Economic Update: Capitalism vs Socialism is NOT Markets vs Planning

[@yourgodismean4526]

Wow! This was incredibly helpful. I’d thought of how large corporations tend to end markets through buying their competitors, but I’d never thought of them buying up their suppliers as well. And the fact that corporations “plan” their mini-(or not so mini)economies blows my mind. If you think for one minute, though, it makes perfect sense and resembles the military. Another lovely analysis from our dear professor ❤

[@gabrieloliveiro645]

Gabriel Oliveiro 1 second ago Not many people realise that sometimes market economies also produce monopsonies as well as monopolies. If a market is designed for only one buyer and the suppliers are forced to go to one buyer that is a problem

[@kenswanston820]

@@gabrieloliveiro645 Barriers to entry in a market can be very restrictive...especially if the initial entrant has a 'friend' in Congress that can ensure they keep that monopoly.

[@Sapheiorus]

They taught about the notion and historical application of “vertical integration” in my public school’s social studies curriculum regarding the Carnegie Steel Company, so it should hopefully have been taught to you, not that most children would care to remember such information.

[@lawsonj39]

@@Sapheiorus It's not so much about whether children would care to remember such information--more about how economics are taught, which is usually in a way that fails to make the connection between people's lives and economic concepts like vertical integration.

[@yourgodismean4526]

@@Sapheiorus I’m 58, do I did get a fairly decent education. I feel terribly for the young today, n the underfunded trash they’re being fed these days. Didn’t remember any of that tho

[@scottdavis3571]

A market is where you organize stuff for distribution, and planning is about organizing. Planning was used by a lot of Socialists to bring about housing and worker support, but Planning was mostly used to save Capitalism in the early 1900's. You must have a plan whether socialistic or capitalistic.

[@jmitterii2]

One and the other is the question who has most of the planning in mind? And to what extent to these entities have any control over their planning. Candy companies planning to expand due to increase demand will do so... expand away making more candies. Suddenly along the way, bunch of kids get diabetes and with no healthcare... they all start getting very sick... som simply fat and bloated and have to be rolled around to place to place and some sadly some die. Demand for candy drops... dead kids can't ask their caretaker to buy them poison anymore. The smart caretakers realize their little one is bloated fat and shouldn't be eating such toxins. And other caretakers realize they're kid is sick everytime they swill from the troff on candy and say... nope no more... and at least reduce their candy spending. That expansion goes up... lots of debt was taken by the candy company, many people left other jobs to go work at the new candy company find themselves unemployed. Lots of candy now at an even cheaper prices... but the expansion causes a glut in candy production... so many candy lines at the factory have to be scaled down. And persons fired... as well as not as much revenue coming thru... maybe won't be able to pay for the current debt taken out for the expansion. And the healthcare system that is greatly needed can't be afforded even more so, as resources were used to make candy instead. So the candy company had no ability to plan for healthcare for their society, that wasn't their market. That wasn't in their planning, their planning was to do whatever they could to make a profit for themselves and sell as much candy for the highest price as possible. More resources will be needed instead of building poison factories aka candy factories and their shops, now time to build clinics and hospitals. So yes, planning is on all versions. One has ability to actually plan for peoples needs. The other plans on peoples' ability to pay for something (in this case cheap poison). One planning has better consequences than the other. One planning isn't as myopic concentrating one thing and one thing only.... the bottom line.

[@asdqwe8837]

The market economics is a lack of economic planning.

[@scottdavis3571]

@@jmitterii2 Planning is done democratically in the public sector. Impacts can be planned for mitigated through democratic control.

[@scottdavis3571]

@@asdqwe8837 Planning can and is done democratically.

[@youwaiyap2708]

Yes! but the ord minions have been dumbed by the power-that-be to pick "either or"?

[@cesarcalderonvalles]

Another excellent analysis well explained in a way for everyone to understand! Thank you Prof! Shared.

[@moniqueboyke5879]

Great video professor Richard Wolff

[@jpenonline]

Thank you. Two things. One, you confirmed what I thought and that was about inflation. Two, you taught me a good way to explain the issue of market and planning. So nicely, I went away feeling a little smarter, and less crazy. Thank you.

[@MIKEYONSEI]

This was a terrific and useful little lecture. I only wish it had been longer.

[@talorzwilliamz4134]

(more) Planned economy is needed IMO under circumstances of climate crisis, ecological devastation, and social inequity

[@borkingborker5567]

Nationalize essentials and market commodities, but with a socialized market.

[@peterstafford4426]

He is praising a dictatorship. .

[@Jackzay90]

First we need a government that isn’t bought and paid for by interests who want planning to fail

[@gamervox1707]

planning from a hierarchical group that fail to do the people will without democracy was a failure in both kinds of capitalist.

[@Objectivityiskey]

Said like a good cult member.

[@geoffreynhill2833]

The Big Good Wolff deserves MILLIONS of viewers. (from Green Fire, UK) 🌈🦉

[@PoliticalEconomy101]

In addition. Markets themselves can be designed which is similar to planning.

[@kennethisaac233]

How?

[@vivalaleta]

Thank you, professor. Another excellent lesson.

[@Yaniv_YT]

It is always intersting to hear you prof. Wolff. This time you transcended. It was so clear, so much make sense. Thank you for everything you've been doing for us all.

[@stevejoseph4514]

what's cute to me is that people in this country this this specific midterm is sooooo important and have no idea that this planet is heading toward an unmitigated economic depression that will be unlike anything ever seen. and the reason for that is we have a dual scenario of the climate and an increasing wealth concentration

[@kobked-x]

and burgeoning population growth, lack of quality food/nutrition etc..

[@jacpratt8608]

😆 isn't it what shrinks call 'being in DENIAL'? 😉

[@bluewater454]

The climate 🙄 Sorry to pop your bubble, but you can’t vote for the climate to be what you want it to be. You can however vote to remove those who have created a global economic crisis.

[@rajx7120]

I believe wealth concentration can be fixed by distributing stocks or ETFs to every citizen. So that when the companies make money, everyone gets a share of it.

[@bluewater454]

@@rajx7120 You can already make money doing something like that. It’s called a shareholder! 😀

[@numbersix8919]

This is one of the best lectures Prof W has put on a video.

[@mikecooke449]

In the UK the favorite people to blame are the workers responding to higher prices with wage demands

[@scottpreston5074]

T'was ever thus. Bullshit from capitalists .

[@kenswanston820]

...and who does the blaming?...the 1%ers who own the newspapers and media outlets!

[@kennethisaac233]

This is so true but I don't think they knew back then. Or maybe even now. So workers should have reps on the board as well.

[@Itsmespiv4192]

Extremely useful analysis, thanks Professor Wolff

[@gfarrell80]

6:56 "We had been increasing the money supply for much of the last 20 years but we had no inflation" I disagree here - prices of many needed staples have been steadily rising over the last 20 years - education, housing, healthcare all shot up. Also food and fuel have crept up significantly over the last 20 years before the more substantial increase in inflation started ramping up in the last 2-3 years. I disagree on this point but love your work Richard, keep up the great work.

