Richard D. Wolff

I understand budget for a fixed period like 25-75yrs(finite horizon) or so but what does infinite horiozn? How can one budget till inifinity?https://www.forbes.com/sites/kotlikoff/2013/06/14/why-governments-need-to-budget-over-the-infinite-horizon/#ca584b659d52

Here's more about the outrageous behavior of the Tennessee state legislature https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/tennessee-could-give-taxpayers-americas-fastest-internet-for-free-but-it-will-give-comcast-and-atandt-dollar45-million-instead

Professor: Outstanding show; keep it up. My follow-up: when discussing the UA overbooking, I thought another important aspect to the "overbooking issue" could have been discussed - passengers pay whether they board or not and insurance covers the rest. When a passenger books a flight, he or she pays for the ticket in advance and the airline gets its money - regardless of whether or not the passengers shows at all. If a passenger so desires, he or she may buy insurance "on the ticket" in order to change the flight or cancel, etc., for whatever reason is covered. So, if an airline books 100 seats on a plane with 100 seats, the airline receives 100% of that airplane's earning capacity for those seats. The passenger buys a ticket and either flies or does not fly. The passenger pays for the seat and the airline receives the money. If the passenger desires to buy and buys insurance and, prior to departure, changes the flight (so that seat is empty) doesn't the insurance company pay the airline for that seat (or some portion thereof)? I presume airline ticket insurance, works like any other insurance: the insurers take money from customers in a group pool, whereby the company receives enough money to pay for any "covered loss" (some risk the policy is designed to cover the cost of in the event the risk occurs) incurred by a member of the group and retain a certain remainder. I would guess most of the insureds never experience a covered loss because they follow-through with their air-travel plans, so the insurer can offer the coverage for a small portion of the air-fare fee and earn enough money to pay for all losses and overhead and make a profit (otherwise, there would be no airline ticket insurance industry). Accordingly, if the airline gets paid by passengers in advance and receives payment for every customer (paid regardless or obtained insurance coverage), then why do airlines overbook? If for any other reason than to obtain more money (actual flyers plus the insurance for no-shows). And, in the latest UA case, they did not even overbook. And, like you said, the airline put profits (deadheading crew for other flights) ahead of the customer). So while the latest incident was not really an overbooking issue (although it's how the issue has been framed and how everyone is talking about it), I would like to hear your thoughts on why airlines overbook. Am I missing something? Is it just really not that significant? Or is it something else?

Rents are outpacing pay and pay increases. Stiff increases (like the 20% I got, 50% my neighbors received) displace long term residents, including families. I am in the LA area and our school district lost 3 students as a result of my neighbors' rent increases, and other long-time neighbors moved.

On Dr Wolff's latest Economic Update, I became puzzled. The implication was that Larry Fink needed to have private funds mingled with public funds for Trumps trillion dollar infrastructure plans because " we're out of money." According to L Randall Wray, Stephanie Kelton and Warren Mosler federal taxes are not required to fund federal spending. In fact, congress can request any spending required and needed and this spending does not have to depend on anything other than sound spending on sensible projects that are good for our future and the environment's future. Dr Wolff was right that this is a hustle. However, why does Dr Wolff leave out the fact that federal spending does not rely on direct spending into the economy? Can't congress request this spending? Federal taxes do not fund federal spending. Does Dr Wolff agree with this? If not, please explain why Stephanie Kelton, Michael Hudson, L Randall Wray, Warren Mosler, William K Black and all the rest that understand Modern Monetary Theory are wrong

Dear Professor Wolff, Your suggestion is that self-driving-cars will destroy the economy of truck drivers and professional drivers (about 1.5% of US population); however; the numbers are much greater than that: The computer will reduce the rate of accidents drastically and not only professional drivers will be greeters at Walmart and Starbucks; but ambulance chaser lawyers, their secretaries, their chiropractors, their MRIs consultations will also dwindle to a halt. So... the number of Creative Destruction of computerized vehicles are much greater than you originally spoke. In fact; in my 2014 book "Repursury: How Slavery Evolved into Usury Through Repurchase;" I started the book predicting truck drivers finding the same end as elevator conductors. (I am a fan of your body of work; best wishes. B.Sandy) https://www.facebook.com/repursury/ or www.bsandy.com

There were many other reasons why Clinton lost the election. The discussions with Dr. Fraad focus on the issues the white male has had. I don't think I ever heard either you or her say that this was just ONE reason. Obviously, the email scandal, the FBI director, her elitist perception and inability to connect with women, fake news, people hating both candidates, etc. Thanks and LOVE your work.

I admires all of your programs, positions, and writings, but I am curious why you do not disclose your relationship to Dr. Fraad. It doesn't matter, of course, one way or the other to the content and validity of your comments and her comments, but it does seem an odd omission.

I am Miroslav from Bulgaria and I want to congratulate you for your all work that you have done and continiue to do to help people to understand what menace is the capitalism. I would like to ask you when lecturing to put some examples for post communist countries such as Bulgaria. After 1989 this country with very well developed industry and social system now is in very bad situation. From 9 milion people population now is 6 milions the industry is ruined and economy relies only to the EU donnations, education now produces functional ilitterate students and the situation is getting worse. You can make a lecture for what the capitalism made with our and the other communist countries tho show the real consequencies of the wild capitalsm. Best regards, Miroslav

Hello Professor Wolff, I really enjoy seeing how RT has given you so much time in their shows and I am glad I can hear you talk about current events (like the United Airlines recent problems and such). I was wondering though, considering how you're talking about the corporations having so much power because they can influence people through media, do you think they have hidden motives for giving you so many chances to speak out against the government? Thank you, A devoted fan

Hi I am from Quebec and I listen to this really interesting person Michel Collon and I think if you don't already know him be a good informative source since he share same opinion thanks

Here's a link to some audio from TV talk show The Drum, featuring guest's comments in response to Finance Minister Scott Morrison's talk about negative gearing. How I wish Richard was there to respond! https://soundcloud.com/rui-santos-153340426/negative-gearing-on-the-drum

Specifically this... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFNl4yDZNQM I would love to see you cover this as a topic, but even your direct feedback would be much appreciated. Gary Stark

HELP me win argument with my conservative boss! I argued your point from recent video about Boeing choosing to make airplane parts in European countries, where corp taxes are higher. Doing this because of the benefits of those taxes -- better-educated workers, better infrastructure, etc. But he says it's not true that corp taxes are higher in Europe. And I think he might be right, though I can see from my google search there is a lot of fog on this point. The EPI says effective corp tax rate in US is 27%, in line with most European countries. http://www.epi.org/publication/ib364-corporate-tax-rates-and-economic-growth/ How do I respond to this? thanks.

I believe that your interpretation of worker cooperatives as the starting point towards a transition towards socialism draws heavily from Capital. Particularly, there is a chapter in Volume III where Marx states that worker ownership is a starting point. "The co-operative factories of the laborers themselves represent within the old form the first sprouts of the new, although they naturally reproduce, and must reproduce, everywhere in their actual organization all the shortcomings of the prevailing system"(Marx, Capital Volume 3, Chapter 27) If the aforementioned interpretation is correct, wouldn't cooperatives still suffer from the same cycles that plague a capitalist economic system? Wouldn't the law of value still dominate in the sphere of circulation? Even if co-ops completely resolved the contradictory nature of capital in the production function, one could still be a landlord/usurer/capitalist if private property still exists. I could buy up land or property and rent it out to exploit workers. If you do not agree with this interpretation, do you think Marx was wrong?