Richard D. Wolff

Your first economic update was about how wages increased 2.9% but that inflation also increased by 2.8% basically leaving wages flat. How do you respond to critics who say that raising wages through the fight for 15 campaign or through legislation will only increase inflation there by canceling out any gain in wage and who will use this first economic update as an example that happening?

Do you believe there is an overemphasis on quantitative methods in today's universities and if so, is this part of an effort to legitimise increased financialization and similar neoliberal economic policies?

I have had trouble finding a modern socialist explanation for the value of money in this post gold-standard time. The only explanations stem from free market neo-liberal think tanks. From what I can gather, we have commodified debt instead of precious metals. This is troublesome to translate into marxist terms as thusfar in my reading industrial capital is only supported by money capital(augmenting or subsidizing the hoard), but the commodification of debt blurs the lines between credit and currency. From debt collection agencies, to trade deficits, to international purchase of treasury bonds there is a hidden world of debt that completely determines the value of what it is produced, where it can be sold and what can be bought. By deliberately targeting inflation benchmarks(since the 70's), we have prevented the devaluation of usury rates over time while simultaneously stagnating wages and engaging in the purest form of currency manipulation. The enforced austerity programs seemed designed to pay dues to the holders of these debts regardless of social and economic consequences. So my question is why? Why should we the people eliminate the "risk" of investment by directly subsidizing the the cost regardless of the effectiveness(let alone the corrupt self-enrichment) of that stimulus? Do we strip the earth of all it's assets to reward the predatory speculation of a minority foisted upon the majority by corrupt and inept bureaucracy? I find it ironic that conservatives babble about liberal entitlement but simultaneously want the public to subsidize the risk of wall street loans. If you agree with my implied opinion here than there is a more important question. How do we combat this "accumulation by dispossession"? At the end of the day every generation tries to pass the bag onto the next and the bag keeps getting heavier and heavier. The inevitability of split seams only seems to be outpaced by our inherent drive to self-destruct.

Every year I see an article like this one in the WSJ, where the argument goes: "the world is so much better now than it was before--so don't believe all the negativity in the headlines." I know this is hogwash, living in a country where half the people are poor and a world with increasing austerity. Would love to hear Dr. Wolff 's economic take on this: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-enlightenment-is-working-1518191343

I am an undergraduate economics student from Montreal who listens to Economic Update and to Professor Wolff's lectures. I am interested in studying Marxism more intensely, as Professor Wolff has mentioned he did as a student. Where should I begin to understand Marxism from an academic perspective? Where did you begin, Dr. Wolff? Merci beaucoup, vive la revolution! Mitchell H.

Everybody talks - how do we bring change? How do we get down to Brass Tacks? How about a Coop to compete with Walmart? Everybody hates Walmart. A crowd fund campaign could start the first store. First store would be in Hawaii, where Walmart has no national distribution chain competitive advantage. From there it would spread to California. People aren't given an option to bring change to the world. An alternative to the poster child most hated company is an easy way for common people to be GIVEN a choice to vote with their dollars. Right now we don't have a choice. Would you possibly support (with commentary) such an endeavor? Or how do you help bring change? Everybody talks! Where is action? Change is easy if we work together.

Please respond to the argument that the 'surplus' belongs to the capitalist to compensate him for putting his money at risk. If company folds, they all lose their jobs but the capitalist also loses his capital. Maybe he doesn't deserve all the surplus. Of course the degree of wealth concentration has been a ripoff. but in theory, if A works harder than B and has capital, it's A's right to decide the amount of surplus he keeps. If B doesn't like it then B can go work somewhere else. This is in theory of course. 2nd question: It capitalism ultimately unstable, like an avalanche? Once A has capital, he earns passive income. Both A and B work hard and pay their bills with income. But now A has passive income that builds up to buy yet another house to rent or factory etc. So B goes nowhere and A gets richer and richer?

My name is Barbara Mills-Bria and I am the President of Be The Change, a progressive group in Colorado. We have been seeing articles about the the economics behind the fracking industry and it seems like they can't really afford to do this - especially if one takes into account the external costs, which are rarely taken into account. Even without considering those costs there seems to be a disconnect. I am including links to various articles and I hope you can shed some light on this subject. We are especially interested in the economics of fracking. Thanks for your consideration. Barbara Mills-Bria President, Be The Change https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/feb/10/carillion-links-north-yorkshire-fracking-third-energy https://finance.yahoo.com/news/extraction-oil-gas-inc-schedules-130000377.html https://www.reuters.com/article/us-anadarko-petrol-results/anadarko-petroleum-third-quarter-loss-misses-expectations-shares-dip-idUSKBN1D02UX https://seekingalpha.com/article/4145306-can-anadarko-petroleum-really-afford-massive-dividend-increase-buybacks https://oilprice.com/Energy/Oil-Prices/The-Oil-Bubble-Has-Burst-What-Now.html

Hello Professor Wolff, I would like to attempt a rough calculation of the total amount of wealth and resources in the world, as well as how they are currently distributed. Then I would compare this to levels of consumption around the world. I would like to see if the idea that-given modern technological advancements in production and distribution-it would be physically possible to provide housing, education, healthcare, and a generally good standard of living for every single person on the planet; and whether or not capitalist wealth concentration is the major barrier to the realization of such a system. If we have the physical capabilities of making this happen, I feel like that would be a very strong argument for some sort of socialist socitey. However, I don't know where to start so I was wondering if you could perhaps suggest any academic works or specific authors that have dealt with this subject. I am currently an undergrad but feel like this might make a good dissertation in the future. Thank you.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2017/12/19/leftleaning-scorekeeper-so-the-gop-tax-bill-cuts-taxes-for80-percent-of-americans-n2424201

FYI An article entitled 'John McDonnell (UK Shadow Chancellor) to pledge...worker-run public services...' dated Feb. 10.

This entire conversation reminded me of the concept of "Commodity Fetishism" coined by Marx. The social alienation facilitated by the exchange of commodities has developed beyond I think even Marx's worst nightmares. We have replaced social interaction and social labor with monetary transactions masking our relationships not just with those in our immediate vicinity, but also with the labor that produces the commodities we consume. The trust in fellow man replaced with the corporate face. How would worker owned and operated coops challenge this fetishism? Is there a different equation to represent circulation in a cooperative environment than P...P?

https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/01/22/behind-the-money-curtain-a-left-take-on-taxes-spending-and-modern-monetary-theory/

In "The logic of Political survival" and its popular scientific counterpart "The dictator's handbook", Bueno de Mesquita and coworkers develop a theory of government based on game theory. They aim to show the differences between autocracies and democracies based on rigid mathematical arguments. They also investigate the governing structure of corporations, which they conclude is akin to a dictatorship head by the board of directors. Finally, they argue that democratically run companies should be much more successful and they give some real-world examples.

from the Vimeo blurb I received: To preserve a community institution and a great place to work, business owner Susanne Ward is selling Rock City Roasters and Cafe to the people who helped build it -- the employees -- with the help of the Cooperative Development Institute.