[@mustang19ms]

Thank you professor Wolff, god bless you

[@ThomasBlack452]

Absolutely right. It is incorrect to pose the question in such a way that you have either planning or a market. The market is simply an economic mechanism that is used both under capitalism and under socialism. And it is true that in fact planning and the market are used simultaneously under capitalism, only in different proportions. Under socialism, the economy works in a similar way - planning + market, but in different proportions. And understanding this question removes many disputes about the socialist economy, which is usually called planned.

[@hugoevers749]

I guess voting is tricky if you don't have the facts at your hand. Thank you for all your very interesting insights Dr Wolf

[@nayanankm1596]

Grate and insightful talk...Thank you professor...

[@danielschoch9604]

Some comments. 1) The current situation looks a lot like as if we are in the reign of the Phillips curve. The US experiences an unprecedented low rate of unemployment at the cost of a high inflation. To get rid of the inflation one has to curb growth and do a Volcker-type disinflationary politics, which would come at the cost of a high unemployment. It worked in the 80s. I doubt there is the political will to do the necessary steps. Hence you see politics downplaying inflation. 2) Essential goods like food not only can be planned, they have to be planned, as we can forgo consumption but not eating. Guaranteed minimum prices help to ensure a minimum level of food production and increases food security. Nobody wants a free market to set bread prices in a famine. The last time they tried it lead to the French Revolution. 3) Economist János Kornai pointed out that the persistent shortages the communists economies faced in the 70s and 80s were not due to planning errors, but systemic flaws. Communist engineers often came up with products as good or better than those in the west. But due to a lack of capital they could not scale production up or innovate. The Soviet Union did not have a financial market as that would require private ownership of the means of production, which is forbidden in Marxist ideology. This does not preclude running a firm by the stakeholders instead of by shareholders only.

[@throwawayidiot6451]

Anyone interested in learning more please make yourself a favor and go read the article named "Organizations and Markets" by Herbert Simon, 1991. Then go read "The Nature of the Firm" by Coase, 1937. Both fast reads. Now if you want the heavy reading pick up "The Visible Hand" by Alfred Chandler, 1977 (Hint: The visible hand isn't the government, it is management of private corporations).

[@timothykangethe7700]

Thanks Prof Wolf. Brilliant video that strips bare the distorted ideology of Market vs Controlled Capitalism. Interesting how SERFDOM can be concealed and given spin to avoid rocking the Economic boat. 🇨🇳 is a curious case seeing that pri

[@youwaiyap2708]

Yes! Serfdom did not disappear or eliminated despite the so-called Freeing of the Slaves? 🤪🤪

[@plutoniusis]

Salute to you Mr. Wolf, today Education workers with help with all others Unios have defeated government draconian bills introduced few days ago in Ontario to crash Organized Labour right for fair bargaining and banned Strike, but Organized Labour did not accept that unpreceded attack on workers and continued to call Strike actions, Government repealed their legislations and now Organized Labour restored order of fair bargaining. PLEASE MAKE YOUR VALUABLE COMMETS FOR THIS VERY IMPORTANT EVENT THAT WORKERS IN ONTARIO FACED

[@MegaBre]

I know the both sides of the medal because capitalism came in the middle of my life in my country. And I can tell you one thing: the socialism was 100 x better. Why you ask? Because the socialism is about community, solidarity and the humanity, while the capitalism is about greed, profit, race and the winner takes it all. Before people were happy and in euphoria state of mind, now nobody smiles, everybody is dark and grim. And yes, we had small choice of goods and the cars were shitty and no one had a yacht, but no one lived on the street and no one went through the garbage containers. Everybody misses those times now. But the combination of these two is the solution.

[@jacpratt8608]

East Germany? 🙁

[@MegaBre]

@@jacpratt8608 No. East Germany was terrible. Which, again, has nothing with socialism itself to do. Ex Yugoslavia - never under the boot of SSSR, but for itself. Socialism could thrive if not the outside attempt to destroy it. Just let those counties cooperate with others (not to isolate them like Cuba and others).

[@RobotTed]

Oh, a good update. And I had swallowed whole the idea that the central banks were entirely responsible... mainly because of how often it was repeated. I've been rid of this all-or-nothing belief thanks to previous speeches by Prof. Wolff Now, as to the question of planning vs markets, this is a veil (it seems to me) for the debate between subjective and relative pricing of goods. It takes 100 shovels movements of coal to produce X amount of widget Y. But it takes Van Gogh a handful of brushstrokes to create a masterpiece. If prices are decided on a whim, then you want little to no planning when a client shows up : they must be seduced. If they have a plan and a budget, that's not so good for the seller. But, at the same time, you need bread and eggs to be available at the market every day. Revolution is only always 3 missed meals away, after all. So we have two opposing ideas... and KZbin is filled with small artists producing excellent music hardly anyone will hear! Well, it seems to me that we should encourage these many musicians somehow... otherwise only the extra enduring (or those rich enough to take time off) will be able to produce music while working full time. They won't necessarily make the best music. And there's the rub : how to encourage excellence? Certainly, a plan of some sort to work at a skill everyday, but also a way to allow whimsy into the operation. Many find school to be a hellish endeavor. Others hyperventilate at the thought of improv and freeze up. I don't think I'm going to solve Human nature in one small blurb... but it seems to me that, just as the meditator plans and expects the next breath, and the farmer plans and expects for the next harvest, we should have some kind of basic social plan. Something to make sure bread and gas flows. It should not be subject to the whims of the market. An allotment of energy, which you then decide what to do with. What's a dollar anyway? A liter of gas, a bushel of wheat, those are things that takes you from A to B Furthermore, if you consider money instead of needs, you immediately run into the basic problem of money: I have 100 dollars, and I wish to exchange this for a service (say a plumber) for as little as possible. The Plumber wishes to extract as much money from me as possible. We are at odds, the Plumber and me. Consider instead an exchange where I show I am a productive member of society: I make X widgets, and my coworkers are happy with me. This is all the proof I need show a Plumber that he should work on my problem. We live in a Star Trek society, one where reputation governs exchanges. The antagonism of money is gone. We still strive for ribbons and certificates, but now do so in a spirit of friendship and camaraderie Now, unto the good part! Meditation! If you need a good book on it, The Mind Illuminated by Culadasa is great. I've practiced a little of my experimental dual mantra: inner voice Om with outer voice Ah. I think it's interesting, but as with such things, it does take a lot of time before the fruits are ripe. One thing that is noticeable is how time goes by faster when you learn to meditate: you're just having so much fun! Time sense contracts. I also went Vegan (altho I still consume free range eggs), this in order to diminish the total amount of suffering in the world. The Buddhist Chef on Facebook has many excellent recipes. Well done Tofu is excellent! Furthermore, the health benefits are good: the body can more clearly separate the bad stuff when it comes from a vegetable or fruit. And one can drink as much coffee as one wants, the way the gods intended. One also feels a sense of peace that is priceless Have a great week! Use less server space! Save Fairy Town! Drop the dots at the end of paragraphs! They serve no point!

