makes string after string of bad decisions. He's talented enough to pursue just about any field of technology you can name. All he needs to do is get a degree, in any of them, which would be easy for him. His friends encourage him to do so. But he never does. He does handyman work, and technical "work" for con-artists that never even pay him! He wastes his life spinning his wheels, while he could easily be successful. I knew another guy, dumb as bricks, but managed to make a decent living as a plumber or a plumber's assistant or something. Much more successful than my smart but unsuccessful buddy. America is wildly successful, there are no "systemic influences" to keep poor people poor. The vast majority of those from poor households aren't poor by the end of their lives, so that theory is mistaken.
I love his comments at the very end. I’d love to see that as a movie - The American working class: with a vengeance! Of course, I would love that even more in real life.
😂😂😂. That amounts to cloning of faeces. He is not coming with any viable economic model for the poor people except suggesting that the money of the rich must be illfully taken away from them. If he was suggesting that the poor must unite and create their own business which will have nothing to do with the rich, then I'd say that's smart. Let's see how it goes.
I wonder if class is the result of the basic caveman motivation to attract mates which necessarily requires differentiation from the pack. Imagine a world where scarcity has been eliminated, where anyone can have whatever material thing they want and are free to do with their time whatever they wish ( short of harming others of course). It seems to me that we would still have classes based on some other criteria in lieu of material wealth. The idea being that we are not content being equivalents of one another, that there will always be this motivation to be in a position that has higher social worth than others. A position that by default must be difficult to attain and will always represent a small fraction of society. Eliminate the barriers of entry and another construct will replace it. I don't see how you solve this inevitability of inequality if it's not a result of circumstance but an inherent human motivation. And even if it were possible to change our fundamental nature, would we still be humans post change?
Here is an easy to understand example of how Mr. Wolff's theory should work when applied to school students. Say you have a graduating class of 400 students. You have the over achievers who spend countless hours studying and performing extra credit to reach the high honor roll with a 4.0 or higher GPA. Those students are members of scholastic achievement groups. Those students are earning scholarships to college and are the future leaders of their generation. On the opposite side, you have the kids who dislike school, routinely skip class, never do any homework, smoke in the bathroom, do drugs and get pregnant. According to Mr. Wolff, on graduation day, the school board would take the entire classes GPA and divide by 400. Everybody graduates with an identical GPA because it isn't fair that the kid who worked his/her ass off should actually benefit form their hard work and sacrifice. In Mr. Wolff's world, everyone should be treated equally and fairly.
Really? If you are going to operate under different premises, at least do the decency of not twisting Wolff's words to fit under your premises. He very clearly states that the majority of people are going to work under his premise. This does not translate to a bunch of bums that skip school.
I appreciate Richard's clear, simple perspective on this subject but what he describes in this vid is not just extremely oversimplified and spun like crazy, it's just plain factually wrong. So many people borrowed money on credit cards and for bigger houses because it's part of their short-sighted human condition to not delay gratification. Lot's of us, not, perhaps, a majority, didn't borrow money with credit cards and for houses, we did without until we had the money in hand for the purchase. The majority of any group of people, in any country, in any era, has been prone to indebt themselves to the hilt of whatever credit that is extended to them. All that's novel about the current debt phenomenon is the scale of the debt and scope of the population that access to credit has been extended to. As for the evil, capitalist overlords that are enslaving the people through debt, slavery has always existed and always will. Used to be the slaves had to be shackled and beaten into their harnesses every morning. Now the slaves set their alarm clock and drive themselves to their stall where they put the harness on themselves. A much more benign system. Those with self control and the ability to delay gratification will be much better off than their peers no matter what class and what system (outside a totalitarian system) they are in.
