Your recent episode of D@W you talked about Ford's decision to lay off 10,000 workers. According to research by the CAW, one job inside the plant will support 8 jobs outside the plant. so that 10,00 worker lay off represents a loss of 80,00 jobs for the community! Staggering numbers.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/336315-trump-to-announce-plan-to-privatize-air-traffic-control-reports This article was written and released today 6/4/2017. When Republicans suggest privitazing something, they tell us it will "make it more efficient" but what are they really trying to acheive by this? Would be great to hear you discuss this on one of your programs. Seems that privatizing means hiring less workers and making them work longer hours for lower wages, which could result in an increase in errors made in sending off and landing planes. The airline CEOs are in on this, and with Trump, I think we can safely assume someone is getting rich off of this and it's none of us.
I understand that hawkish fiscal policy can function as a gap-filling mechanism for aggregate demand by increasing public debt in order to circulate much needed money in the economy. I also understand that hawkish monetary policy creates private debt via encouragement of private actors to borrow from banks in order to stimulate aggregate demand. Moreover, after the US central bank underwent QE, inflationary pressures affected only real estate and equity prices, and not other goods/services. To me, QE demonstrated its ineffectual nature since aggregate demand did not pick up due to lower borrowing costs. However, I have heard from intellectuals like Michael Hudson that if QE targeted private individuals (central bank deposits money into all its franchised depository institutions like BOA, Chase, etc. for the purpose of eliminating private debt/increasing private savings for the use of stimulating demand), then QE would be effective. At the same time, I've heard from intellectuals like Warren Mosler that fiscal policy is a better tool in affecting aggregate demand. Assuming that the central bank does not undergo Hudson's version of QE, if we rely on individuals to take on debt in order to stimulate the economy, it puts a heavier burden on an already debt-saddled private sector. In addition, those who can borrow understand that using such funds for real investments gives lower returns than the equity markets. If one is a corporation, the corporation will likely borrow to sit on the money or perform share buybacks instead of expanding employment or R&D (since corporation acknowledges the lack of demand). I was wondering whether you can comment on the difference between fiscal and monetary policy, and whether such difference affects your judgment in what the proper course of government action should be?
I first heard of NIT from William F Buckley on his show. As a liberal, I thought he must have gone off his trolley. Later on I think I heard Milton Friedman had proposed it. More recently, I read Theodore Herzl proposed something like NIT in his book,"The Jewish State". It struck me as a very perceptive idea.
I thought years of tax-cuts were the big reason. Am I wrong? Here's the url of article--------https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/opinion/sunday/the-real-reason-college-tuition-costs-so-much.html?_r=0
Dr. Wolff, first of all I applaud your effort to get the truth out about where capitalism has been, and what is has also done in the last 50 years (essentially socially strip mining and exploiting the labor markets over periods of decades in Europe, N. America, and Japan, to increase the wealth of the few, who hold sway over said capitalist systems) so as to inform the public, especially in those places that are rapidly watching their States and their economies tank, due to companies fleeing to more rapidly developing capitalist parts of the world. That this is a depressing fact, doesn't need to be said, but, the solution seems to be a democratization of the work place throughout the old capitalist centers of the West, which makes sense. However, and you mentioned in your May economic update (which I saw on YouTube) that all of this perilous history we're living through will eventually lead up to another "spark" which will most likely not be as gentle or kind as "Occupy" or "Bernie Sanders." My question is, do you have a match? How do we get this to happen sooner rather than later? What I see is a land filled with zombies, who only know THIS SYSTEM, and will die believing it works, to their very last...breathe. Or, that this is all there is, so we just have to...make due. I don't even think they know how to define what they think, or feel it's just all they know. It's like asking yourself, can a politician ever consistently not rely on subterfuge to make a living? Because, although there are some who can, there aren't many. Because again, they only know how to navigate *this* system. It would seem that, education, by people like yourself to those who are willing to listen, would be a first crucial step. Are there any other steps you'd recommend? Because I will help in any way I can. Thank you. Donald Bellunduno
With deindustrialization and the financialization of the US economy, it means corporations makes greater profits. Does it also mean that the wealthiest persons in small devastated communities across America also benefit financially by allowing jobs to leave their communities? Would you please try to explain how, if it's the case, loss of jobs benefits local wealth holders.
I think when you are looking at individual countries this is an error because the banking IBan system is united in the hole of Europe and has given birth to the biggest capital flight in the history of financial institutions.
Hello prof. Wolff, I've come across this expression, the 'petrodollar' as a device to explain the US-Saudi alliance, but I have not been able to find any information on it from sites or journalists I trust. I was hoping that you, as an economist, might perhaps have come across it before and can confirm or deny whether this is an important thing or even a real thing? Lots of love from Denmark.
Title: Restoring the Heartland and Rustbelt through Clean Energy Democracy: an Organizing Proposal Summary - https://ecology.iww.org/node/2220 Proposal - https://ecology.iww.org/PDF/x344543/Restoring%20the%20Heartland%20and%20Rustbelt%20through%20Clean%20Energy%20Democracy.pdf
Of course, I have no problem arguing that there are many openings -- in the Gramscian sense -- where Capitalism is weak, vulnerable and can/should be exploited. Under a capitalist system, workplace democracies are far from widespread and prevalent, and thus instituting them is a direct attack / challenge to capitalism's hierarchical, top-down approach to running enterprises. Ultimately, I see these steps of changing the nature of capitalist management / ownership as a form of 'reformism' similar to and along the same lines of other attempts at making capitalism friendlier, more compassionate, etc. (e.g. 'conscious capital' movements, eco-friendly firms, B-corps and other triple-bottom line accounting initiatives). As the following article points out, cooperatives are a nice maneuver for those who get to take part, but can/will they really lead to transcending the capitalist demands for accumulation, growth and out-competing all comers? http://isreview.org/issue/93/are-workers-cooperatives-alternative-capitalism
Since the great recession, Credit Unions have gained major ground when compared to Banks. And now (at least in Wisconsin) the Bankers are complaining about an uneven playing field. What are your thoughts on these financial institutions? Personally I really like them and I feel they provide a much better service than Banks. Here is the article I read and I wanted to share it with you: http://host.madison.com/wsj/business/wisconsin-credit-unions-ruffle-feathers-as-they-gain-ground-against/article_fefcbb8b-15ea-53dd-a91f-fcc93a21494a.html
Hello Professor Wolff. I have a long-winded question for you. I'm a Public Policy major and I'm in the middle of reading Trumps budget. There is a section about providing $1 Trillion in Infrastructure Support. I've watched your April lecture many times now and have grasped the idea of a PPP but I've found to what I believe is a contradiction. In an earlier section, Trump wants to cut funding to Non-Defense Discretionary Spending and i think infrastructure funding is one part of that. However, when the Budget explains that they want to use PPP's to invest in infrastructure, they claim that more Federal investments are not the solution, yet it says in the next couple of sentences, "$1 Trillion will be met by more Federal funding and non-Federal incentivized funding. While the Administration will propose additional funding, those funds will be used on incentivizing additional non-Federal investments. The budget includes $200 Billion in outlays related to the infrastructure initiative." So my question is what is an outlay and how are these outlays being used in this context of incentivizing corporations to loan money to the government for this infrastructure initiative?