[@jacpratt8608]

1. I've noticed some non-artists have rock solid resilience to the idea that Van Gogh's or better some living artist might create the perfect splash in 'few brush strokes' but behind those few minutes of performance have a lifetime of work study practice which ought to be paid for. But at what rate? Steelworker or stockbroker? Who rates it? I think you have to let excellence find its own rough path. I cant see music art or any activity involving individuals alone or in groups bravely questing after some new vision can be aided better by state subsidies rather than by what the market, that's us, happens to like, want or be moved by. Success usually ends in tears anyway, if its not posthumous. In another galaxy far away: for a Chinese painter to get deplored in China might be a good route to acclaim and even wealth in the West. Hypothetically of course. A test of a good planning system might be if it can predict this might happen.

[@timeforachange-i3s]

I see the light and I am moving towards becoming a Socialists. I am starting with servers and embracing the server model in Europe where tips are 5%, and for completely outstanding service up to 10%. I am working on becoming a socialist starting with my tips. I agree I am embracing the 5% model for good service and 10% for outstanding impeccable service. Starting this weekend, I paid $0.00 tip for a to-go order, and for sit down, take my order, and clean-up my dishes the 5%-10% model of our fellow socialist countries, like France. I think I will save about $1,000 a year using this model that can help offset the increased fees, 33% on my health insurance, 28% on my property taxes, 17% on my food, 29% for my home insurance, 100% on gas bill, 60% on gas for my car over the last 18 months, and 35% on cars.

[@wiz349]

Great video again. Very well laid out arguments

[@ricardovillareal4411]

Private planning vs gov planning is: private capitalism vs State capitalism / socialism. Then there's working class socialism where the major means of production are in the hands of workers.

[@proletarian13]

Private Planning look like an oxymoron

[@vintagevibes1974]

The government allowed these monopolies. They enable them. They have created this together. Corporatism is very real.

[@scottpreston5074]

The older I get, the more socialist I become. I've seen how things work.

[@earlviney5212]

Right on. Greed and the profit motive is what causes inflation.

[@throwawayidiot6451]

That's great. The literature on Transaction Cost Economics has been equating corporations with planned economies since the 30s, including multiple Nobel prizes, but somehow people still miss this. I wonder if that is because Transaction Cost Economics, while being one of the most important theories for grad-school level economics and business, is completely left out of Bachelor/College-Level economics and business education, and I mean completely. People get degrees in economics without ever reading The Nature of the Firm, without knowing what organizational economics even mean, that's really a puzzle isn't it.

[@kenswanston820]

Could it be an ideological plan? I could equate it to most of todays doctors being taught to solve symptoms with pills or surgery...few I've encountered anyway, looking finding the CAUSE of the symptoms and take the unusual step of changing a process (i.e. diet!) that caused the symptoms...because medical schools are sponsored by pharmaceutical companies...perhaps?

[@blogintonblakley2708]

Capitalists cause inflation. Owners cause inflation. The reason for this is very simple and direct. Owners are the ones who set prices. Period. So when the prices go up, it's because the owners decided to raise prices.

[@chuckleaf8027]

How does that explain periods of low inflation compared to now, when it's pretty high???

[@alexanderb7721]

Low inflation means that owners don't see an easy way of getting away with raising prices.

[@chuckleaf8027]

@@alexanderb7721 So then don't do the first thing Wolff mentions, which is increasing the money supply. Simple....

[@jgalt308]

@@alexanderb7721 Any kind of inflation will cause costs and therefore prices to rise. Production efficiency as in the vertical integration Wolff cites but doesn't identify, lower costs...as does deflation both of which lowers prices. This situation prevailed from 1865 thru 1898...where the prices of all major commodities declined rapidly as a result of "vertical integration" and the resultant efficiencies, as well as a general deflation which increased the purchasing power of the real money in circulation. That Wolff neglects and or omits these facts doesn't alter the reality of what inflation is or its effects...just as his ignorance of what capitalism is, doesn't make his ever-shifting explanation of "socialism" any more valid or confirm any of his "semantical distortions" of all the other words he employs in his narrative, grant it any credibility, since he has no facts that can be used to support it.

[@chuckleaf8027]

@@reddoggie554 Blakely thinks the FED printing up a bunch of fiat money is capitalism... Also...his cat died from capitalism last week..

[@nightoftheworld]

16:06 *corporate central planning*

[@garymulsp]

The USSR v Western capitalism was ideological but more importantly a social conflict

[@BB-kd5sp]

@5:20 why's this joke of a professor not acknowledge employers are at the mercy of costs? Employers don't set costs or expenses they incur. And he failed to mention the *velocity* of money circulating. Inflation is a rate against the velocity relative to the broad supply. Wolfe tells half truths

[@Synerco]

Wolff misspoke when he said an increase in the money supply is necessary for an inflation. Supply shortages can also cause inflation, and companies can also take advantage of the expectation of an inflation to price gouge, thus causing inflation. Both of these can occur even when the money supply is fixed

[@throwawayidiot6451]

Supply shortage and increase in the money supply are two sides of the same coin, you usually don't need to mention both sides of things that go hand in hand

[@Synerco]

@@throwawayidiot6451 You kind of do. Our current inflationary crisis isn't the result of too much money being created. Companies responded to supply shortages by increasing prices. This created an expectation of inflation. Companies used this expectation to raise prices even more. The stimulus checks that were spent two years ago have nothing to do with it

[@jgalt308]

@@Synerco Sorry but supply and demand determine price...and this is not inflation. Inflation/deflation is an increase or decrease in the supply of money which is a commodity. Fiat money is the cause of inflation...and it has been constantly increasing the money supply, which lowers its "value" or its purchasing power...although since it had none to begin with, it is a con and anyone who believes it has been "conned"...this grants power to whomever controls the supply of fiat money...and it should be fairly obvious who that is, made worse by the fact that there was and is no legitimate authority granting this power...which is maintained by FORCE.

