He also spreads lies about the EU and thinks socialism is the answer to everything. I'm a believer in Social Democracy and believe that we need more investment in Social Programs, keeping healthcare out of private hands in addition to roads etc. But socialising the entire means of production is stupid..
well, nothing ever lasts forever. But if you let it, it might be there right into oblivion. remember it is a system that is like an engine. it runs untill fuel runs out.
Capitalism, the legal pyramid scheme. Yeah yeah... I know. Oversimplified. Whatever. There is more to it than that I know but it DOES have the exact same flaw as a pyramid scheme. ...and more.
Socialism is not the government doing things. It's the workers controlling the means of production either directly or through the worker's state. Capitalist reforms aren't the answer and will likely be eroded over time. We need to focus on the socialist history and analyze why they had struggles and work on that. That's how I see it.
I turned away from capitalism's insanity nearly 20 years ago. Still worked, but no buy in. Now I have a five acre food forest and no debt. Capitalism is CRAZY, and crony capitalism is worse.
Capitalism itself contains within it a teleological inconsistency that can never be reconciled: that is that capitalism as an economic system requires competition for the economy to remain strong, however, the goal of corporations (entities within a capitalistic system) is to eliminate competition and exist uninhibited in the marketplace.
Businesses have three main purposes: 1. Make a profit. 2: Provide work for people. 3: Provide services to society. If a business doesn't do all three, then it has failed, no matter how "successful" it is.
Dr. Jordan Peterson is by his own recognition a conservative, but even he is concerned about the negative effects of massively unequal distribution of wealth. He specifically cites the correlation between violent crime rates and the Gini coefficient, which is a measure of relative poverty.
Berning Sandwiches Peterson does a lot of what the Bible does. He speaks from both sides of an argument contradicting himself all the way and allowing his followers to selectively choose what to take in and play whatever games they need to interpret it however they like.
Dom Trussardi becuase reality says something cannot exist while being singularly positive or negative. If capitalism was only good socialism wouldn't even be percieved to exist. And vice versa. Modern conservatism is often called the third way or classical liberalism based the jeffersonian democratic republican parties philosophical substructure. Conservatism is the balance zone between the chaos of anarchism(libertarianism) and the order of totalitarianism(communism) for example. Thats an oversimplification but... The idea is that order must be obtained. In a constitutional republic, which usa actually is(i.e. not a democracy), the entire premise of law(order) is based on individual sovereignty and virtue above that which a system of order (government) can provide as it can only exist in a hierarchical structure(of law). Hence the eye of provenance on the dollar. Enlightenment and virtue transcend the hierarchy of imposition of law. Law must be imposed some how after all No conservative is an unfettered capitalist. As a conservative im aware of the strategy of the elitist right. Conservatives are by def both socialist and libertarian, as an honest conservative, i believe in the constitution which precisely addresses this with a bicameral congress. Its not a contradiction of philosophy but either/or a dereliction, dissonance, persuasive/coercive defamation, misperception of what one desires based on "now" and/or "what could/would be" for better or worse Both sides do this to varying degrees based on either "yin or yang" You cant perceive good without an axiom of evil. You cant even perceive your own political beliefs without and oppsitional axiom, be your perception true or false. Its literally impossible That without contradiction cant not be percieved, or you could say absolute truth is unobtainable. Which is why we're here watching this. It is not a matter of deception which one fits his narrative into a way of perception or another, but an acceptance of natures duality of: Life death, good evil, light dark, masculine feminine, strong weak, truth lie, asleep awake, as above so below, happiness sadness, vice virtue, hard easy...etc (gone on to infinity beyond the capacity of spoken word) Tis the profundity of the constitution at its most fundamental philosophical premise. Delete everthing i just wrote, in other words, EVERYONE IS CORRECT AND INCORRECT at the same time.
You spent all of that time to say what exactly (not being a dick actually asking). Yes contradictions are necessary for definition but what does that have to do with the contradictions in public practices by our legislators and corporations? Your exercise in theory while interesting isnt applicable or even that helpful because the human experience as a result of the contradictions in corporate and legislative policy is not simultaneously good and bad, or right and wrong. It is tangibly one or the other. It can be measured in the gap between the richest and poorest. You can follow economic practices that have contributed to declines back to their roots. Everyone is not both right and wrong, there are differences of outcomes that can be measured. I will concede that you are somewhat right because there are degrees to each sides correctness and incorrectness with some being more of one than the other.
