Prof. Wolff i have listened to many of your lectures online and i find a lot of what you say speaks to me. I also listen to other economists such as Mark Blyth and read some Mises and Adam Smith. I have conducted my own look into capitalism and i find that i agree with you. If we take Marx's C-M-C and M-C-M framework and apply some variable to understand them better we can show the following: MP = CC - (MI+MW) [Profit = End product value - Cost of Production] CC = MI + CL [End product value = Initial investment + Labor Value] MP = (MI + CL) - (MI + MW) [substitute in values] MP = CL - MW [Profit = Labor Value - Wages paid to Laborer] *where MI is investment money for equitable labor, and MW is Money payed to wages or living labor. I am not aware if this has been done before, it seems like a fairly straight forward representation of marxs argument. It points out the inherant flaw of capitalism which is that Labor is necessary for the economy to function and the motive of capitalists is profits. This puts wages and profits in direct competition with each other and to the capitalist increasing profits is the name of the game so we can already see who the victor is. combining that with your EL + LL = TL equation Raw Materials + LL = EL (goods) [Which the capitalists buys] EL + LL = TL [capitalist supplies the goods laborers supply the labor] Cost - TL = Surplus. [Cost is the markets willingness to pay a price that was above and beyond the combination of equitable labor and living labor] This means that in the capitalist system the only way to protect wages is to secure the surplus so that it belongs equally to the investor and the laborer. At the end of the day the cost compensates the equitable goods to the investor as well as the laborer and both own the surplus. This in the long run dismantles capitalism does it not since if a company is to grow they use the profits generated to grow and the equitable goods purchased with cooperatively owned surplus belongs to both the laborers and investors. This changes it from a capitalist enterprise to a socialist one. Have i understood the lectures so far would be my question? Am i missing anything important a subtle argument perhaps or is this understanding good? Because the investor is supplying property and the laborer is supplying Labor
I'm a credentialed teacher working as a substitute for the last four years, and finding it difficult to find a permanent position, since my suject matter isn't a STEM subject. Not to get too deep into it, but I'm not convinced that the way public schools are/have been run are conducive to learning. Too often these issues are left to charters to solve, and all I see as a result are underserved communities and admin dressed like bankers, driving fancy cars, funneling tax money into their pockets. Are co-ops a viable solution? Are they being utilized in this country? How are they being used? Or why aren't they being used?
History shows that tax breaks for the wealthy and the national debt going up coincide. The graft shows it. Arguing that tax breaks for the wealthy does not increase wages, job, or lower GDP, it only goes into the pockets of the wealthy and the social programs and social security are under attack. Minium wage has not increased with inflation. Please explain your view.
Are many of today's Republicans descendants, or the actual people who participated and who payed for Roosevelt's New Deal to bail out America from the Great Depression? And if yes, is that why they are so hell-bent (against all common sense and decency) to erode or siphon off, money from those same social programs, set up during the GD? To get, "their money back."
Please discuss the situation in Venezuela. I have heard it referred to as a failure of socialism. I wish I were knowledgeable enough to respond appropriately. Thank you.
Considering the enormity of households in America, and in the general population, paying rental stipends to the landlord. If a general relief law paying a guaranteed income were in effect now, the entirety of it naturally is vacuumed into the landlords' pockets?