[@Synerco]

​@@jgalt308 You objectivists are truly amazing! Your combination of ignorance and arrogance is beyond comparison! What you said about inflation is the perfect example of this. It's a joke among economists that people think inflation causes prices to go up. Anyone who payed attention in econ 101 knows this isn't true. Inflation doesn't cause prices to go up. Inflation IS prices going up! You don't have to be a Marxist to believe in cost-push and built-in inflation. Even neoclassical economists now acknowledge Friedman was wrong and Kalecki was right: Inflation is not always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon. Of course, you probably don't know who Friedman and Kalecki were, and it's not like you're gonna read their works, so I'm kind of screaming into the void here

[@jgalt308]

@@Synerco So then why did prices fall between 1865 and 1898 while "real money" increased its purchasing power? Oh I'm sorry but you're probably unfamiliar with the history here, or any history for that matter so I'm probably shouting into the void here. ( that would be the one between your ears. )

[@MrIzzyDizzy]

The government doesn't increase the money supply . The banks do. There are 23,000 employees in the Federal Reserve System and the are almost all hired by member banks, The government hires 1 , and even then it is who the banks tells them.

[@MountaineeringSense]

Markets are Markets, but ?Speculators Were Hung in the 17th Century. Ah, 'The Good Old Days' " ~ The Mud Report Love the Wolff and his comrades for their teachings during these very troubled times. My speculation it that it is nearly over for the Humans unless they listen to the ideas Mr. Wolff and many others! Thank You!

[@youwaiyap2708]

guess the Capitalists have been winning since Jack Welch (ex-GE) shouted out the mantra, "the Creation of Wealth", and have been herding the minions the way these Capitalists want it to be for at least the past few decades? Will the minions wake up? Is it already too late? 😮

[@viljaangelica]

Thank you, #richardwolff ❤️🐲 #mustsee

[@vintagevibes1974]

Didn’t they make a lot of that by outsourcing the jobs many developed nations sent them?

[@nightoftheworld]

Richard, what do you think about degrowth economics? Specifically Jason Hickel’s interpretation? To me it sounds like the interdisciplinary type of thinking/modeling that we need to move forward into a more therapeutic, regenerative economic paradigm.

[@P4DDYW4CK]

The internet wouldn’t exist without government planning. Maybe not direct planning, but certainly indicative planning. Same goes for GPS, telephones, and railways. The infamous Stephen Douglass vigorously planned and lobbied to have the transcontinental railroad pass through Chicago rather than New Orleans. Industrial policy is all about planning. Alexander Hamilton’s five points were - you guessed it - plans. America forgot what industrial policy was in the ‘80s. Arguably, economic planning is as American as Apple Pie.

[@danielhutchinson6604]

The explanations from Old Karl, seemed to resemble conversations I had with a former Landlord, as I accumulated enough cash to buy my own house. The thing I notice about Capitalism as opposed to Communism, is that both used money as a tool to control the people who are involved in Society. Russians were using Capital to finance buying products among their groups, just like the Western Nations traded among themselves. China now faces the US attempts to force them into wasting Capital on military budgets, due to threats from other economic forces. Since 1917, the US Investors have been deathly afraid of any democratic thought about any communal effort to promote planning for the benefits of the Working Class Individual. The US sent troops to Russia during WW1 to poke at the creation of Communal thought. But the Soviet Union was forced to indulge in the use of money, to interact with other Nations, because the ability to buy products that enable them to exploit their resources need Steel Mills and Processing Plants to handle the planned production that feeds the Nations of the Soviet Union. Money is the essence of Capitalism and that is what needs to go, to actually take one of the tools away from the Planners who manipulate the concept of Democracy. The use of money as a measure of value can be regulated by World trade if you can cling to the ability to regulate the cost of goods moving between Nations. To drop that tool would remove the power from those who now possess the most Capital to allow them to regulate Trade. Corruption is removed by abandoning Money as a determining factor in exchanges. A majority of crime would be removed by Money being absent from Society. The manipulation of Political planning by using money to buy the proper Political Prostitutes, from the electoral business that now appears to accumulate over $14 billion to operate the process that we consider a Democratic one? One example of how well the process has changed from old and accepted methods of buying the proper Person in government, is the move that Robert Mercer made as his position as one of the most successful Hedge Fund Guys, to manipulating Political Marketplaces for money, appeared to indicate one feature of Capitalism that has now affected the path of Democracy worldwide. Mercer and Steve Bannon took an effective Digital Algorythm that was proving successful in Hedge Fund trading, and applied that to political enterprise, for profits...... Follow that thread and see where you arrive as the ability to appoint political leadership positions around the Globe is influenced by the amount of cash invested in buying the process of democracy? Democracy at Work implies that we understand what we are working for? We also need to understand how the tools are applied to understand how to put them to good use? Right Professor?

[@advandepol7537]

Prof. Wolff always tries to explain things for a broad audience, and he does that fabulously. It also implies that he has to abstract from certain details, which might be open to debate. I am not sure that I understand your last two sentences.

[@danielhutchinson6604]

@@advandepol7537 How does Money affect our participation in voting? Who is represented by Capitalism? Is it merely the Majority Investors who choose who we get to vote for? Money is a tool and needs to be understand because of the ability that it allows one person to own. Have we returned to a System of Government that only serves a small number of individuals? Has Oligarchy Replaces Monarchy, massive amounts of inherited wealth, dictating the powers of a Deity? Did we allow democracy to be made into another Commodity that is sold by the Chicago Commodity exchange?

[@danielhutchinson6604]

@@advandepol7537 I do enjoy the methods that many sites use to inspire discussions.....

[@vintagevibes1974]

No position in government? What is the revolving door phenomenon with government and Big Corp?

[@vincentruben4365]

Maybe you shouldn't have to say that there are also negative points about China (or Sovjet Union, or any other country with any other system), but I'm glad you did. As well as noticing that China is also using a capitalist sort of system.

[@PoliticalEconomy101]

We need a planned income distribution, not centralized planning of production. The income distribution should be planned according to socialist principles of distributed justice.

[@jacpratt8608]

@@reddoggie554 what's prosperity? the life of American radio talk back fans complaining to Rush Limbaugh types as they cruise round in their elephantine 4WD SUVs that their plush upholstered lives are ravaged by creeping socialism?

[@sassy0010]

@@reddoggie554 We've never had it -- yet.

[@mysticmouse7261]

The government and companies have budgets which are projections into the future - plans.

[@TheAmericanAmerican]

23:02 I disagree Professor. I'd argue that you MUST mention this REPEATEDLY because there are way too many so-called leftists/Socialists/Communists that point to and call China Communist and/or Socialists and therefore wave away any and all criticism of them! This does nothing but hurt the real leftists movement on this planet towards actual socialism, so please please please mention often that China is a CAPITALIST nation and not Communist! End note: I truly appreciate the closing statement that ALL 3 countries were/are capitalist! Please repeat that fact loud and often as well!

[@Mark-zk3gu]

Can we as socialists stop doing this? China is a socialist market economy. Period. The democratic organization of the workplace is only one idea of socialism. China has its own idea. The early forms of capitalism were also pretty different to what you see today. Doesn't mean it wasn't Capitalism.

[@寂び侘び-b6s]

China is not capitalist. They are what is called ‘market socialism.’