Ty Challenger i spent "all that time" (not much time) saying what i just said. Do you want an essay? Everything anyone has EVER said in the comment section of youtube is a summary. Thus you must be specific; and in rereading the thread again id change only two words and also add a few comment specific responses, which ill not go into now. None the less, you can take what you want from it. To ask "what exactly are you sayin" is oxymoronic in the sense that you then proceeded to explain some disagreement with a misinterpretation of my larger point. If you hadnt thought you knew what i was saying, the predication of your response could not possibly have been conceptualized. Regardless, at the end of my comment i stated a condensed form of one of my larger points and it was: "delete everything i just said __________" So the answer to "what are you saying" is right there dude. A simple, SPECIFIC, statement that you even conceded too. And so i wonder about you... Why? Anyway, That being said, its not always cut/dry; "To be or not to be" (tho sometimes it is) but often "to be or not be" is the conclusion that must be drawn from a complex yin yang spectrum and/or and entanglement of multiple spectrums which influence and define an "issue" A spectrum pixelated with archetypes, axioms, theory, science, history, and individual and collective sociological divinations by way of interpretation and reciprocation of true and/or false information. We are all right about some things and wrong about some things; On an individual and collective level.
The words "capitalism" and "greed" have no light, warmth, love, joy and beauty. Neither do the words profit margin and inventory. Neither do the brain numbing, soul sucking numbers that make up capitalism. At the risk of sounding radical, the words socializing, society and "socialism" have light, warmth, love, joy and beauty. So do the words "community" and communism.
To me, Capitalism is a beautiful word. Now let's look at facts. Capitalism moved the world from the dark ages of Fudalism into the industrial age. It has increased the life span and quality of life around the world. It has made life easier, safer, and more productive. It has taken medicine from leaches to Pace makers and pharmaceuticals from moss bandages to vaccines and antibiotics. It has made time consuming chores into slight inconveniences. It has changed the average person's life from labor to the grave into a retirement to enjoy the latter years. It has allowed one to spend and waste, or save and invest. It has made it possible to not only provide one's needs, but to enjoy one's wants. It has made it possible for a poor person to become a millionaire, and for a millionaire to become poor. Capitalism only works when there is freedom, so it has freed many, it has enslaved few. Debt is the slave master in Capitalism, and you get indebted by your own choices. No Capitalism isn't perfect, but there is no better system. People will always make wrong choices, or have some bad circumstance. But only Capitalism let's one recover from a bad choice, or even allows for one to improve their circumstance.
Addressing these as best I can: 1. The ecological contradiction (I know this as the limits of growth): This is a serious risk. If our population gets beyond what our planet can support, then we are screwed. But we can all ready see the way out, as standards of living rise, and especially as women get more education, fertility rates decline. So, if we develop in a sustainable way, our population will plateau before we reach our limit. 2. The lending and debt contradiction: When companies go bankrupt, they don't necessarily stop operating. One thing that would work is legislating that when publicly traded corporations default on their debt, they continue to operate, but the debt gets converted into equity. So the people who used to be the creditors now own the corporation free and clear. How could creditors complain about that? 3. the labor cost contradiction: So capitalists want to pay people less to make more profits. But paying people less means that people are going to spend less. So capitalists will have a harder time selling their products. If you are a capitalist, and your product isn't selling, but you still have a comfortable profit margin, which you really should have, since you have kept your labor costs low, you just lower the price. So this is actually how you get to a post-scarcity economy. No one has any money. But everything is free. So it doesn't matter. 4. The inequality and endlessly increasing consumption contradiction: So the rich are so much richer than everyone else that the level of consumption people come to expect, from watching how the rich act, is necessarily out of reach of the majority of the people. If the income tax were more progressive, and there were no deductions, exemptions, or other exceptions, that would pretty much solve this.
This conversation is analogous to a thought I had many years ago... The bad part is that the solutions are for the most part systemic: need for higher efficiency of recycling, lower the amount of consumption of basically all products, solving the population and energy problem... Basically very few actions can be done at individual level.
But... there are unlimited trees. We can plant more, we can find ways for trees to grow faster and more efficiently. There is unlimited fuel when we constantly find new fuels to use. What, really, is finite when human ingenuity and innovation is taken into account? Even if not infinite, things are not strictly the amount we start with, as Wolff seems to be suggesting here. He reminds me of Thanos tbh. "We have finite resources, too much people and consumption" omegalul
Well presented. The brevity and succinctness of the interview makes the issues easier to understand. It would help much to have a chalkboard or flip chart with prepared illustrations to make the issues easier to visualize. The way to win over minds is to make your ideas stick. The idea of monopolized over capacity to produce needs illustrating.
Even overlooking the conceptual misconceptions of this discussion, the main theme of it was put to rest in 'The Ultimate Resource' by Julian Lincoln Simon decades ago.