+Matt Obermiller It's the responsibility of the bank to lend their money responsibly. You're blaming the victim when it's really the fault of the banks for making imprudent investments. Like the old adage goes: "When you owe the bank $10k, you're in trouble. When you owe the bank $10 million, the bank is in trouble."
roomie4rent Your comment really jumps around but I'll try to track. If you are referring to President Clinton starting what became the sub prime mortgage collapse by forcing the banks to lower qualification thresholds and insuring these loans with tax dollars, how is the bank responsible? Banks, like every other business, exist solely to make a profit. Period. They are like a dog, barking, snarling and straining at the end of it's leash. It wants to bite something. Let it of the leash and it will do exactly that. No mystery there. Unleash a business and force it to do something that will make it more money while guaranteeing it can't loose money and the business will enthusiastically do exactly that. No mystery there. If I had seen any evidence of regulatory capture on the part of the banks (not saying it didn't happen, I just haven't seen any mention of it yet) I would be totally for lots of bankers going to jail for a very long time. But they aren't the ones who initiated the subprime collapse, Clinton with his feel good social engineering scheme did. Bush could have done something but didn't, shame on him also.
Matt Obermiller Unless the government owns the bank in question, it can't force it to lower lending standards. It seems you're yet another conservative attributing the Great Recession to burdensome regulations enacted by an overreaching government, when it was actually bank lobbyists and moneyed interests that demanded the government take a more _laissez faire_ approach to the financial industry. Regulations that existed to stymie rampant speculation were watered down at the insistence of these trade groups. No president can unilaterally demand any company sabotage itself. Rather the banks were only too eager to do it to themselves. If you don't believe me, read the report of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. fcic.law.stanford.edu/report/conclusions
roomie4rent You are correct, the banks very well may have performed what has become the oldest big business trick in the book, regulatory capture but I distinctly recall president Clinton's publicity campaign touting "We're going to make the American dream available to lower income and minority Americans blah blah blah." I also recall that the anti discrimination laws were expanded to insure minorities were not left out of this huge human rights boon. Turns out the deadbeats took the bait and were suckered. You are right, the expansion of the anti discrimination laws was likely just unnecessary window dressing because the banks (in business only to make money, like every business) were eager to loan money to any deadbeat with a pulse as long as the gov. was guaranteeing the loans. The banks formerly had to make responsible loans to keep from losing money but that hunderence was removed by the fed. loan guarantee. The banks couldn't lose. Even with all this, the borrowers still should have exercised sound financial judgment and avoided shouldering debt that they couldn't realistically discharge. There are opportunities that are too good to be true confronting each of us almost every day. Some more tempting than others but an adult has to accept responsibility for weeding through the lies to find the truth and accepting the truth even if they don't like it.
Matt Obermiller I'm not saying the borrowers are completely blameless, but the ultimate decision rests with the banks since it's THEIR money that's being lent, so they're the ones who are mostly at fault if they willingly choose to hand their money over to someone with poor credit (which they routinely did). Let us not forget the predatory lending practices, the sub-prime loans, and the elaborate financial instruments like CDO's and CDS's that all contributed to the untenable recklessness exhibited by banks at the time. They all swindled the people, fooled the government, and got bailed out in the end. You'd be better served directing your ire at them and not the insolvent Latino with the foreclosed house and destitute family who signed a document far beyond his understanding.
I was taught that class is not a difference between groups in a society but in reality a group of people. So we have the working class (mid class), the poor class and the rich class.
That's a lie. Class is ultimately about power. You have it or you don't. The working class is all people who sell their labor, and the ruling class is people who buy that labor.
@@arlert4396 that's the same. Because it just the difference in between the classes. Rich and poor. Rich buy work force, poor sells his work force. It is the same I was taught in college
Lucky us to be the ones who went through hell the best years of our lives who bought a home 30 years ago. Every damn pymt was hell. And how about that paying only three times what the home initially cost? Define human debt exploitation slavery. Then put the word legal in front of it. Folks, we need a new system. NLRBE.
6:51, is there anyone forcing anyone to take a credit card, i'm 'old fashion' when the bank offered me a credit card i said "no thank you mam, i'm affraid that i might use it irresponsibly, if i want to buy something i rather save up my money first then buy it."