[@yu-jd5jg]

China, as defined by its top leader, is Socialism with Chinese Characteristics. Not a textbook Communism nor a textbook Capitalism. It is a combination of the best of both systems to suit China's history, culture, and civilization and is constantly under review and reform going forward

[@jacpratt8608]

@@yu-jd5jg Right. 🙂 and not to be too shy about it, one Chinese characteristic is/was? not to be deceived or silly about money, seeing it as a tool not a god. Having too much of it compared to most of the world tends to make people crazy, everyone, not just the Chinese, even the Chinese.

[@junwu7541]

If you care so much about capitalism, you still can't get rid of ideology.

[@BryanHagerla]

Good tonic for the soul on the night before the midterms!!!😆

[@kenswanston820]

VOTE ALL BLUE IN 2022...your democracy depends on it!

[@jimrobcoyle]

Actually, Buckminster Fuller did predict that China's 5 year planning was going to create great growth. #Aloha

[@rdg8390]

Antonio Guterres Cop27 speech, highlighted a failure of all systems; Socialist, Communist, Capitalist and Mixed Economies. They promote population growth, market growth, consumption and pollution etc. They ignore or put off Climate action, sighting national interests over Climate Action. India and China have the two largest population blocks. They are listed as having the highest GDP growth rates, coming out of Covid. It is an example of all countries adopting a me first attitude. Will workers co-ops solve these issues. Global government regulation must limit population and dictate what, where, how commodities are produced to limit harmful emissions. Climate Change requires everyone to limit consumption, to resolve population growth and harmful emissions. It therefore does not matter who runs the economy, a universally agreed mandate is needed to shut it all down until the Climate stabilises. Your discussion warrants a wider debate on what additional strategies are needed in a workers co-op world.

[@throwawayidiot6451]

Say hello to Steady-state market socialism

[@vintagevibes1974]

Supply and demand doesn’t have anything to do with it? So why don’t we just print out free money vs. taxes? If the amount in circulation doesn’t effect it’s value? 🤔 How many nonemployers are government or public workers?

[@rgzhaffie]

Does the supply and demand for rope control the frequency of public hangings, then?

[@vintagevibes1974]

@@rgzhaffie when things are in low supply they typically cost more if people are demanding it. That’s all.

[@jacpratt8608]

@@rgzhaffie other way round isn't it? hard to buy a good length of strong rope these days round here. just for the kids tyre swing of course.

[@vintagevibes1974]

@@jacpratt8608 wouldn’t know. Not looking in the market for such. Good luck finding it. I love old swings, hope you can find what you need to set it up.

[@oswarz]

So, professor. When are you going to invite Benjamin Norton of Multipolarista to your show: Do you know of him? Spread the love.

[@treefrog3349]

Both Prof. Wolff and Ben Norton are truth-tellers, so lacking on Capitol Hill.

[@annetteodonnell3779]

Benjamin Norton was on an episode a few months ago, I believe

[@kenswanston820]

@@annetteodonnell3779 - Google search couldn't find them together.

[@kenswanston820]

Is it not interesting that even with the benefits attributed to the Chinese model of socio/capitalism there are still a very few people at the top that make the decisions...as demonstrated by Prof. Wolff in the Capitalism and Socialism models for the economy. Just wondering if this is a HUMAN tendency to look to a limited number of leaders in ALL societal groupings?

[@kennethisaac233]

Here's what I think. China is using state capitalism for socialism, together with private capitalism. State capitalism is different from the social or co-op based one. Private is allowed in to build productive forces. In a later future, the Chinese people would fight both the private and the party for freedom, bringing more Chinese based democracy unlike the current party. The current party are kinda great coz they still hold the ML ideology and strong enough for America govt. At that later date, there'll be more co-op with a different structure or same structure with elected managers. SOE would change to become citizens property. I think using current structure but with elected manager is a good first step to find a new structure. In summary, China goals seems to be one of developing or buying productive forces at labour's cost for future communism.

[@proletarian13]

Oh my god these silly and ignorant definitions are going to drive me nuts. "Socio-Capitalism" what the fuck is that supposed to mean ? Don't make up nonsense words. You probably haven't learned a single page about these issues, and you're commenting on China's economy in ridiculous terms and sometimes taboos. I have to say that the terms "State Capitalism" or the "Socio Capitalism" you refer to are stupid. They don't even make sense. In particular, the term State Capitalism is complete nonsense, while defining Capitalism as a market economy based on private ownership of the means of production, the term "State Capitalism" that hasn't said shit for decades is a complete oxymoron. Public Ownership of the Means of Production is something that does not exist in the literature of Capitalism anyway. Cooperatives and Public property, the types of property we call Social Property and which Socialism put forward, not Capitalism. Also, China does not have an economic model like "Market Economy" and "Self-Entrepreneurship". Although it uses Economic Planning, it has a situation that suppresses the Market Economy. That makes it a mixed economy. In addition, unlike free entrepreneurship, local governments are highlighted in economic activities. And most of the investments are managed by the state.

[@matejperko7696]

Thankyu 😊😇❤️🤴

[@vintagevibes1974]

Companies charge more if inflation effects them. No?

[@BlondieSuperdog]

It is planning by supply and demand vs planning by someone or some groups adjenda - Have a look at China - The government decided to build cities where people didn't want them - result billions in the toilet. Amazon - put the customer first - Government - Customer? who? - Taxpayers pay or they get a gun to their head or prison. There is the essential difference - I toil work and make bread - and government eats it.

[@dentonfender6492]

Makes sense!

[@vintagevibes1974]

Also the government often offers a one way solution only and uses punishment to get its way. Capitalists don’t. You are not forced to buy anything with less totalitarianism or if centralized anything is less involved.

[@jacpratt8608]

they don't? you don't? you want your water turned off? your gas, your light, your roof? You better pay. Whether its private or govt housing and utilities.

[@vintagevibes1974]

@@jacpratt8608 I know many off grid.

[@lawsonj39]

Not true in either aspect--as you obviously understand because you used the weasel word "often." I'm currently going on Medicare: the government has provided two basic solutions, one called Medicare Advantage and the other called traditional Medicare. Within each of those large-scale options, there are many choices--too many, in fact; it's terribly confusing. And capitalists certainly punish the workers and communities that don't cater to their every wish: they refuse to locate in poor communities that can't afford to bribe them to locate production in those communities; they subject their workers to inhuman conditions like those experienced by Amazon warehouse employees; they intimidate and fire employees who try to organize unions; they pollute environments in ways that harm the people who live near; and the list of their crimes and punishments goes on from there.

[@kenswanston820]

@@lawsonj39 Pollution is just off loading an expense! The US of A has had the Pharmaceutical/Health Care industry as its LARGEST lobbyist for YEARS! Check out other 'socialist' countries and their expenditure per person (for their WHOLE populations...not missing the 22 Million in the US of A with NONE!)...better in almost all developed countries and better birthing outcomes and longer expected (good) life span...you folks are getting ripped off!...and fighting to keep it that way!