As I was watching this video I went through McDonald's drive-thru. What used to cost $5 now cost $8. 75. And of course the wages have stayed the same that entire time. I seriously don't understand how people are surviving? It's absolutely brutal out here. And obviously McDonald's is just an example of the prices everywhere being much higher while wages stay the same. how long are the people going to tolerate this before everything just explodes?
Contradictions: - High personal consumption is revered in capitalism, but limited resources is the reality of our planet. - Capitalism incentivizes saving on labor costs, but lower labor costs diminish workers’ ability to purchase the output of corporations. - High personal consumption is revered in capitalism, but consumption is hindered by the incentive to lower labor costs. - Crashes in capitalism are fixed by lowering interest rates, but lowered interest rates incentivize too much borrowing, which makes the economy more vulnerable to slowdowns. Question: isn't lowering interest rates an instance of government regulation hurting the economy, rather than capitalism per se?
An epic fail. Yeah, right. You sit there in your comfortable home, writing about the epic fail on RU-vid from your computer. You bought a five acre forest. You were smart enough to get out of debt but still fail to see how capitalism made this possible for you. You are an idiot.
The problem with Wolffs wage contradiction in capitalism is that real wages have consistently increased globally. (though real wages have stagnated in the Us and Europe).
Capitalism had boom.bust cycles about every 20 years. Socialism bandaid softens busts enough to keep it going. Cronyism and corporate welfare makes it worse. We need to create better.
The very basis of capitalism is competition. Competition is completely or nearly lacking in every important area of our economy: food, medicine, clothing, housing. All of this is controlled by a nearly exclusive small club of the hyper-wealthy, and they in turn share with those 10% or so of workers who represent the professional class they need to keep control and innovate enough to keep their profits churning. If small entrepreneurs actually could compete on a level playing field, then you would see real innovation, real wealth distribution and a more democratic capitalism. You would also see a more socialist capitalism. The two are not mutually exclusive. As a concept, there is nothing wrong with the idea of capitalism. But capitalism is NOT a form of government. It is an economic system, and like all economic systems, it tends to become dominated by the few, the wealthy, the corrupt. That's when government OF, BY and FOR the people is supposed to protect the rest of society. We do not need corporate predators among us; we individually do that quite well ourselves. Our founding fathers, including Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, actually wrote of the dangers of corporate control and were concerned that at some point corporate power would become a serious problem. Well, they were right. It HAS become a serious problem and it is effecting the lives of the majority of Americans negatively. If a corporation wants higher profits, then it must cut labor costs. If a corporation want even more profit, it must share those with few individuals. If a corporation wants lower taxes, it must corrupt government so it need not pay its fair share. This is the way people and human institutions always act. It is also why, in the end, capitalism and communism are really just mirror images of each other. Both give the control of the wealth to only a handful of people and the rest are used as fodder. That's precisely why people need laws, and corporations need regulations. Both are just laws saying you must do this and not THAT. And you can't do THAT because it hurts people. How much simpler does one have to make things before you clowns that do not share in this wealth train stop believing all the propaganda the wealthy put in front of you?
Libertarians always believe they will come out on top when there's no government or a State for that matter. Communists always believe they're leading the way for the greater good. Fascists always just want power for themselves. Anarchists are always just stupid.
Exactly,,, exactly.. And it's an historic set of happenings . When there's such a great divide between wealthy and working class,,, how else can it turn out?
The lack of understanding is hard to watch. 1. The fed price fixing the cost of money (artificially low interest rates) is the opposite of a free market. If government incentivizes corporations to take on excessive debt the unintended consequences can’t be attributed to “capitalism” 2. They both talk about scarcity of resources but ignore scarcity of human capital. Competition for workers drives salaries higher acting as a counter to employers trying to reduce labor costs. No economist I’ve ever met “struggles” with this as the interviewee suggests.
Also, apathy is a result of the 'biscuit' being out of reach. If a goal is sufficiently hopeless given current circumstance and information, people give up on it. Our sunken-ship bias may compel some to persist with even fewer to succeed... :(
Capitalism now a days is like smoking. The idea that it will satisfy your needs is more enticing than the act itself. Sure, the act is pleasurable and satisfies, but it always kills you just a little bit more each time you smoke a boagie. You have to convince yourself that it's a good thing that you need, in order to rationalize the action.
Another contradiction, people getting into jobs thinking that they will be available forever, or even should exist forever. "What about the coal miners?" Yeah? What about them? We should have long since stopped mining coal. So, there are jobs that are going away, some for good reasons and some for bad, but we need to acknowledge that fact and plan accordingly. Make employment education available for these displaced workers. If we lose our workers altogether, we won't have an economy, be it socialist or capitalist. We can't all code, we don't need ten million fry cooks or house painters. A total lack of planning is responsible for this, and "let the market decide" has shown a complete and total lack of will to adapt with any kind of real or necessary speed.