Son of Ode If you want to rent a car, rent an apartment, or buy a house, you must have a history of credit which pretty much requires you to have used credit cards. So yeah, if you want to be able to live anywhere, your hand is kind of forced.
I have a creditcard AND money in the bank. Whatever I pay for, I pay with my own money, saved up money. I have delayed my wishes until I owned the money. I do not have a history of credit. I don't need that, because I have money
Yes, there are those forcing others to take credit. In fact this was discussed directly and in no uncertain terms by Mr Wolff in the video. When there are no other means upon which to acquire the necessities in order to live a decent, humane life, you are EXACTLY forced to use whatever is presented to you to do such. Arguments against this all tend to a common theme - "if you cant afford it dont be irresponsible and go into debt... etc". Another one could be to argue against my assertion that people are seeking "necessities" by refusing to recognize that the goods/services acquired by taking on debt are indeed "necessary"... Fine, even if this were the case (which it is not) that argument is still absurd as it effectively argues for a terrible quality of life and against any sort of decent standard of living for society. It justifies and perpetuates the destruction of the country. It is a promotion for the "race to the bottom" we, as americans, seem so hell bent on running. This is a total perversion of the goals and ideas upon which our society was founded ("life, liberty, and the pursuit of...") and which any decent society espouses to hold. Finally, I have to address the bullshit ideas that always seem to crop up in these discussions concerning having kids and starting a family. This belief that "you shouldnt have had kids if you couldnt afford them" and that it is "irresponsible" and "your fault" and/or somehow immoral is pathetic, disgusting, ignorant, and cowardly. If this type of thinking/advice/whatever were appropriate then we must throw out any notion that we live in a "free" society. It implies that only a select portion of the population should have the privilege of engaging in perhaps the most fundamental activity of life which is blatantly immoral and its motivating ideology - inequality, oppression, elitism, etc - is disgusting. It is pathetic that some are such cowards that they place the blame on the exploited and oppressed for such normal activities instead of recognizing that the problem lies with the structures and institutions of a corrupt society and that the blame should be placed on those who actively shape it. If you are poor and have kids it is the wealthy and powerful who seek to maintain that poverty that are the irresponsible and immoral, not the impoverished whose only crime is being human. Its absolutely disgusting that the arguments go the other way but it does highlight the nature of those making them - indoctrinated ignorant elitism.
Force is when someone is compelled to do something against their will. No one is forced to borrow money. It is not at all "pathetic, disgusting, ignorant and cowardly" to believe that spending more than you can afford is not a good idea. Wealth is created by producing goods and services that people will voluntarily purchase. How does that maintain poverty?
This video was produced before the crash in 2008. After the crash 0.05 percent of the population gathered up 60 percent of all the money and ownership.
I made it from poverty to upper class. It totally sucked, but I did it. A lot of it was mindset and action. If I watched this video at 18 or even gave a crap about class I never would have achieve anything. Be careful what you putting in your head space.
It was quite a set up for the working class/force to, once again, get shafted by banks, corporations, etc. I lost income property due to this system, along with destructive tenants and dishonest property managers. It is a long story, but the main point is, it was set up to lose (at least within the last decade). I could not explain sub-prime to you or anyone, all I know is that it bottomed out. A sub prime mortgage is a type of loan granted to individuals with poor credit histories (often below 600), who, as a result of their deficient credit ratings, would not be able to qualify for conventional mortgages And the beat goes on. I have never, in my life, seen so many people working two and three jobs just to survive. As for seniors on a very small budget ... it is a nightmare. Many seniors can't work for physical reasons and there is a very small market for them in the work force as well. They cannot compete for most jobs that go to the young and there is ageism prejudice in the market place as well. And in market where many of the young are working more than one job ... or cannot even find a job. What are the seniors to do? Outsourcing, in my opinion, is one of the big reasons things are bad in our country now.