[@vintagevibes1974]

@@lawsonj39 you are right on rare occasion you get another choice. 🙃 But just because you are offered 1 or 2 choices doesn’t mean you should be forced to be dependent on it or associated with it. No thanks to limited choices.

[@GehresWeed]

Too bad neither system plans for greed.

[@kennethisaac233]

Please how does one plan for greed?

[@coconutmacaroon4907]

Is a budget planning?

[@215Gallagher]

Thanks.

[@RadicalCaveman]

Thanks to Dirty Filthy Freedom Productions.

[@GhostOnTheHalfShell]

The only complaint I have is the historical determinism that authoritarian business is passing away. It is a matter of social will or how attitudes develop that will change how that works and how those forces deal with the existing economic order just as the reformation in Europe was. Yet it is not predestined. We see religious freedom wax and wane in history. Exogenous effects like the black plague unseated the social arrangement of feudalism and here because it altered the population itself. Varoufakis and others argue that capitalism has transformed in techno or neo feudalism in the platforms today, like Amazon etc. And they weird frightening economic social and political power.

[@jacpratt8608]

hopefully enough of the population these days are getting more bolshy, because they've got less to lose than our parents or grandparents who really thought they had a chance in the great society post WW2 etc. It helps that more people are more informed through the very techno world whose so called owners may seek to enslave them and enough of these informed people are standing up for themselves and making headway but its hard work and never stops and there'd better be young strong ones coming up behind them.

[@dannowman5761]

Fantastic!

[@psikeyhackr6914]

Ever notice that neither socialists nor capitalists advocate mandatory accounting/finance in the schools even though double-entry accounting is 700 years old. How much have American consumers lost on the depreciation of automobiles each year since Sputnik?

[@kenswanston820]

My dad used to be a used car sales man and said as soon as you drive a new car off the lot you've lost 10-20% of your purchase price...I haven't bought a new car since!

[@psikeyhackr6914]

@@kenswanston820 And our brilliant economists do not compute and report the annual depreciation of automobiles or talk about planned obsolescence. I have never owned a new car or been to an auto show in 40 years. Engineers could design fighter planes capable of 400 mph to fight WWII. Why have cars been redesigned every year since the Moon landing. GDP is based on stoopid.

[@sammcalilly107]

makes me think of lean manufacturing, which is not a free market at all if you're a part of that supply chain

[@kenswanston820]

Just in time processing...works great if your demand and supply chain are consistent...throw in a pandemic and a Suez Canal blockage...not so much!

[@sammcalilly107]

@@kenswanston820 yeah, but i'm specifically talking about the contracts that suppliers must agree to in order to produce parts for something like a toyota plant. they don't have much freedom, get fined for delays, etc, and the risk is on the part supplier instead of toyota. so toyota essentially plans for the JIT of other producers and penalizes them if they don't produce to their expectations. (i'm a layperson but this is how i understand it, would love to get schooled by somebody who knows more)

[@raginald7mars408]

... as a German Biologist - it is WHO gets Money from Whom. In Capitalism - you need to prove your skills to get Money - from Banks, Investors, Business partners, customers... In Socialism - you need to convince your comrades to give you money - for the only skill to convince them with threats and promises. The no Skills Economy is the most stable. As nobody needs any skills to make Money. Socialism lasts longest when all are poor... - and Vodka cheap

[@jgalt308]

Economic Growth Doesn’t Cause Inflation. Here’s Why Is economic growth inflationary? Many economic and political commentators think so. Nick Timiraos of the Wall Street Journal, for example, writes that “easier financial conditions [loose monetary policy] stimulate spending and economic growth.” Some monetary policymakers agree. Mr. Timiraos later describes the views of a Fed official who “prefer[ed] to find a rate level that restricted economic growth enough to lower inflation.” This is a two-part argument: Loose monetary policy causes prices and total spending to increase, which in turn causes economic growth. While I dispute that we should think about monetary policy in terms of interest rates, I agree that loose monetary spending causes prices and total spending (nominal income, NGDP) to rise. But it does not follow that higher inflation is associated with greater economic growth. In fact, the opposite is true: Economic growth puts downward pressure on prices, all else being equal. Let’s start with the equation of exchange, MV=PY. The money supply (M) multiplied by its average rate of turnover (V) equals nominal GDP (PY). Nominal GDP is itself the product of the price level (P, the inverse of the dollar’s purchasing power) and real GDP (Y, actual goods and services). In growth rates, this becomes gM+gV=gP+gY. When nominal income growth (gP+gY) is positive, it must be the case that the money supply is growing (gM>0), that money is changing hands faster (gV>0), or both. There are two ways to model looser monetary policy. If the Fed is printing more money, gM will rise. If the Fed lowers interest rates by cutting interest paid on reserves, money turnover will increase, implying gV will rise. Either way, nominal income (gP+gY) goes up, too. But what’s the balance between inflation (gP) and economic growth (gY)? In the short run, gY may increase. Businesses will observe sales growth. Laborers will see their nominal wages rise. The increase in nominal spending makes producing look more attractive. But this effect is temporary. Once the economy discovers the monetary origins of the boom, things will start to cool off. In the long run, gY depends on productivity. If we want to produce more real goods and services, we need to get better at turning inputs into outputs. One way to do this is to acquire more labor, capital, and natural resources. A better way is to come up with new ideas: better recipes for turning inputs into outputs. These can be complemented by investments in human capital, which make a given labor supply more productive. Notice that none of these factors depend on money, interest rates, or inflation. It is all about the supply side of the economy. We can’t consume goods and services that haven’t been produced. The long-run effect of looser monetary policy is higher inflation (gP), not higher economic growth (gY). This is an important result in economic theory. You can’t make a nation richer by printing money. The best you can do is prevent the economy from falling into a recession caused by a spike in liquidity demand (fall in gV). Keeping the economy along its trend growth path, however, is not the same thing as setting the growth path itself. Monetary policy isn’t about economic growth. Given supportive supply-side policies (moderate taxes, predictable regulation, and a general legal environment supportive of private property and freedom of contract) innovation will cause growth to rise independently of monetary policy. In the growth-rates version of the equation of exchange, higher productivity manifests as faster real output growth (gY) without any corresponding change in money growth (gM) or velocity growth (gV). But the equation still must balance: gM+gV=gP+gY. Thus, if gY rises while gM and gV stays the same, it must be the case that gP falls. At minimum, economic growth is disinflationary. And if the productivity increases are big enough, it may even be deflationary! We have nothing to fear from supply-side disinflation or deflation. This is the benign effect of comparatively less money chasing comparatively more goods and services. A general slowdown in price hikes sends a valuable signal: Money goes further because the economy is more productive. The conventional wisdom is wrong because it neglects the supply side. If your theory of monetary policy begins and ends with aggregate demand, you’ll mistakenly think growth is inflationary. A realistic appraisal of the determinants of economic productivity shows that growth eases, not intensifies, pricing pressures. This doesn’t mean that economic growth is a strategy for fighting inflation, of course. We should want more growth regardless of what’s happening to gP. Nevertheless, it’s important we should get the basic economic relationships right when discussing monetary policy. Economic growth isn’t inflationary. Journalists and central bankers should stop saying otherwise. Alexander W. Salter - November 10, 2022Reading Time: 3 minutes

[@earlviney5212]

TAX THE RICH!!!