Cut your payroll spending to make a profit? That is why privatizing government agencies wouldn't work. The system as it is now isn't perfect, but it would be made worse if privatized. How? The need for profit by the owners of the private run agencies. An example, the postal service doesn't need to make a profit to sustain itself. If the postal service is operating in the red -- and it's lacking in efficiency-- it's probably because there aren't enough employees to run things smoothly. The same would happen with a privately owned postal service. So why is this country always so broke it's being run inefficiently? Money hoarding by the 1%. You don't have to be an economist to see that.
If a business man wants to cut costs by automating the process of production and firing workers wouldn't he be able to sell his product at a lower price thus benefiting the poor? Why is saving money a bad thing?
And when people lose their jobs from automation or they barely(sometimes not even) make enough money that is not a benefit. They need a livable wage. They don't need more and more superficial stuff, most of which is cheap and designed with manufactured obsolescence in mind.
Right, make the products cheaper - do it in Asia or Africa. Then the people who used to have these jobs in the home country can buy them cheap. What could possibly go wrong with this logic?
8:33 that is called P R O G R E S S. meaning that there is always something greater than you have. and guess what, some people have higher or lower progress/happiness levels than others.
The history of human civilization does not reflect the claims of Wolff. 200 years ago, 90% of all people on earth was living in utter poverty, equivalent to living under $2/day in earnings (in today's terms). Today, only around 10% of the world's population live on the same $2/day in earnings. 90% of the population 200 years ago was about 900 million people (the population back then was about 1B). 10% of today is 700 million. So, despite increasing the global population by 7x, the absolute number of people in poverty actually has gone down over the past 200 years. I do agree that income inequality by having the wealthy becoming so much more wealthy is a problem. The problem is that those wealthy can affect policy and decision making through paying the policy and decision makers a paltry sum to have them make policy or decide in the favor of the super wealthy. That's not good, and a super high taxation policy would help by tamping down their wealth. The goal is for all people to live in a copacetic agreement. That can't occur when there are people who have perverted wealth accumulation beyond needing money to live.
Wait. So the contradiction of capitalism is that there’s an involuntary, non market government institution manipulating interest rates to encourage debt? And then that entrepreneurs want to produce more goods and lower the prices of goods for workers? (Because he left that part out of the analysis of businesses conservation of labor...that’s just efficiency. Produce more with less and therefore there’s more goods for more people and leftover resources can be freed up for use of satisfying other demands. He doesn’t realize that prices go down with productivity??)
If paying low wages ruins your industry why hasn't America fallen over and over again in the 240 years that the vast majority of people have been paid "unfair" wages? we pay our workers low wages and the industry still exists. industry is based on making products that the consumer will buy. specific companies that doesn't serve their consumers fail which is why the industry as a whole is forced to serve the consumer. thats the stupidest "contradiction" I have ever heard.
You only need to look at real examples: a person in a zero hours, minimum wage job can make about 2 - 3 hundred pounds a week; an apartment costs 600 a month, food for the month 200 pounds, everything else 200 (say). So there you are, no discretionary spending power. How do you sell this guy an iPad?
Capitalism certainly does seem like a race to the bottom. Checks and balances via regulation, like a living minimum wage, could make capitalism more viable. Of course the real trick would be trying to keep corporations and the wealthy out of politics so the government would work for the good of the country rather than just for bribes.
I'm not sure if David Pakman is enjoying this or he's simply agreeing with him? He seems to be especially quiet in the interview, which is very uncharacteristic of him.
I'm not sure where to start he is wrong on so many points. Just to pick one how about the fact that what he is referring to as a contradiction is in fact the checks and balances of a free market system
9:06 are you saying that no one should have all those fancy things? and what about those that know they will never have that so they find something else to worry about. here is the flaw in your argument: it is up to the person partaking in the capitalist system to go as far as he/she wants to. they can stop at any point.
There is nothing inherently wrong with capitalism. In fact you can have greed and poverty in socialism. What matters is the spirituality of people. If people are compassionate towards each other, then capitalism can work extremely well. Adam Smith knew this when he wrote his best seller "The Theory of Moral Sentiments." Charles Dickens also understand the importance of love when he wrote "A Christmas Carol." Once people care about each other, then capitalism can create wonders. Think about corporation co-operatives. What a great idea!
Do the rich actually benefit from hording more and more wealth? In that inflation for property and luxury goods skyrockets. The size of their fortune grows larger and larger - but in real terms are they getting richer?
