Richard D. Wolff

Suggest this author or book for review.

When the gentlemen who owns the liquor store down the road here in NJ asked how I "know so much about economics", I recommended he check out Richard D. Wolff. I warned in advance that it's a Marxist perspective on things, and he replied "You know what? Good! Maybe capitalism sucks and there's a better way to do this." He then slammed a pen and paper on the counter and asked me to write it down. Wow.

Reading about Wells Fargo/Enron and their questionable practices. It seems like the capitalist system has devolved into a system of rewards, punishment, and deterrent (in the wrong direction). The people at the top have a strong incentives for profits with very little punishment against breaking the law (the only punishment is when they refuse to pursue profitable actions/policies that are too damaging). The people at the bottom has both carrots and sticks working for them/against them but it has now devolved into a new incentive, a system driven by fear against failure, failure to meet sales or failure to make enough money to eat is pushing people into questionable activity that is ignore by management who are driven by the same fear against making enough profit for the company. It seems the system is not just driven by profit making, but also an abhorrent fear against personal failure that could be translated into economic failure. Can a Coop/WSDE avoid the pitfalls of reward/punishment/fear that could create dangerous/unstable incentives?

It's occurring right now, since september 9th, buthe its almost no coverage. There are various issues, such as solitary and others, but what Unites the prisoners together across the US is about prison labor. Many protested by refusing to show up for work. The young turks: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=c3_dvJ8Rc1g https://theintercept.com/2016/09/16/the-largest-prison-strike-in-u-s-history-enters-its-second-week/

The media has ignored the insidious nature of the TPP which took six years to be written in secret, some of the Presidential candidates including my favorite Bernie Sanders spoke against it. Most of the media’s spotty pro coverage of it goes something like: Globalization requires free trade. Trade is important. TPP promises to create jobs. The critics are allowed to basically say it may be as bad for jobs as prior so called trade agreements. The TPP is a very detailed large document that is very specific in extending corporate power. It was written by corporations for corporations. The corporate media and the Washington Beltway approach this in a limited discussion which is vacuous. The media does not discuss or ask the questions which would foster real discussion which I believe would lead to a far deeper concern than now exists . Over and over they talk about increasing American jobs and the need to be part of the global economy. I would expect that any cogent discussion of so called free trade start with a synopsis of the promises verses the reality of prior trade agreements. The history of “free trade” includes the empty promises that Bill Clinton had said that NAFTA would create jobs. The country lost manufacturing jobs, it is really hard to understand how the same lame promise can be recycled for TPP which is a far broader document encompassing 12 countries and 600 participating corporations favoring greater corporate control. Corporate profits are prioritized over the citizen’s welfare and well being in TPP and TTIP. Here are some terms I want to see people who pass themselves off as knowing something about the trade agreements ought to be able to discuss the pros and cons of in the context of TPP. Indirect expropriation Regulatory homogenizing Corporate Tribunals Investor State Dispute Settlement Opportunity Costs Indirect expropriation refers to when a local state or federal government that makes a regulation to protect the interests of citizens of a said country such as protecting their drinking water gets accused of taking the right of corporations protected under the trade agreement to extract profit away. A corporation which has a foreign base or subsidiary outside that country (foreign interest ) is eligible under TPP to sue for lost opportunity cost or future projected earnings in a corporate tribunal which does not adhere to the laws of that country nor is bound to follow precedence. Regulatory homogenizing is requiring the signatory countries to align all that countries rules laws and regulations to comply with the TPP agreement Investor State Dispute clauses; ie eradicating safe water standards so foreign corporations can make more money without worrying about the public’s safety laws, the public’s health or the environmental impact. The public would have NO RECOURSE. Investor State Dispute Settlement clauses have been arranged for a corporation to protect the corporate interest of that business to operate over and usurp our judicial system. Three corporate lawyers sit as judges on a tribunal against local state and Federal governments laws that the corporations take issue with. These tribunals are not bound by precedence which has been the back bone of democratic judicial systems. Corporations can sue a government for lost opportunity costs by that government having laws to protect the publics health, safety and well being such as but not limited to safe drinking standards for instance. Corporate interest for ever greater profits would be the tribunals primary if not sole interest. Only corporations can sue in the tribunal, which becomes the highest court in the land for 18,700 corporate entities and their subsidiaries of multi national companies to sue us. There is no appeal process for the public against the tribunal’s decision. Investor State Dispute Settlement ISDS are clauses written by corporate interests . These corporations can then sue your government against perceived trade barriers. The judges in the tribunals would come from a rotating pool of corporate lawyers who one day would sit as judge and the next litigate for the corporate world, a serious conflict of interest. TPP would at least double the number of foreign subsidiaries that are eligible to go to such tribunals. It would grow from 9500 companies under all prior agreements including NAFTA, to include an additional eligible 9200. Trans Canada lost in the Keystone Pipeline case that Mr. Obama vetoed. Thereby not allowing dirty tar sand “oil: to flow through the US. Trans Canada is suing for $15 billion dollars, $3 billion of which they spent , the rest being opportunity cost or their perceived lost future profits. Trans Canada would much rather bring their case to a corporate tribunal made up of other corporate lawyers. On the one hand Obama supports TPP but wants to create a pseudo progressive legacy which he hopes vetoing Keystone will support. Succumbing to TPP will be tragic for any semblance of justice or democratic process in the future. Our health, safety and welfare will also be jeopardized. MH