I am sorry for the losses you experienced in rental real estate, by will you admit that those losses were at least in part due to your own inability to recognize and recruit solid tenants, hire an honest property manager(s), and know a risky loan from one that would fit your business? All are out there. I've owned and rented a dozen SFHs and duplexes for the last 12 years, without major problems. And FYI, offshoring is no threat to your rental business -- the number of new apartments they're building in China doesn't affect your US-based rental market in the least.
Democracy is from, by and to the people but for the handful of the few wealthy bankers and opportunists investors and the big corporations who have a monopoly on the government and the ordinary citizens
If we had a law requiring that all U.S. corporations employing over 3 people must include 50% labor as members of the board of directors, would that help to get the labor's democracy in the workplace & better labor representation in government?
Yep! That's what the germans (the only REAL implementation of social democracy) do today. As a Marxist, im super in favor of that, but I feel that it does not address the core issue. It is still *actual* progress though!
That last line was a warning. We are rediscovering Class as a whole -- from the Left and from the Right. Petty social issues will likely be put aside in the upcoming years. Dr. Wolff foresaw the Trump and Bernie mass movements. In 2009-2012 he talked about such political movements emerging.
+Guillermo Rivas: Richard Wollf, Chris Hedges & Noam Chomsky ALL got it right, fully backed by facts & history. The only group who are starting to connecting the dots are the Millennials.
What is the cost of land for constructing a three bedroom house with one kitchen, one bathroom, one verandah, one garage in suburban cities of USA? Rough cost required for 1440 square feet. And what is the land tax the USA govt charges from land owners for residential plots of 1440 square feet?
There is only human economic behavior. Call it what you like... capitalism... whatever. All that differs between social arrangements is how they manage and regulate human economic behavior. Socialism is just another management philosophy that does NOTHING to change the basic realities of human existence. This is why it fails everywhere it's tried: It sets itself to a mission that it cannot fulfill - namely, to make human reality into something else that is incomprehensible and anti-natural.
Capitalism means private ownership of the means of production. Socialism means common ownership of the means of production. That can be done in many ways: For example workers and communities could democratically control and own the means of production , like they do in the Mondragon Cooperatives: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-8ZoI0C1mPek.html You're full of crap..
Small collaborative groups are the most natural arrangement for humans. Capitalism is a glorified pyramid scheme that forces anyone below the top to kick and bite others to snatch whatever they can for themselves. It's all a zero sum game that brings out the worst in us. There are however some notable exceptions that demonstrate the efficacy of collaboratively based systems; open source software, non-hierarchical business structures etc. It is rather flabbergasting to see you speak of socialist ideals as 'anti-natural'. I would argue that this vicious profit motive driven capitalist system is absurdly unnatural, and don't forget it hasn't existed very long, hasn't provided jack for half the people on earth, isn't stable and now appears to be coming apart at the seams. Is it possible you're just being loyal to what is familiar?
Sure State-supported capitalism has indeed led to much innovation by harvesting public funds (taxes) to enhance private wealth. There is this little place that sent rockets into space in the U.S. called NASA. There's also another little place that harvests public funds (taxes) called the Pentagon. The Pentagon then sent those funds to places like M.I.T. where private wealth could benefit from it's discoveries. The list of innovations made in the tax payer-funded public sector is astounding. But since you extoll the virtues of hard work, I'll leave that up to you to do the research, instead of me kindly listing all of them. Mind you, I do this to teach and not out of any sort of malice.
Sure My apologies for being presumptuous. Would it be fair to assume that you are a laissez faire capitalist who supports "voting with currency" as a means of regulating business? A Von Mises and Rothbard adherent? The reason I ask these questions is because I'm attempting to gauge your economic viewpoint in order to engage in meaningful dialogue with you. I mostly identify with with a libertarian view of socialism (e.g., little to no state intervention, voluntarism, worker control of the means of production, workplace cooperatives, land trusts, etc..).
Capital tends to Centralize and Accumulate over time as Constant Capital displaces Variable Capital. That means, technology and machinery displace living labor. Cars replace horses. Factories replace blacksmiths. Construction vehicles replace thousands of laborers. Over time, this means those who own the technology and machines get more economic power and those who rely on their labor get less. This, ultimately, is what leads to the formation of classes.