I've been arguing against population growth and immigration for years, because climate change and resource depletion are intimately tied to such. Yet every time I bring it up I get called a racist, and lately a Trump supporter, &c.
9:15 it is called work... work isn't "fun" or frankly this magic land that you feel it needs to be. some really enjoy their work, while others don't. i don't see the issue that you are trying to paint.
Well I guess I can the same about slavery. Some slaves enjoy working against their will others not so much. Work doesn't need to be voluntary or this magical place where ppl are in control of their destinies. Crazy libtards.
Pure ideology, devoid of reason, is the problem. Capitalism with the sharp edges taken off, on where evidence says it's warranted is the best we can do. Socialism with private industry added in is second best. The individual generally abhors conformity and strives for happiness freedom. Power structures run on mass conformity, and provide safety and stability. The problem there is people who prefer collectivist regimes only care about their own freedom, and power to make everybody else conform to it. Neither of those concepts is mutually exclusive of the other unless we decide they are. It's not go along to get along either. It's data based decision making we need.
perfect capitalism would be great, unfortunately it doesn't exist. it's an unreachable, and for the usual capitalist "players" unpleasant, goal. because at the point of perfection, capitalism would destroy itself
Interesting to read someone describe capitalism as a pipe-dream. I've only heard people say that about socialism. How would capitalism "destroy itself"?
TiffanyIndigo the goal of capitalism is more competition through the appeal of profit as the outcome of asymmetrical supply and demand to decrease prices and to decrease the use of ressources. at its point of perfection you have perfect competition, which has that little feature of not granting anyone any profit. at that point any further step a real economy is taking is anti-capitalist, meaning not driven by capital or market power, but any other power, for example governmental regulation in form of patent rights. thus it destroys itself, it's unstable. the reason for that is because humans are not driven by competition or ressource austerity, but by greed and the desire to monopolise. a stable economic system would need ever increasing profit, like compound interest ...
I don't think people would bother trading if they both had stuff that was worth the same. Value is decided by the buyer. Monopolies rarely happen without government subsidies or controls because people will naturally fill a need in demand where their is profit to be made. And, I must stress _made_ not stolen or swindled.
Profit has everything to do with value. If a consumer finds prices to be too high no transaction will be made. The seller must find a way to offer a service/good at a price the consumer finds to be of value. It is irrelevant how much is left over in profit. Buyers always want lower prices. Sellers always want higher prices. The middle ground they agree upon is the perfect competition.
This guy (who I know is a Marxist) actually sounds like most libertarians, especially when talking about central banking. Too bad his solution is probably "more government intervention," because that always works out well.
Capitalism and the so-called "free" market has practically become a religion now in this world. There's no way for it to function effectively given the most obvious reason of limited resources as prof. Wolff stated in the video among many other reasons such as technological progress and the installing of labor saving machinery and software by businesses. Anybody who just insist that Capitalism will work well into the future despite these problems is just professing their faith in it just like someone who's a devoted worshipper of a religion.
blujay1524 State intervention at least recognizes and attempts to correct these imbalances that spontaneously forms in the market simply because of the nature of the market system and the obvious flaws it has. Without state intervention the obvious and well recognized problems in the market such as overpriced commodity and realestate markets and the inevitable crashes that follow will keep on occurring.
I agree that capitalism is destroying the biosphere and creating artificial want, but does Prof. Wolff have specific proposals? Somehow our economic system is still functioning. It has worked reasonably well at times and very poorly at other times, but It has not completely collapsed since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Coming up with something better is going to be an enormous challenge with risks of its own.
It hasn't COMPLETELY collapsed. Steps toward socialism are what have helped. With less and less jobs, there WILL have to be a way to pay those that can't find jobs. If capitalists are accomplished in their goals, they will have found a way to completely get rid of workers so as not to have that business cost. Socialism is the future. Many European countries are already at this point. Many people can live a normal life even without a job. Not a lavish life, but a life. Through public housing, education, healthcare and food stamps. Many governments even issue phones with certain amount of minutes. Again, it isn't a lavish life and most people wouldn't want to rely on so little. So, there is always an option, if you want more, get a job, but all of those things listed above should be provided to EVERY human being.
+Orange Saffron I agree, but it will not be easy for large numbers of people to adjust to lives without work. I'm in favor of minimum income, but I also think there should be lots of new government-sponsored jobs, including jobs with non-utilitarian, artistic goals, similar to the old WPA.
European countries are not socialist, just saying. There's not really any country in the entire world that's socialist today. Beacuse the reality is, socialism simply means "worker or community ownership of the means of production".
