Why capitalism fails | Richard Wolff and Lex Fridman

[@MrMattpula]

“…and that is the greatest moral condemnation of them all, is that when you COULD of helped, you DIDNT” my goodness that one hit me deep

[@rodscott2234]

Which is a false claim-- what evidence, examples did he give to support that no one was helped. There is, however, evidence throughout the world demonstrating that people's lives have been and continue to improve through free market capitalism. "The greatest moral condemnation of them all," is when government takes from job creators and redistributes to those who produce nothing.

[@mr.anderson70]

Is there evidence that poverty and hunger have been eliminated in any free market economies? @@rodscott2234

[@pete1853]

"...could have ended hunger and disease but DIDN'T." As opposed to others from some other system who have ended hunger and disease? Not sure that is an honest argument. More of an emotional appeal for outrage purposes, IMHO.

[@namaste758]

​@@rodscott2234 When has government taken jobs from creators? Literally never happened. Ridiculous claim When has capitalism improved people's lives without government intervention? I'll wait

[@namaste758]

​@@pete1853Agreed. No system of government has abolished poverty because they haven't tried That's his entire point. No government in existence has actually been committed to helping people at the bottom. Government always helps the rich and leaves everyone else to fend for themselves

[@liberty193]

"Thousands of workers using shovels were building a canal. Friedman was puzzled. Why weren’t there any excavators or any mechanized earth-moving equipment? A government official explained that using shovels created more jobs. Friedman’s response: “Then why not use spoons instead of shovels?”

[@graceann335]

Let the workers starve….we’ll use automated mega-excavators…..oh wait, we don’t need the canal anymore now….because society has collapsed

[@seanvassar1117]

Friedman also said doctors should not be regulated and the only thing taxes should pay for is the military.

[@moviepracticing]

@@seanvassar1117 Friedman was right….

[@seanvassar1117]

@@moviepracticing lol right. So you want to defund the police? You want to pay for every road you drive on every day and every time you use it? Fire fighters should be privatized and wait for a payment before responding? And you don't think doctors should be regulated?

[@seanvassar1117]

"Only money matters" words to live by Milton Friedman. Shareholders are the only obligation the company has, according to Milton. Its so embarrassing, I would love to have a real conversation in person with someone that believes this.

[@imnotnotgameiacmaniac5327]

I'm surprised that he didn't mention that most innovation is publicly funded

[@astrobullivant5908]

Not it's not. The vast majority of innovation has been made without government assistance. Publicly funded innovation has usually been extremely specific. Also, just because some innovation has been publicly funded doesn't mean that there wouldn't have been more innovation without those public funds. Consider most of Elon Musk's innovations with government funding: have most of those innovations in satellites and electric cars made a difference in most people's daily lives?

[@imnotnotgameiacmaniac5327]

@@astrobullivant5908 elon musk is literally government funded lmao. maybe do some research into what i am talking about. the internet and screens for example where publicly funded and most engineering and science innovation are done in public universites.also many startups rely on publicly funded research

[@astrobullivant5908]

@@imnotnotgameiacmaniac5327 Did you even read my comment? Most of Elon Musk's innovations, largely driven by government funding, haven't made a difference in people's lives yet. The Internet didn't become influential until it was privatized in the 1990's.

[@imnotnotgameiacmaniac5327]

@@astrobullivant5908 so? its still innovation and many import innovations are also government funded

[@abhishekmhatre1554]

​@@imnotnotgameiacmaniac5327 I mean the internet was the product of military research and the military is itself deeply intertwined with corporations so I'm not sure if that's the best example per se.

[@Leslieclaire1]

I would love to watch Richard Wolf debate Dinesh D’Souza or Thomas Sowell.

[@danielzak4405]

Dinesh D'Souza is not worth debating, he's a charlatan and convicted fraud.

[@musicisfree91]

Thomas Sowell would destroy him.

[@malcolmpalm]

@@musicisfree91 Agreed, but Mr. Sowell would most likely not give him the time of day.

[@freezinhotroniz]

@@musicisfree91 Sowell is for people who think jordan peterson is profound lmao

[@musicisfree91]

@@freezinhotroniz That's thing about both Thomas Sowell and Jordan Peterson, they're not trying to be profound. They're are practical and truthful.

[@dlmac]

The moment you sacrifice for your employees as much as Wolff is suggesting (11:25) is when another company will swoop in and out compete. A companies existence is not only for its employees but also the customer. If you fail to bring value to the customer, what difference does it make how good you treat the employee (with less hour, higher pay, etc) if the company does not exist in the near future.