Strangely enough workers do not massively establish cooperatives that would allow them to work and distribute equally fruits of their labor, but instead prefer to be hired by capitalists and to be exploited. Why is so? I would like to hear your take on this.
+mba2ceo yes! history is the legacy of persons seeking greater ambition than their own hand can accomplish. Using manipulation of others to achieve their own ends...one path of this ownership or slavery.
Humanity has been living in state societies since the rise of Egypt and Mesopotamia. The human race has forgotten the wonders of egalitarianism and equality for all members of their communities.
ewqdsacxz765 Agreed. By egalitarian, I don't necessarily mean primitive society. I just mean people need to be more equal and look out for each other better. Less social stratification and more equality for all. Instead of living in a society where the rich get richer while everybody else gets poorer in comparison to the rich, the rich need to be pounded down or cut down like a blade of grass that has grown too long. The idea of pounding down people who become too rich or too arrogant is true egalitarianism. It can be applied in OUR culture. We just need a cultural makeover where we replace some of our current values with egalitarian ones. Egalitarianism = Controlling the powerful instead of letting the powerful control us. The nail that stands out gets pounded down.
The narrative of this video was constructed to create resentment for one of the greatest economic systems created- capitalism. Profit is a beautiful concept. This doesn't mean people must use greed or corruption to obtain a profit, although some people do. ALL systems have inequality in them; Capitalism is the only one that simultaneously creates wealth and allows for massive technological advancements to be made.
The video has too many half-truths and inaccuracies to count. First of all, painting corporations and their executives as tyrants not answerable to society is not true. Corporations must answer to market forces--which is just you and I voting with our dollars: If the corporation provides us with what we want, we vote with our dollars to keep them in business; if they don't, we vote with our dollars to put them out of business. Secondly, the question of wage growth is not as simple as the video makes it out to be. True wage growth rightly includes non-monetary compensation which increases quality of life: better food; better and wider range of products; better healthcare/life expectancy; better access to information (internet); and much more. Furthermore, wage growth numbers are not accurate if an increasing divorce rate is not taken in account: household income statistics will, of course, decrease if households go from two incomes to one. Also, a growing retirement population skews traditional metrics. Also, doubling the paid workforce by women entering the workforce skews traditional metric. Much more can be said, but such a broad question cannot be easily addressed in a small space.
@@neptasur great analysis. Currently I'm reading Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell. After finishing the book I'll have a better understanding of how economic principles can be used to explain the inconsistencies of this video. One thing is certain, Richard Wolff did not do a thorough, unbiased, and clear analysis of the cause and effects of the financial decisions individuals make that ultimately affect our economy and create classes. Instead, he blankets this erroneous notion that capitalism and corporations are the cause of financial scarcity of the working class. This idea parallels the horrendous thought that if an individual or an entity is financially successful then it must be at the expense of someone else. I'm currently working on a RU-vid channel that will be up this upcoming 2019 year and plan to do an unbiased analysis of "How Class Works".
@@Gaonaism Cool! Let me know when you get your channel up. Richard Wolff and his ilk are not interested in being unbiased, they are interested in manipulating information for purposes of social engineering--socialists always have been. I'm not saying there isn't validity to some of his points, there clearly is, but greed and human corruption are a problem in any system we could come up with and not exclusive to capitalism. One question I ask people like Prof Wolff is how their model will be different at the company level: in capitalism, the company must strive to meet market demand (which, again, is merely what you and I require of them). I ask in their system, will companies still strive to meet market demand or not? If yes, they're merely suggesting a way to improve capitalism (rightly or wrongly). If their system will not seek to meet market demand (i.e. it will not seek to give you and I what we demand), then it must require a despot (government, or tyrant, or whatever) to decide what we should have--tyranny. This is why capitalism is democratic while socialism is, by nature, despotic.