Ok, today 2018 business is doing better, interest rates are going up. Business uses some of it's new assets to pay down their debt, some to increase their employee's pay, and some for reinvestment. What does the Left have to say about that! Well the left is complaining that it should have applied all the assets to the employees. And who controls the interest rates? A command and control economic group, by Government sanction, the FEDERAL RESERVE. Capitalism in a free market, which we don't have, has no single group setting interest rates, mandating interest rates, nor mandating the terms of who gets a loan. Which through our regulations we do have. So the more we go towards a Government controlled economy, the more problems we have, yet the left's answer is more Government control. The less we regulate, control, and dictate from Government. The lower the taxes and Government spending, the better the economy grows. Jobs become more available, wages go up, prices come down, and Capitalism flourishes. So why do you want a Socialist economy, that has never worked anywhere, ever, in the world. An economy that leads to, or comes from a large oppressive Government. At the cost of individual liberty. Only so that the Rich can be punished, and the lazy can be equal to the industrious. Yet in every Socialist country the "Leaders" are never equal to the "worker". Or are you willing to accept that some are more equal than others? And if so, why should the Government be the ones to reap the rewards of your labor. Earn what you own Own what you earn
Hey Sherlock , wages are stagnant, offshore bank accounts are fatter, and lakes&rivers are more polluted, tariffs have ate your tax break. Devos has scammed tax payer's and made millions on student loans. Maybe your her yacht boy making 10.00$ a day .Your flawed assessment is inaccurate ,. Capitalism without regulations and social institutions .will always take a straight line. Resulting in Psychopaths in
all right then Greg. then let's and government subsidy to corporations and private companies. They make more money than God there's no real reason they need assistance from the government. however I do not understand why providing oversight of banking and private business is somehow evil. You mean to tell me that if left to their own devices corporations and Banks would be honest and truthful which with each and every transaction just because?
Talking about capitalism while mentioning the central banks... Does this guy even know what keynesianism is, and how it has nothing to do with real capitalism? "Economist" my ass.
***** Uh...no. What I'm saying is that he's critizicing capitalism for something that was original proposed by someone who criticized capitalism as well: John Maynard Keynes. This dude is claiming that capitalism is bad because central banks are manipulating the interest rates, hence making that people (specially businessess and banks) borrow huge sums of money, and just like he correctly pointed out, could lead us to a bigger recession than the one that happened in 2008. He's completely right about that, and by the way, he explained it perfectly, and I was nodding the whole time while listening to him. However, it doesn't make any sense that this guy is against "capitalism" while he says that. It's obvious that this economic model that we have now is keynesianism. Everythink Wolff said in the video is what Keynes said the government should do because "it will stimulate the demand", which is something that ironically, is supported by social democrats like Bernie Sanders, who David Pakman supports. Look, this is very simple: if you look back at the 2012 election, there was only one candidate who was against the policies of the federal reserve in both parties: Ron Paul. And in this election, there's only one as well: Gary Johnson, and they both use the exact same argument that this guy is using to criticize KEYNESIANISM, but you and I know that this moron is not going didn't vote for Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, and instead he tries to indoctrinate millenials so that they believe that this keynesian policies are capitalism, and therefore, we have to get rid of it. The worse thing of all, is that this guy obviously knows this because he studied economics and he's not stupid, what leads me to believe that he's doing it intentially to lie to people, which shows how much a dickhead he is. I stopped watching the video after that part, I don't watch people who intentionally lie to me to try to make me fall in his failed ideology.
***** That's right, respond only to the one thing that you choose, while ignoring 90% of what I said, specially the most important stuff. If you understand "capitalism" as everything that is to the right of your communist wonderland, then yes, keynesianism is capitalism. But we, the people who understand political definitions, understand that capitalism, to make it short, the economic system in which there's no intervention of the government in the economy, and meanwhile, Woff and you are critizicing something that is... oh yeah, that's right, intervention of the government in the economy! Or what the fuck do you think central banks are? Who do you think sets interest rates? Ayn Rand? LOL. Interest rates are just a form of intervention done by the governments. I'm not saying that our system is not capitalist, before you attack me with a straw man, I'm just saying that Wolff is critizicng the system that has no government intervention in the economy by criticizing a form of government intervention in the economy. That's preposterous! And it shows how much of a liar he is.
***** The government spending to GDP has never been as high since the 1940s (and at that time it was obviously because of world war II), the public debt is in an all time high (again, it was only as hight when world war II happened), the interest rates has never been as low: they are practically at 0. And by the way, that was correctly pointed out by Wolff, but he fails to indicate that that is a basic characteristic of Keynesianism rather than free market capitalism. If this is not keynesianism, I don't know what is. But again, you decided to ignore everything else I said and only care about a single sentence, so I don't even know why I bother to type this.