[@LonewolfProd_]

@@Grosflam The product has to have a serious competitive edge. Even if so, this is why innovation is always king, because as the free market trends towards monopoly, it trends away from monopoly just as suddenly. As for minimum wage, there will never be a satisfactory minimum wage. It's a perpetual moving goal post that goes further the higher it is set. We could start by eliminating inflation. To do that, we'd have to massively cut spending. To do that, we'd have to cut many if not all of our social programs, defund the military industrial complex, etc. Hybrid economies were never going to work in the long run and any informed austrian economist absolutely saw this coming from over 100 years ago.

[@dlmac]

@@Grosflam Can you elaborate on what you mean by preference in the industry? The federal minimum wage is useless across the board. should be remove all together.

[@gwills9337]

You're completely missing it

[@dlmac]

@@gwills9337 Please explain.

[@itkojecockot]

@@Grosflam you are free to move to a country with your preferred system...... they still exist...... just because you don't like what system this country was built on, doesn't mean you have the right to destroy it for everyone else...... and there is no "adequate" minimum wage...... your wage is based on your skills...... if you're applying for a job that can be done by literally anyone, then you can't expect your wage to be very high, because your position is easily replacable...... if you get education or qualification for a job that only a few people are capable of doing, then you'll have much bigger leverage over your employer, to force him to give you bigger wage, since you'll be much harder to replace..... that's how it works in all bussiness relations of capitalism...... it's always a game of leverage...... and the one who has the biggest leverage ends up with most money

[@richardjoseph8532]

This reminds me of Ghandi's quote, "I like your Christ, but I don't like your Christian". Similarly I can say, I like your capitalism, but I don't like your capitalist. You see, the problem is the people - capitalism brings out the worst greed in us...

[@Noonesbusiness]

Yeah cause communism brought out such wonders in our collective personalities

[@richardjoseph8532]

@@Noonesbusiness My criticism of capitalism isn't meant to indicate my approval of communism! We cannot simply keep arguing from one of these two perspectives as if they're the only ones that exist! That would be simply stupid

[@Noonesbusiness]

@@richardjoseph8532 you said capitalism brings out the worst in us and that couldn’t be farther from the truth. What you said isn’t true at all.

[@richardjoseph8532]

@@Noonesbusiness I'm getting the impression that you are incapable of independent thought?!

[@fluentpiffle]

Greed has no option but to eventually consume itself..

[@josephcrane2145]

It would be absurd to think that any one of the defined systems work work well by themselves. Any well working model would be a combination a systems to balance one another. Additionally, no model works forever. Over time, people will always find a way to break the system, so we have to expect cycles of governing models to rise and fall forever. It’s a good thing. No system will be perfect and if it is, it’s still not perfect. People need to experience the bad to understand what the good is.

[@prikipriki30]

People wont breake the sistem if they are educated to become spiritual/mindfull, which is whole new level for you.

[@jamesm.9285]

Interestinf point! Paradoxically, though, isn't any system literally modelled by balancing smaller systems? It only takes looking through basic principles of microeconomics to see that capitalism, communism, socialism, fascism, are all different balances of power, wealth, time, resources, and freedom, for example.

[@philipsangalang5077]

The problem is that all our political discourse is based on individual prevailing principles. So the debate has become: since you are against absolute freedom, you want a dictatorship by government VS since you are against equality, you want dictatorship by oligarchy. The debate is flawed because people talk only in a way to maximize their one principle, as opposed to using as many tools as possible to account for as many principles and objectives as possible that we all deem important.

[@vashlash6870]

Hey no nuance or common sense allowed in these comments bud.

[@vashlash6870]

@@philipsangalang5077 we call those people light switch brained people.

[@cueva_mc]

But then what would be the incentive for someone to create a company? If decisions would be taken by workers? Companies wouldnt survive

[@FerdarPleaseSubscribe]

just one person can start a business, and then when it becomes too big to manage by one person, more can be brought in

[@resting_thorn]

Good!

[@timothecrelier2674]

I get more educated from Lex's podcasts than what I learn at uni

[@MitchellMakesVids]

hell yeah LMAO

[@bigtuss7482]

Sexy ain’t it

[@jonathancortez5179]

I'm going to attend KZbin University.

[@fluentpiffle]

Greed has no option but to eventually consume itself..

[@bigtuss7482]

@Yea but sexy ain’t it

[@alexa11129]

I'm sincerely relieved and impressed to see intelligent comments here *not* bashing capitalism for once. Watching the series 'Free to Choose' was my pivot point. If you haven't seen it, it's worth every single minute.