Another thought: How would you actually deal with banks? Private banks are of course a bad thing, but would cooperative banks be optimal? Those would still need positive interest rates, but if you think about it, interest rates are actually harmful. Interest rates increase when risk is higher, but thereby the risk goes up even more. Actually, one doesn't need interest rates to keep people from taking big loans they can not pay back - a hard bankruptcy will do the job. So, interest rates serve no purpose at all on credit taking side. So, it would be much better to have banking in the hand of the state. Then, you do not even need the savings of the people to give credits - collecting them at banks then only serves the purpose of having some overview, and people will still have most of their money on bank accounts because it is easier to store the money there and banks make paying easier.

Wouldn't it be an interesting approach to tax people (and redistribute money) in such a way that everyone has roughly the same saving rate (i.e. savings compared to individual income)? I think, this would be a very fair approach, because it combines your individual performance with the collective performance. The only question is: how to do that?

I work in a public school as a teacher. The public schools are modeled after capitalist enterprises in that I have to follow decisions made by people in power above me. Am I producing a surplus and if not, am I involved in a power struggle or a class struggle if I want public schools to be run more democratically.

Conservatives/Libertarians like Gary Johnson have advocated for a flat Consumption Tax. Sounds simple, but it would obviously be unfair to the middle class and the poor, since they spend more of their income. However, I came across the idea of a Progressive Consumption Tax, where the rate would increase steeply as one consumes more. It has been proposed that this would replace all federal taxes with the exception of the Estate Tax. I'm attracted to this because of the streamlined nature of the idea. Your thoughts?

It seems we get hung up and distracted by focusing on income and wealth inequality which are necessary creations of capitalism, surprise, surprise. Don't confuse the symptom with the underlying cause. Taxing the rich will not succeed in equalizing wealth since the powerful will always find a way around these temporary obstacles. Unless the decisions on the utilization of resources (natural and human) is in the hands of the people, the capitalist will always find a way to utilize these resources for himself.

Aden Forecast (Sep 2016)... For 20 years Japan has been boosting its QE effort, printing larger amounts of money to buy all the bonds they could. and when they essentially ran out of bonds they started buying stocks. Currently the government is the major shareholder in nearly 500 Japanese companies. 1) Could this move Japan closer to having a large number of Employee owned and run companies? 2) Could other countries including the USA also start buying companies?

Here is a great article from Bruce Alexander, the psychologist who did the Rat Park experiments: http://www.brucekalexander.com/articles-speeches/283-addiction,-environmental-crisis,-and-global-capitalism Could provide several shows' worth of insight! :)

In recent years I have become more and moore horrified over US warfare around the world. I see this in an imperialist context, the need to secure resources to keep the imperial economy going. Now the imperie is threatening Russia and China, someting wich could be fatal for the whole human civilzation. American lefist seems to be little worried about this. I would like to hear your wiew concerning this. (I live in Norway). Regards "Walter"

In recent years I have become more and moore horrified over US warfare around the world. I see this in an imperialist context, the need to secure resources to keep the imperial economy going. Now the imperie is threatening Russia and China, someting wich could be fatal for the whole human civilzation. American lefist seems to be little worried about this. I would like to hear your wiew concerning this. (I live in Norway). Regards "Walter"