***** Again, you didn't answer the main point of my argument, which is that LOW INTEREST RATES IS PART OF KEYNESIANISM, NOT TRUE CAPITALISM, but you rather decided to just answer to one specific thing I said, which wasn't even even important. Okay, bye then.
I began asking unions in the early 1990s on how they plan to deal with the race to the bottom with undercutting labour pools from cheaper countries, and I was not able to get any coherent answers from the House of Labour in Canada. I see it is essential that we begin to act on the foundations in Poli Sci 101 - that there needs to be a legitimation base for alternative policies - and the support base for these alternative policies have to fan out in order to create a wide common front of support - allowing this process to continue until critical mass for transformative change happens. I am baffled why progressives are not using the discussion page on the Sanders Institute You Tube Channel - that could be a venue for building a wide common non-partisan front - that could enable civil society and individual activists to face the hard issues. ru-vid.com/show-UCMrRWT88JkbVs2rbVlr9K2Qdiscussion
It's not a contradiction that companies try to find a way to get more done with fewer people. People find other things to do and usually more meaningful because usually those types of jobs that become obsolete are not meaningful at all.
What a bunch of crap. I'm a Econ student at GMU, we've had 3 noble prize winning economists teach and conduct research at our university. Lucky for me, I'm being thought about economics by the students of those noble prize winners. I don't think this guy understands basic labor economics. The graph shoes that when capital (technology, human productivity, factories, resources) increase the demand for labor increases the wages and the quantity of labor. I mean that's just common sense right there. My examples, Richard Arkwrigt and Henry Ford. When both revolutionized the process of production, proliticians criticized their methods because they believed that they would replace workers. Actually the complete opposite happened. At one point, Arkwright employed the most people in England because he needed workers to maintain his water powered machine. He was able to produce 20x more than the production before his invention, which lowered the cost. So workers were able to increase their wages while buying cheaper goods. Ford is self explanatory, because he built the biggest company in America at one point, while increasing wages for workers and decreasing their hours. His mass production decreased the price of cars, so it didn't take 3-4 years for the average American to save up for a car, only took 3-4 months. Quit your nagging, and look at the data. During the industrial revelation GDP per capital increased by 1.5% a year in Britain. I agree, there are side effects, love how this guy mentioned that were polluting the earth with coal and oil. Guess what, if it wasn't for capitalism and free markets we wouldn't have green energy. Why not mention that then? Oh because it wouldn't fit in with your outdated and stupid theory. Take the car for example. Before cars, people used horses. Horses were horrible because their use was limited and when they died no one picked up their corpses. They shit too lol. The city of New York was pilled with horse carcasses. Don't believe me use google images. Henry Ford invented and mass produced the T-Model, bringing down the costs for millions of consumers who had to pay a lot for the cost of horses and ending the crisis of many cities in America dealing with horse bodies. Yes, I am fully aware that cars produce too, yet every year they become more fuel efficient, because people demand lower maintaince costs, like gas. Capitalm has brought us from the T-model to the Tesla. If it didn't, then please explain to me how we got to the tesla. Did they all of the sudden fall from the sky or is Elon Musk really and alien? Lol
Babbling about "3 nobel prize winners" is an appeal to authority, and is not evidence you were taught well or learned anything. You don't understand the relationship of capital to labor, and that's evidenced by you saying it's just "common sense". You are also confusing the micro-level (industries and firms) with effects on the macro-level (the entire economy). You example of the industrial revolution also conveniently omits the fact that industrial change in Britain led to wiping out the prosperity of British rural inhabitants, who subsequently emmigrated around the world, thus avoiding the industrial changes, not mediating them. Also technological development is completely independent of economic systems. They are two different areas of study, and really have nothing to do with each other. You might as well connect religion to economic systems as connect technology to economic systems.