[@shake6321]

it’s cuz lexs audience are not mindless leftists.

[@moreranch9174]

@John Smith here here

[@j.a.8970]

Capitalism is a death cult.

[@thomasjensen5028]

The book version is great too

[@Theviewerdude]

Read some Rothbard!

[@mynameismynameyourname6197]

I'll agree with most of not all the criticisms of capitalism. But I have yet to find anything that does the job better. Once I find something that does a better job I'll jump on board gladly. But until then I'm not jumping off the best floating ship.

[@AG-lm5uf]

The best solution is a compromise of capitalism and socialism, which is why our form of capitalism is failing.

[@Takealiltripnsee]

If we all had 40 acres and a mule we wouldn't be sitting here complaining 😂

[@RossKempOnYourMum01]

@@AG-lm5uf Yep capitalism with government regulation. Unfortunately the capitalists (bankers, lobbyists and climate change deniers) have infiltrated democracies and now form the governments!

[@elduderino7725]

@@AG-lm5uf The US has a mix of socialism and capitalism.

[@AG-lm5uf]

@@elduderino7725 more like capitalism with a sprinkle of socialism.

[@ReedMySole]

Havent seen wolff since they blocked him. The truth police strike again. Happy for this.

[@chaosdweller]

Interesting name 🤔.......

[@jgalt308]

Nobody blocked him, he has continually demonstrated he is economically and historically ignorant as he does here. His non profit "Democracy at Work" and the multiple streams it produced was funded by his "patreon" community...with supposed benefits in exchange for a level of support. His youtube streams were completely ad free and for some reason about 18 months ago he decided to increase his youtube subscribers, to reach 300, 000...in the belief that this would result in increased "patreon" donations. His free streams included two by him, one by his wife, David Harvey, and "all things co-op". As a result after 9 months he had lost 20% of his patreon subscribers...and was supposedly infected or re-infected with Covid...where upon "all streams ceased production"...for about 60 days. He reappeared in Sept or there abouts, with his weekly "Economic Update". but not quite reliably, then his wife, also not reliably, and then Ask Prof Wolff. In short, he can't even make a non-profit work...and the reasons are obvious. His "paying public" now numbers less than 2000...as most prefer the "free" B.S. And on those sites he is a "brilliant educator"...you should join.

[@hckytwn3192]

Capitalism’s main benefit isn’t technological innovation, it’s price discovery. (Capitalism has no use for technologies that don’t bring value to society.) What capitalism does is identify those technologies, services, products and processes that are most in demand, and deliver them at the best possible price. And price isn’t measured in dollars-which are in reality worthless pieces of paper-but measured in human energy. This means capitalism delivers the most to humans for the lowest investment of time and energy. This is why when you move away from capitalism, you end up with starvation and deprivation. Sadly Europe, and the West, is on the brink of seeing this effect as we speak.

[@voutolliC22]

so you disagree with the speaker's point that the intent of the capitalist is actually the opposite - in most cases to deliver to a sub-adequate good for the highest possible price?

[@riq1014]

@@voutolliC22 Although thats true, i'd say a succesful capitalist cannot succeed long term with a sub-adequate product. Therefore on a longer timescale the most succesful capitalist would ideally produce a great product at a reasonably lower price. Just my 2 cents

[@hckytwn3192]

@@voutolliC22 to be clear, that’s what Wolff is saying the _Capitalists_ would like (notice he talks mostly about them, not Capitalism itself-and that’s intentionally deceiving). However, it’s irrelevant what the “Capitalists” want because the market (i.e. the price discovery mechanism of capitalism) ensures the best possible products at the lowest possible prices. Those Capitalists he’s talking about go out of business… well, unless of course government props them up.

[@Matty-i4g]

@@voutolliC22 the sub-adequate “luxury” good or “reliable” good or “quality” good manufacturing capitalist must really be deceiving their consumers huh? Lamborghinis and Ferraris are sub-adequate I guess…

[@voutolliC22]

@@hckytwn3192 has not the government propped up the most infamously failed institutions? is this not proof of the ultimate inclination of the system towards oligarchies and unjust consolidation of power and assets?

[@keithschaub7863]

The guest strikes me as naïve to the point of stupid. Everything he says about the bad is true but that’s how life competition functions. Not all the animals get to live. Not everyone gets a medal.

[@mysterioanonymous3206]

But we're not quite like those animals, are we? We have a consciousness and make decisions. That's the distinguishing feature in fact. So why wouldn't we choose a different path than savagery? Because we can. Also, you still exist within a superstructure. Let's say you're a software engineer, smart guy, good looks, high salary. I'll smash your f'in teeth in, split your skull and take your gf as a price. No, don't like that? See, then you're not actually for a evolutionary model. That's called the social contract.