[@longyou8254]

Great update

[@vintagevibes1974]

So all ideas and planning is equal? If that were the case no business would go under….no? 🤔

[@jacpratt8608]

😭may be best place for some of it. 🤡like the new local all American classic Candy Store😁 up the road from one of the new cosmetic dentistry for kiddies surgeries 👽.

[@PoliticalEconomy101]

False. The gov does not create $$. The Federal Reserve is a private bank.

[@rorycolgan]

Exactly

[@jgalt308]

Wrong, try again. ( yes, it is a private bank, but it does not just print money. ) Governments also create money, as do other banks...such is the nature of fiat...which by definition and according to Marx is NOT money. A simple search will verify all of this...something you should do first... rather than doing it last or never.

[@ZawawiYangTerakhir]

Social ownership vs private ownership

[@jacpratt8608]

I'm for leave me alonership

[@vuxulu]

Excellent lecture

[@shellb1633]

Ty

[@boombot934]

Today is socialism for the rich, but dog-eats-dog capitalism for the rest of us...

[@missk1697]

@@ministryoftruth8090 Perhaps their competition outlobbied them.

[@SorceressWitch]

No, that's just capitalism.

[@GabrielHellborne]

@@ministryoftruth8090 Because they by themselves didn't represent a whole sector collapse of an entire industry.

[@throwawayidiot6451]

@@ministryoftruth8090 "fail" lol only people who got F*d with those companies failing were employees and small companies working for them. Majority shareholders, directors and high management all got out with golden parachutes and accumulated profits over the years, then jumped to the next money maker. Do you live in wonderland?

[@kobked-x]

What do you say to this Mr Wolf, if enough cash is added to the economy, would it not dilute its buying power? and if so, then any trade with other nations would see a cost of materials going up, this would in turn adjust the end products cost to consumers. Then when a few start this, the rest of big business jumps on board in case they are left behind in a profit race... so I say, this is partially the fault of the money printing, if not in solid reality then for sure in the business reaction to it... Any comment Mr Wolf?

[@kenswanston820]

Contributing to the decision to add to the money supply is the Corporate sector's hand on the scales of the market place in the form of their influence on ANY government action that would affect their bottom line, or in the cases of 2000 & 2008/9, their very survival! When the 'bailout' money to companies got diverted to buying back stock you KNOW it was a better deal for the companies bottom line and the 1%ers who were making the decisions (pre-2000 & 2008/9 to CAUSE the problem too!) for THEIR benefit!

[@magefixler885]

The Federal Reserve is not a government agency, it a private banking cartel. Just like Federal Express is not a government agency, it a private corporation that delivers packages.

[@kenswanston820]

Influenced by its 1%er members...perhaps?

[@helengarrett6378]

We have a capitalist society in the United States. We plan all the time when we build HUD financed affordable housing. We need the housing but the market won't build it and the bank won't finance it but HUD will. So we plan for and build government financed affordable housing that we know people need. That is, if the Republicans don't veto the program. Please vote tomorrow. Then pressure the President to allocate HUD the money for affordable housing. Of course China uses markets and also plans for the people, the future of the nation. But introducing private ownership of the means of production is antithetical to the thesis of DEMOCRACY AT WORK, your own book, and the reason for this channel. You can have a market for a certain item and plan for the fulfillment of that need by the government WITH THE WORKER OWNED means of production. If no people owned enterprise wants to produce the item or service, then the government will plan for and produce it, I presume. I'm (not very) sorry, Professor Wolff, I see absolutely no need for private capital in a socialist system. I do see the need for markets, for cooperative enterprises to fulfill the needs of the market and I see government planning and production as an alternative in case there is an unfulfilled need. Also, I see the need for SOME government regulation of production to avoid monopolies. I am adamant that socialists not deviate to the right to accommodate the wishes of capitalism to create an elite class that ultimately becomes the puppeteer of public officials and the masters of us all simply because they are rich and can corrupt the system system. Honestly, I'd rather have production be slightly slower but working to meet the needs of workers in both urban and rural settings. Ultimately there is less resistance to changes in future generations if you don't try to throttle a capitalist sector for a cooperative socialist sector's needs when the economy gets unbalanced. Western Capitalism proves that imbalance and wobbly economics are inevitable. We crash periodically. You've illustrated that and explained the reasons for the crashes and bubbles many times. I believe you. I'm opting for more stability. Cbina right now is suffering real estate problems because of private ownership and speculation. That banking and speculation mess didn't have to happen if the government had planned financed and overseen the production and distribution of housing. The basic necessities like health care, housing, food distribution and things like that need government intervention, central planning and regulation. There can be no over or underproduction of the things we absolutely must have for survival. And that brings me to democracy. There has to be a way to throw the bums out or pressure them for our needs if they fail us. And there also must be a way to enforce reasonable laws because we don't want sociopaths and narcissists to abuse those around them. All things democracy and all things in balance, that's my idea. So, dear Professor, what's wrong with that? I'm a product of your own thinking. I'm not a capitalist. I'm a socialist. Where have I gone wrong?

[@bec_r_r]

Also China has a huge workforce probably initially cheap labour, that’s helped them too.

[@jacpratt8608]

🙃'cheap' compared to what and when?🤨

[@smjbr79]

ohhh..its true...its true

[@rockinray6197]

socialist market is planned "protectionist" ord r, but capital is not evaluated as an order but as reallocated nature is one redesigned as for the fitness. Live and let die is capitalism. Social is live and let live. Coordination for socialism, negotiation for capitalism. Harmony vs contest for privilege

[@rockinray6197]

The cooperation is among we that agree. The negotiation to the issue of conflict. Nature is by the coordination

[@rockinray6197]

Natural processing self coordinates

[@Eged282]

Please talk about the supply chain excuses

[@SvalbardSleeperDistrict]

"Please talk about the supply chain excuses" He has done that a trillion times already - it's because of people like you who are too lazy to do basic search on YT that 90 percent of Wolff's content is repeating themes and the actually insightful videos like his interview with Lex Friedman are lost among all that.