Before criticizing someone on their position, how about you state your legitimacy on this issue. Did you study economics, are a student or professor? Next, I would like to see you use some examples to justify your vague opinion. Prosperity of rural inhabitants? That's the dumbest thing I ever heard. Before the industrial revolution in France there were 5 famines within 50 years. By the Statute of Artificers, farmers were literally forced to work on the same farm for the rest of their life and were disallowed to change the farm they worked on, allowing the aristocrats to pay unjust wages. Engels would agree with you, he states that the industrial revolution was bad because it ruined the culture of agriculture. Stating that farmers and aristocrats would feast, play, and dance together: all a bunch of nonsense. If you're correct than why was the life expectancy between 30-35 years in between 1300-1730, but greatly increased after 1760 when capitalism expanded? Why were household incomes decreasing/ stagnate during this period, but increased by 1.5% a year during capitalism? Don't take my word for it, there is data on this from the Department for Work and Pensions. And no, technological development is key to economics. If you can't comprehend that technological improvements shifts the supply curve in a basic supply and demand model, then let's end the conversation right here, and you come back after watching a few youtube videos by Khan academy or read a Economic for Dummies book. Also, I am not confusing microeconomics with macroeconomics. If you understood either, you would know that micro is the study of individual decisions, not just those of firms and macro is, as you stated the study of the entire economy. However, both correlate. State fiscal and monetary policy, which is marco, can effect the choices of individuals which is marco. Now, I stated that the choices of 2 brilliant individuals, Arkwright and Ford, revolutionized the entire industry. And yes, you can explain both on a macroeconomic and macroeconomic level.
Idean Marvastian The full automation which is inevitable in the not too distant further can not be compared to the industrial revolution or the development of the assembly line. In those situations there was always another low-skilled job which the workforce could migrate to. But when all low-skilled jobs are automated, where will these people go ? They can’t all become engineers or programmers or teachers or doctors or lawyers - there aren’t enough jobs in those industries to to supply every former factory worker or cashier, nor will huge swathes of the low-skilled workforce have the aptitude for high skilled work. These people will need to be accommodated. Where will the truck drivers, the waiters, the cashiers, the factory workers, the street cleaners, the mechanics, the miners, the sanitation workers, the warehouse workers, the street builders, the tollbooth operators, the janitors, the couriers, the cab drivers, the farm-hands etc go ? All of these sectors face automation- the entire low-skilled sector faces automation and once it happens we will have a huge unemployment crisis to deal with. The future is not the past, we are facing a fundamental disruption in the social order the likes of which has never happened before.
All of these contradictions iron themselves out if you just allow enough time for "cause and effect" to take place. Greed and bad decision making are not rewarded in our society, unless there is an incentive, usually provided by ideologs or charities/governments.
I love guys like these: only looks at the companies and NEVER at the government itself. this is like Bernie sanders saying we need to cut our military but will never talk about the billions and billions of government programs (some useless or inept) that we can cut to cut down the debt.
fair enough. what's the issue with the FDA funding-wise? I know they have issues with the approval process, but haven't heard they're being wasteful on spending.
swiftset more them being inept. they are in charge of our food to see if it is good or not. they waste TONS of food and force grocery stores to throw out good food. john stewart did a video about it.
capitalism done intelligently and with feedback based on its successes and failures, instead of with blind faith that the current instantiation of capitalism is optimal.
swiftset a lot of today's capitalism that people go against is this sort of crony capitalism. like how walmart works with the government so that it can be the only grocery store for miles and takes out small business owners. i am of course, against that. we do need feedback from civilians so that it doesn't become this monopoly.
First, define capitalism. If you say "private control over the means of production" then we've never had capitalism. If you mean something else, then that would mean social democrats & democratic socialists are capitalists.
DrowFighterMage we have had/have capitalism. do every single state do it or do it as much as they could do? no. so what sort of system do we have then, pray tell. because the free market is the only reason why i say that the US is such a economic power house (fragile as it is).
9:29 ...you are blaming human rage and unhappiness..... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! david, this guy is funny! i know i see capitalism as this great thing, but even i don't have the hubris that it is the reason why i have a smile on my face! to be so bold to say that is the reason why our society has its ills is a quite... far fetched.
ry wyche - you must really be a loser if you are offended by Fred's comment. Get a job, you'll feel better about yourself. Then, and only then, you can move out of moms basement. Good luck:)
so many assumptions. Replacing humans in some labor does not eliminate all possible labor. Who will build and repair the machines that are replacing labor? Evolution is a marvelous thing. Literally needs to look up contradiction and learn what it means.
This man is a fool, we don't live in a pure capitalist system, with the government's heavy involvement in the economy we shouldn't be blaming capitalism, we should blame the government with their sup-prime housing loans. this video is gross and I am ashamed to have watched it.
Look David, we all know you're one of those National Socialist types, but at least try to make an effort not to be so painfully open about it. Also, no video on President Black Guy handing ICANN over to the UN? Kind of the most important story of the week honestly.
Rob McCune Rob, you have zero idea what a Fascist is. Well, if you owned a mirror you would; but i doubt you do considering they've probably all broken by now.
Sir Gawain Fascist: One who follows fascist ideology. Fascist ideology: A form of radical authoritarian nationalism that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe, influenced by national syndicalism. Try again.
+Seto Kaiba Brilliant argument. Made me want to watch it even more, because it shows your closed-mindedness and fear of being confronted with different views.