[@redwood-in-stereo]

Maybe he just greater hope for humans overcoming their animal nature

[@the-sleepy-bear]

That’s true and he also doesn’t mention that the “capitalist” is the one who is required to be innovative with an idea and takes all the risk setting up the business and loses his/her house and possessions if the business goes under. The workers just go to find a new job. He also doesn’t seem to think that the onus is on the individual (the worker) to make sure their skills are relevant to the modern workforce in order to be productive. If your job is going to be taken by a machine, you need to think ahead and retrain.

[@jacoblape]

This isn't the Serengeti and it's also the reason we have a labor shortage now.

[@keithschaub7863]

@@redwood-in-stereo Why would you think that animal nature is bad? It serves us brilliantly.

[@ArthurDubinsky]

Richard Wolff assumes democracy is a good thing. Having all of your work and artistic life dictated by majority consensus is basically a prison. Which then leads to a lack of desire to produce anything because what you produce isnt your idea and you dont give a shit about it. This leads to just a malaise at a population level where people just pretend to work hard. Capitalism isnt just a system of economic generation, it is a singular idea that you can risk your entire life on a dumb idea and toil for 50 years being poor to finally perfect it and bring it to market and sell the product at any price you desire. You can hate every other person on earth and wish them ill and not be bound by their crappy ideas and only focus on your own. That is what capitalism is, it is the freedom to not be held back by other people.

[@atlmember4045]

That bit made me chuckle, having heard Curtis Yarvin make the same observation in service of his argument for monarchy. Yarvin's case is more convincing honestly, since Wolff is simply being dishonest when he claims democracy has "never been allowed to be tried in the workplace." Companies are totally free to let their workers collectively replace their executives, and I'm sure they'd be thrilled by the cost savings if that strategy actually worked. Needless to say, it just doesn't.

[@atlmember4045]

@SploinkyDoinkyHole What I said is that anyone is free to create a worker-led organization, not that it's common.

[@CGJ703]

@@atlmember4045 not exactly that simple. You will receive massive pushback

[@atlmember4045]

@@CGJ703 from? People have started communes before. They work decently for very small endeavors.

[@CGJ703]

@@atlmember4045 I was saying as far as starting a union or organizing in the work place is a massive endeavor that receives a lot of pushback

[@maximman19]

I was listening to just the audio and thought wow this guy is really full of himself. Then I turned the video on, he must love to talk to himself in the mirror because It’s like he forces every single muscle to move in his face with every word he said. He quotes Marx so much it’s like he doesn’t have an original thought in his mind just regurgitates whatever quote comes to mind after lex asks a question then repeats it 5-10 times in different words with different facial contortions.

[@chaosdweller]

So far don't agree..., but nice roast haha.

[@Led-blimp]

I understand Mr. Wolffs point, and think he wants the best for the masses. Where I disagree, is in the convenience of his hypothetical. From my experience in working many entry level jobs, and failing a start up company. Id say the world is a lot messier than Mr. Wolf has made it out to be. While working as a busser, waiter, warehouse stocker, delivery driver, ETC. About 30% of coworkers took every angle they could to not do work and get paid. this happened at every entry job i went to. It was disheartening and frustrating to work with. As for business owners, It should be known that they make more money when successful because they risk everything to build the company with little to no chance of success. Most successful CEOs worked 6-7 day weeks for around a decade just to be able to get out of debt from their past business endeavors and current monthly payments. After all that work, time and sacrifice, the businesses could still fail. But if the company becomes prosperous, the CEO takes home more profits than others, due to the fact that they took risk and build the company up for years, without any guarantee of success.

[@graceann335]

But if the employees (even the 30%-type you mention) have proportional ownership in the company, and a democratic say as to how it is run....it becomes against their own interests to 'take every angle' to avoid working....they would be hurting themselves.

[@samtheeagle799]

Well said, the simple difference between the worker and the owner of the business, is not the money they receive for their contribution to the company, it's the interest they have in the company . I've been a worker who goes home each day, and does not care about the company I worked for, and I've been a business owner who goes home every evening, and spent every hour in the day worrying about the company. Richard's view of the oppressor and victim is so out of touch with reality, and doesn't even consider the reality that each worker has the chance to go and start their own company if they choose.