[@Eged282]

@@SvalbardSleeperDistrict relax. I have seen them all, including with Lex, the Zero hour and Others. You need to chill-WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ON THE SAME SIDE. Do not call people in names like lazy thinking you know better. Save your debates for guys like Ben Shapiro. In fact, I was among the fist who listened to this live stream and wanted Wolff to speak on it again and again, and again-even though he did in the past. You dig??. It’s the very topic that the main stream media is throwing at us as the reason for the inflation, along with the pandemic. You might have misinterpreted my comment, or maybe I should say “please talk more about using the supply chain crisis as an excuse by the liberals etc”, but that doesn’t give you the right to call people lazy. That makes you no better than any MAGA, culturally speaking.

[@vintagevibes1974]

But the government doesn’t decide where that money goes? Directly impacting inflation? I mean if it doesn’t matter how much money is printed then why not just give it out like candy to citizens? 😂

[@jacpratt8608]

instant devaluation? 'printed' schminted anyway.

[@vintagevibes1974]

Like Pac-Man

[@Nemesisnxt]

Money supply grew 25% in 2020. You made it sound as though the increases in supply have been steady since 2000. Sad that you think this audience is this gullible.

[@baddudecornpop5226]

QE has gone on for the last 20 years.

[@bomaite1]

Can you explain what happens in the economy when massive amounts of money are printed? Massive amounts of goods or services are not created, so what is the purpose of this move? Are we shoring up the big banking concerns that have lost oodles of money with speculation? Is that money being funneled up to the top, because it seems obvious that the new money is not going to the masses at the bottom. What light can you shed on this?

[@paultaylor7947]

Life should be more than just fighting for survival by now. Not much real progress in the past few years

[@dimiyar]

"Employers" raising prices is Market. If they illegally agree to raise prices - thats criminal "price fixing". Companies buying other companies is Market. It is obvious, that Capitalism is a fragile economic system that tends to go towards Monopoly or Market manipulation as its "stable" state. This is where all kinds of regulations are needed to keep Capitalism unstable to ensure there is enough free competition in the marketplace. Yes, big companies have outsized control over employees, vendors and even clients, but if they never get too big, and yes they do plan - I did planning and forecasting for major corporations for many years. Still, big companies tend to get too bureaucratic and self-destruct even before activist shareholders, boards or startups disrupt them, so without an actual monopoly, capitalism has NO Central Planning of the Economy, even if Government plays a role and impacts economy with money flow, rates, taxes and other laws. Of course, the planning process is the same in Capitalist corporations and in Soviet economy. The difference is that Capitalist corporations are planning their own independent strategy, while Soviet Economy planned all activities for all participants. Soviet Union did not have "free markets" except local bazars/food markets - that was not on the scale where it was a viable market economy. Same goes for the "black market" - the criminal shadow economy. The risk of central planning is not just in errors, that can have much more dramatic consequences, that free markets would allow - famines etc. Its also the bias of the "leaders" - like Chruschev planting corn where it doesnt grow, or Mao ordering to kill birds he considered pests or to plant seeds 1 meter deep. Of course, USSR was the "extreme" version of a planned economy, and if they had AI/Computer power, they might have been much more successful. USSR has NO MARKET ECONOMY AND NO MARKET MENTALITY. Socialism was not democratic. Noone had the power or the votes to decide what to produce except the government and government-appointed bureaucrats. Of course, all countries today combine government control and central planning and free markets in some combination. Of course, China has been an example of successfully combining Fee Markets as the economic mechanism with very strong Government/Ideological "guardrails", making sure that Capitalism was workign in the interests of the Society, whereas in Free Market Democracies, Business is part of the checks and balances of the 5 Levers of Power: Business, Press, Judicial, Legislative and Executive. In China, same as in the USSR, there is only 1 Power: the Communist Party. And that is the difference. VOSAIncomeInequalitySolutions.com

[@Anti-Parasite2023-pp8uu]

You're a liar. Socialism is inherently democratic. The entire point is the working class being in control. The USSR used direct democracy for it's legislation, along with plebecites and assemblies. Stalin was democratically elected, and over 90% of Russians who lived in Stalin's time say life was better under Stalin. The majority of Russians say they prefer Stalin to Putin. The Capitalists had to rig elections to ensure Boris Yeltsen would win. Vladmir Putin repeatedly wins elections despite the majority of Russians not agreeing with him. The Capitalists openly admit to the fact that they had to rig elections because they were afraid that the population would vote for the Communists. The american Capitalists had to bribe the government to outlaw proportional systems and to limit the size of the house all to make it easier for them to keep their power. Then there is the electoral college. That is on top of over 90 corporate backed dictators, military coups, and the police beating up innocents and protesters in western "Democracies". You parasites are in no place to accuse anyone of being "undemocratic". If you want democracy, then convert every private company into a co-operative. That is real democracy. Otherwise, shoosh. If you really believe the state is so bad, then cut the military budget, demilitarize the police and outlaw the death penalty. Otherwise, your talk about "state power" is pure hipocrisy.

[@boombot934]

Ecclesiastes 8:9 - "All of this I have seen, and I applied my heart to every work that has been done under the sun, during the time that man has dominated man to his harm."

[@elainerobinson1811]

Don't sleep on it... this is a time to invest i recently just bought another property valued at over $749k. I wish I knew the right investment firm to invest with earlier, better late than never thought

[@basurathod1691]

I agree with you and I believe that the secret to financial stability is having the right investment ideas to enable you earn more money, I don't know who agrees with me but either way I recommend either real estate or crypto and stocks.

[@Laura-rk4tn]

I heard a lot of investing with Mr Edward Jones and how good he is, please how safe are the profit?

[@romanyarkov8426]

Central planning is bad because some old senile from the Central Committee of the CPSU decides that I do not need jeans, a tape recorder and a front-wheel drive car with direct fuel injection, and a home computer, and karate

[@proletarian13]

I mean, it's a bit like a rigid and dystopian central-planning narrative, but one could argue that central-planning (without markets) has bad consequences, yes.

[@bigdog44pc]

Talk is good but meanwhile ready to High people are dropping like flies because of health issues wish I can go to the hospital for. Action must be taken we must reform our government

[@slevinchannel7589]

Socialism is superior to Capitalism and is right now; thx to Arguments your too lazy to hear-out; convincing one person at a time, at a large rate. Seriously, instead of saying "WHOS SO STUPID TO LIKE SOCIIALISM." you could... i dont know... actually engage with Socialists or at least Capitalists who just turned into Socialists and get a grasp why currently people leave the Capitalism-Side in Droves? Ya know... you could less resemble a Pastor who has no clue and is wildly-guessing why his Religion loses People... and instead... talk? I personally was already criticial of Capitalism thx to many things, including the Videos of "Some More News" with Keywords like Rich, Incentive, and of couse Captalism. So that would be a good start for you, as that Guy is not even a Socialist. Hes just critical to Capitalism.

[@Teakwood11]

Excellent. Drop the attempts to adhere to ideological purity. It is utopian.

[@MrBuzben]

yup

[@yelenailina364]

Utopia, contradicting the human nature

[@garraper]

Blackrock vanguard state street bercsherhataway own the world...