Robert H. Lustig, M.D., MSL, is professor of pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology and a member of the Institute for Health Policy Studies at University of California, San Francisco. He is the former chairman of the Obesity Task Force of the Pediatric Endocrine Society. He is the president of the nonprofit Institute for Responsible Nutrition, dedicated to reversing childhood obesity and Type 2 Diabetes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmC4Rm5cpOI http://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/310422/fat-chance-by-robert-h-lustig/9780142180433/
The question is Kellogg Foundation (W.K.K.F) in partnership with NCEO / Employee Ownership & Economic Well-Being - just published a study in May 2017 about "Employee Ownership" . Is this one of many efforts for large funders and money holders to 'coop' the worker owner and democratic workplace movement? With the "Ownership Economy"? To do one of many things such as grab the attention of potential business owners (large and small) to perpetuate their idea or mental model of what transitioning into a worker owner/democratic workplace looks like, how it's done, why it's done? A way to use 'worker ownership' to promote economic growth? Please elaborate if you all at D@W have time. I don't sense any democracy in their article, philosophy or study - nor any mention of some of the more social and health factors of worker owner businesses. I sent the pdf. to the info@daw email. please find it more directly it at this link https://www.ownershipeconomy.org
Dear Professor Wolff, I very much enjoy your regular economic update and other work. As you open your broadcast, you have worked in academia most of your life. Given the recent hunger strike at the Yale University, could you address in one of the following Economic updates the question of democratic running of academic affairs (departments, schools)? The current model, promoted worldwide, is at best meritocratic, but more commonly managerial and business-derived. It produces the results you described for Yale. How should an academic department or an institution conduct itself in a democratic manner, without compromising quality of teaching and research? I am aware that the Mondragon Cooperation has founded its own university. If you are familiar with it, could you perhaps talk about how it is organized and run, and if it is different from other institutions at all?
Hi Professor, and greetings from a listener in Australia.
Several episodes ago you spoke about a new tax being levied by our Government on big banks.
It may interest you to know that Australia's unique (and terrible) tax arrangements mean the taxpayer will likely pick up the entirety of this new levy, rather than the banks themselves.
Many wealthy Australians take advantage of a system called 'negative gearing', which allows property owners to lose money on their property and then claim the loss on their taxes, vastly slashing their taxable income.
This system is one of the (many) reasons why property ownership for the lower classes in Australia, particularly young people, has become an unattainable dream that the majority have given up on.
Our Governing Liberal Party (who are actually conservative, despite the name!) are staunchly in favour of negative gearing as a policy because their supporters benefit from it (and indeed the electorates with the most negatively geared properties are those of major Liberal politicians and ministers!).
Thanks again for your show. I'm a trade union officer here in Australia, but when America sneezes Australia catches a cold as they say, so I'm always keen to hear sharp, accurate analysis of what's happening over there.
Hi Richard, You had an economic update on youtube recently whereby you poked at Warren Buffet for his over-forgiving attitude toward one of the big banks, I think it was Wells-Fargo. He gives a good interview on how he thinks the super rich are actually under taxed here- his opinion is evident within the first few minutes. Could you comment? You're doing great work by the way! Thank you, Stephen (Ireland) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQc0KiAXynY Youtube- Warren Buffet- How to get Wealthy in 2017
Dr. Wolff, I have read several of Resnick's books such as "New Departures in Marxian Theory" as well as attended his (recorded) class in Marxian Economics at Umass-Amherst but, I feel that the concept of dialectics is a potential weakness in my knowledge. Specifically, one of the difficulties I have in "New Departures in Marxian Theory" is the concept of negation when applying overdetermination for practical use. I follow that an overdetermined totality's negation is to find a set of essentialist causes then relate this back to the overdetermined totality and repeat the sequence in order to find contradictions or insights for the development of the relative truth/thought-concrete/theory. What would you recommend as books for understanding dialectical concepts as negation? Considering the radical nature of Marxian epistemology, would I find any use in taking an undergraduate philosophy course over Hegel and Marx?
What do you think about the situation of Portugal right now? A left government, no austerity, growth through the last 13 quarters, low unemployment rate and yet their bonds are being rated as being garbage by the big rating companies. http://www.economist.com/news/21719753-socialists-say-their-keynesian-policies-are-working-others-fret-about-portugals
Here is the link to my blog post about the relevance of the song, "Sixteen Tons" to exploited workers, both in the past, and in today's world: http://thesuspicionist.blogspot.com/2017/05/is-this-classic-song-real-national.html