[@mysterioanonymous3206]

Not everyone has the same mental capacity you know. You seem thoughtful enough, which makes me think that you probably don't know what it feels like to come home as a kid and get beat up by your alcoholic dad for no reason, or have your overworked and tired single mom constantly scream at you for the slightest infringement, or being held down with zero support for the entirety of your childhood. The effects are enormous, you wouldn't get it if you haven't experienced that. And that does happen to people. So take it easy a bit ok? You don't quite know what you're in for with this discussion. Are there lazy people? Sure. But at least the couch dwelling weed smoking hippies don't start wars or polluting companies and whatnot, so perhaps look at it from that angle.

[@jacoblape]

@@samtheeagle799 companies now have non compete clause in contract. So you can't leave and start your own company. Or if you do you have to do it in a completely new way that's not patent infringing

[@davidg1838]

@@graceann335 That depends entirely on how they acquired that proportional ownership. If it was purchased through a share-ownership structure (e.g. a cooperative), then yes, they would be hurting themselves. However, if it is done through socialism, as Richard Wolff advocates, they stand to lose nothing but their entry-level job, which can be replaced without cost. So no, socialism definitely does not prevent poor work ethic.

[@philipkung7261]

His analogy is BS because in the real world, the competitors will get ahold of the same machine, optimize their workforce, and reinvest profits into R&D. While your busy paying your workers for doing half the work, your competitors will create a better product at a lower price and run your company out of business.

[@JasonPopcornzWorld]

Not if employees are legally entitled to have a say which should be the case. Business owners need to be held accountable fr. They want socialist style leisure time, but only for themselves while their employees & their families literally starve. Look at Musk & Bezos. Bezos bragged that he makes 3 decision a day, but look at the treatment of ‘his employees’ aka a bunch of overworked kids & elderly folk who’s social security doesn’t cover rent anymore. I have a patna that works at Tesla in Fremont. 12 hour days with an extreme poverty wage in the Bay Area of $18-20. These people partner with the government to ensure they can kill their competitors & accept their jobs which force people into tough financial situations with little leisure time. It’s fucked out here bruh foh. They don’t optimize shit they partner with the police & government institutions to bully workers into not having a choice about their working conditions. Can’t even protest anymore without being ostracized for doing something you are legally entitled to do with out getting literaly beaten by the police. We don’t hold these people accountable they gone keep stealing from the majority, the plebes, real people, not a bunch of fair skinned judgemental asswipes that leverage power to steal from the masses. Philip please fucking read this bruh, you trippin for thinking in that machinish way

[@spatia367]

Competitor who? in socialist economy, production is socially organized, companies don't dictate price and wages.

[@50kT]

@@JasonPopcornzWorld this is why automation is happening more and more. The business owner first off chose to create their own company rather than get a job for someone else. They chose to put themselves there. Competitors did the same and they have to fight for market share because businesses can die really easily. If they had to focus on creating a business just so their workforce could get what ever arbitrary wage they want then literally we would have no more businesses hiring people. It would all be automated or outsourced overseas. The work force isn't forced to take the job. In any kind of market, including the job market you have to remember it's a market. The person selling their time (worker) wants the highest price, the person buying their time (employer) wants the lowest price. So they end up meeting some where around the middle. If employers can't find the talent at the current price they have to raise it. But if someone is willing to work for 18$ an hour then so be it. Get mad at the people working for low paying jobs, they're effectively bidding the job market down. And if they took the job because they're young then that is no different than how life had always been. Inexperienced labor needs experience and will work for less to gain experience so they can earn more money later in life.

[@EroUsagiSama]

That's exactly his point, that's why we need to go beyond capitalism because it's a retarded system.

[@austintrotta9417]

You get it

[@PatientZeroZero]

How would his example of a machine work with the example of computers? They used to be as big as a room and gradually shrank to the point we also have computers in our pocket now. Would the workers back then vote or block improvements to computers?

[@alphacat4927]

Socialist dont believe in computers we think they make us slaves to the man wake up and break your chains.

[@justusbowman]

Do you think fewer employees today are working on computers than in the past? If not, then how have we lost jobs by adding computers? If I have one computer run by three people versus six computers run by six people, which setup employees more workers?

[@alphacat4927]

@@justusbowman The toaster some one to make them someone to sell them and someone to use them to make my breakfast..... get a toaster dude

[@GaryParris]

That's a one sided argument capitalists will use as thought experiment to justify itself. but think of it this way, innovation is something humans do not just for financial incentive including making computers and tech smaller, faster better, imagine doing an iphone in a cooperative environment based in knowledge, creativity, ingenuity, for the skills etc and not coercion, imagine doing it because it's an idea and doing it right the first time with no profiteering but because you want everyone to be able to communicate easier.

[@thgerjakobsen7757]

No because the benefits of get ting a better machine goes to everybody including the workers. If the big computer allowed them to work half a day, the better smaller computers may allow to take a quarter day of work.

[@Kreychman]

Do the workers also share in the business risks on that case ? When profits are down will they be willing to take wage cuts in this scenario? He’s talking about co ops - so what happens with the workers that the co op hires ?

[@peterbennett7176]

What risks do the business owners really take though - to end up back in the position of the worker living pay check to pay check? Well if the worst that can happen is that you end up in the same position half the people that work for you, it can’t be that bad. And if it’s so unbearable surely you would expect you’re employees to complain about it from time to time? But even that never happens because if you will notice in the next recession how many firms go bust with management and CEO’s still taking multi million pound pay packets - even from unprofitable companies! It seems to me that it’s often not the system that is the problem, but the attitudes of the people within it that are the problem.

[@Glumclam]

If you depend on that pay check then it goes away depending on how the profits are going you also take risks. And the effects are worse for the workers and society as a whole.

[@kaisarion6668]

I think the workers take the biggest risk. The majority are one paycheck away from homelessness. The Capitalist has enough basic security that he can play speculative games with Capital. Trust me, the workers have every incentive to get paid. And they only do that if things are running in the best state possible

[@GaryParris]

yes they do share the bad as well as the good, and the distribution across the co-op ends up being far less prone to fluctuations of other standard businesses that are top down, but capitalist will never tell you this because capitalism is a cult and economics is the preacher of the cult, except for people like wolf

[@moviesynopsis001]

What risks did the banks really take when they crashed the entire economy and had tax payers bail them out though?

[@tomcat8662]

Ultimately the machinery that replaces the worker does NOT boost the company’s profits. If your competitors are also using the same machinery(which they probably are or will soon be), any sort of advantage you gained in profitability quickly goes away when you both lower your prices to compete. What Wolff seems to miss is that it is the consumer who is the biggest winner in all this. And this is why capitalism is a better system. He seems to be narrowly focused on the plight of the worker. Innovation and creative destruction benefits society as a whole by means of providing better and cheaper goods. If we are sitting around worried about continuing to pay or keep busy a worker who’s job is now obsolete, we are focused on the wrong thing. It would be far better for that worker to move on and find a different job than to be kept on being unproductive.

[@Ingmntya]

Well said. However, the solution is always grey. This does not really prove that Ca is the better system because you are idealizing it just like Wolff presents an idealistic picture of Co. Ca has a great practical incentive for monopoly and for price fixing. What ends up happening in the real world is that firms hardly reduce prices commensurate with innovation. This is not absolutist-it’s not always the case, just like it’s not always the case that Co is inefficient.

[@jamisonmunn9215]

You can also give the real test, what is the last Innovation or invention that came out of a socialist or communist country. Can anyone even name one? There is no doubt capitalism is the worst system, except of course when compared with any other system.

[@Chatsu8o]

Ultimately nothing stops this man's "ideal" company from existing: If he's so keen on a company that operates that way he is 100% free to go create one. That's the beauty of the capitalist system... there's no central planning bureau to stop him, no agency to make sure he abides by the rules of exploitation... he can just go out and do it. It won't work, of course, and if he tried there would be a million excuses why he couldn't make it work ... but maybe he'd realize all of those excuses are the reason capitalism is they way it is. You just can't make stuff cheaply if you ignore the consumer and "keep all the excess for yourself and distribute it democratically". There's no excess if nobody can afford your stuff. Besides, most of the developed world simply isn't a predominantly manufacturing economy anymore but this man's head is stuck in the age of his idealist mentors. All his examples are about making stuff. Be that as it may, in my grandfather's day if you bought anything halfway nice you prized it highly, you looked after it with your life and you had to buy for keeps because you couldn't afford to buy another one, ever. Stuff was EXPENSIVE back then, made by skilled workers working with their hands. This is why the term "handmade" now has an air of a bit of luxury, exclusivity, excess, or even wealth... about it: Cause the one thing it ain't, is cheap.

[@ratulxy]

@@jamisonmunn9215 sure, linear programming originally used by soviets to solve logistical problems during WW2, now used by all big companies. Original paper on stealth fighter planes, written by a Soviet scientist. Soviets had very advanced infrared search and track systems on all of their fighter jets. Ilizarov apparatus, to help in healing complex fractures. Going to Venus, ussr remains the only country to land on Venus. Many other innovations happened concurrently with the west although independent. You should educate yourself and try to disprove yourself before spewing nonsense on a public forum.

[@fixingfitness7891]

@@jamisonmunn9215 all innovations are created by workers, capitalists can’t claim innovations that they don’t/cannot even build with their own hands

[@patriciapalmer1377]

Capitalism doesn't fail, governments do. In failure to respond to and/ or not react or respond to, in timely fashion and appropriately to capital economic and market conditions

[@goonerboz6023]

Capitalism has never worked it's a pyramid scheme

[@sheedy9]

Name a capitalist country that works?

[@xavierquinones6976]

Exactly they fail in trying to pick up the garbage that capitalism leaves on our doorsteps.

[@typeviic1]

"Capitalism doesn't fail, governments do." No, capitalism does fail. See "bailouts".

[@ChristyWitham]

Governments that become to big, to controlling and to powerful makes matters even worse. They should stick to their minimal role of protecting the people {country} Not intervening in business [Except preventing monopolies} and letting a free system work itself out. Maybe a large majority of people seeing themselves as victims should become more educated in whats going on and vote accordingly instead of being a sheep becoming controlled by the elitist and led to slaughter

[@bengsynthmusic]

12:58 That's all fine and dandy if those workers started their own worker-owned company, but pretty revolting if those said workers seek to take over an established private business and inject their made-up control over the business. Yikes what a garbage proposition. Under his land, workers would be seen as potential colonizers making them less desirable. The incentive to start businesses would be less as it'd just be taken over by some unions eventually. There's no happy medium between state-fueled collective dictatorship and a true free market with meritocracy. He explained the pros and cons of capitalism but doesn't see any downside to his own. Thinks businesses owners would be okay with some takeover.

[@shannonstahlin5376]

No dude. His competitor would have got the same machine as him eventually. Costs go down for both and so would prices. If factory owner wanted to stay in business, he has to make the layoffs. This is fantasy land.

[@maambomumba6123]

Prof. Wolff: your description is flawed in at least two ways: 1. You do not factor in that the machinery that improves productivity itself requires labour to make and maintain, and that if this machine allows society to produce more while using less then those spared resources (human and physical) can be used in other productive processes elsewhere in the economy. This is how prosperity is created; 2. You assume the capitalist can acquire said machinery at no explicit cost or opportunity cost so that any and all savings in labor can be taken as profit for the capitalist. Machinery is a capital investment, the cost of which must be recouped before any net gain can be claimed by the capitalist. And any such gain is net of labor costs. The capitalist eats last and therefore deserves the profits because without his deferred gratification in only getting his gains after costs have been recouped is the very trade off that makes the productive operation possible. The trade off of labor is contingent on the capitalist making some capital investment of some sort somewhere in the economy.

[@imperfectious]

Yeah, but you didn't over-enunciate or make a continuous appeal to emotion so I'm not convinced. It's the arm-waving and podium pounding that brings about prosperity.

[@maambomumba6123]

@@imperfectious your mastery of sarcasm is laudable.

[@dave9547]

@@imperfectious very well done👍

[@matthewhowell8429]

Co-op business do exist. Equal exchange is one I can name off my head but I agree that there should be more like it.

[@daytonjobgen8639]

Co-op were a Capitalist idea that came from Scotland, that radical leftist tried to steal. Lookup the history

[@soulcapitalist6204]

This is not a great a startup model but it is proven for winding down private ownership.

[@astrobullivant5908]

Matthew Howell, During the "Golden Age" of Silicon Valley(1976-2014), startups usually began as partial co-ops where employees were paid in terms of equity and stock-options. When VC restructured there in the ashes of the 2008 crash, its business model began to change.

[@soulcapitalist6204]

@@astrobullivant5908 That is not how co-ops work, sir. This is American stock corporation - c corp which allows for this to be done in such a fashion (share allocation at the discretion of owners).

[@ebecerra85]

If that's the case of profit sharing among workers and employers, then so should risk aspect of business should be shared as well.

[@shaunt7301]

No.. they want it only flowing one way. Employee shares the rewards but none of the risks...lol...

[@ebecerra85]

@@shaunt7301 lol nice sarcasm

[@edd5883]

Employees already take the share of risk. If my boss fucks up and loses money he can lay me off even though I've done nothing wrong.

[@AndreMonthy]

@@edd5883 yes but you dont lose the thousands if not millions or more of dollars in now worthless equity in the company

[@ebecerra85]

@@edd5883 not really the same, you don't inherit the liabilities and debt. Atleast in the US, workers have a fall back such as unemployment and can find a other job alot faster than building up a business from scratch which can take years and has no guarantee of success.

[@Dr.Jekyll_]

He’s confusing the greed of people with the system itself. Any system can be corrupted by the lower nature of man.

[@ChristyWitham]

Thats the TRUTH of it all. We should never allow a government or any central body take control. Thats including all these elites coming ou of the woodword thinking they know whats right for everyonel

[@ProtoByte]

This analysis of the capitalist replacing workers with a machine disregards so many factors that are required for even a simple example like this. Where did the machine come from? How was it paid for? What is the capitalist doing with his increase in money - sure he could blow it on himself - but that is not likely and if he does competition will put him out of business.

[@Pdclip245]

I don't think you understand what he's trying to say. If workers owned the means is production they get to see decide what to do with the surplus

[@darkness1130]

@@Pdclip245 What will happen when "means of production owned by worker" is the practice ? Where then is the incentive to create alternative means of production, i.e. technology, as ultimately the creator doesnt get return for the creation ? How do we then solve the issue where humans tend to push the responsibility (of innovation/improvement) around when everybody collectively own the result and thinking "others should do the work" ?

[@Pdclip245]

@@darkness1130 new and alternative technology is also created by workers not by the owners. Take a workers co-op. The workers democratically get to decide what to do with the surplus like they can buy better equipment, increase wages or even invest in newer technology. The means of production remains the same but the ownership of the means of production is with the workers. As for your other question I think you're not thinking it through. Workers will democratically decide what roles and responsibilities are. This has existed before and it works. Just look at the worker co-ops in Spain.

[@shawnradke]

@@Pdclip245 I'm all for that terrible worker co-op system to be an option for people to inevitably fail in. But how does the example become a worker co-op? Are you saying the workers should be entitled to part of the decision making on surplus? If so why? It ain't their company

[@Pestbringer89]

@@shawnradke Why does every capitalist become a stalinist authoritarian fascist when it comes to democracy in the work place?

[@faresalouf]

Its funny how his main critiques are: 1) Unstability, booms and busts 2) Monopolies and lobbies And both of them would never be in a free market system and are a result of government intervention and socialist policies. Booms and busts are due to low interest rate environements set low BY THE FEDERAL RESERVE and not the market. And Monopolies are created by a lack of competition usually due to special favors from government and expensive regulations to comply with. And finally lobbies are attracted to power. They own the government when the government HAS POWER. Otherwise it is not worth it to lobby.

[@gregchurchill4883]

Instability.

[@OdieSalmon]

Are you under the false impression that booms and busts only started after the creation of the fed?

[@Pestbringer89]

imagine being this delusional.

[@xlukas93]

I find it fascinating that this obviously very intelligent and educated person is full of such contradictions. If he uses a washing machine instead of paying someone will wash his clothes, he is part of the problem. This is the thing I struggle with, many so called communists think of capitalists (as factory owners etc) as some special sort of human being, but those are just normal human beings. All the innovation regular people use in their life or in their work is the same as the innovation capitalists use. I agree there is a problem in society, but those arguments about machines are non sensical. If a construction worker uses a car to transfer his tools and materials instead of guy with riksha or multiple guys with backpacks, her is doing the same thing.

[@tylerbradley8124]

boom! every single argument on capitalism he completely ignores incentives and that people WANT and WILL work harder to obtain a greater quality of life

[@kevinradziszewski1217]

I think you miss the point. Wolff is not arguing against innovation. He is arguing why should one man inside of a multi person company receive all the profit and benefits of the technological advance.

[@Thurnishaley6969]

Just admit he knows far more about the subject than you and move on. Ppl gotta bow down to those who actually know their shit

[@xlukas93]

@@kevinradziszewski1217 i think you missed the point. Why do you use the washing machine instead of paying someone to wash your clothes? Because it's faster, more consistent and cheaper, so you can take the money you saved and invest them somewhere else. So in the end you achieve more results, your clothes are washed and also you invested in something else. Although while I agree there is a need for leveling incomes or at least some access to basic needs, it's not like all the money business owners save they burn. Most of the money is being invested more effectively back into the business. It's not like you use washing machine instead of person so you can burns the money too

[@Thurnishaley6969]

Tyler Bradley if the means are worker owned you have even more of an incentive to labor wtf are u smoking

[@name3698]

I disagree with him. I'll preface this statement saying that there may be limitations to capitalism that wasn't addressed. I get that the concept of creative destruction seems cruel but why are workers entitled to a specific job? Also, in a true a capitalist system the workers pay isn't set how the greedy employer wants it to be; it's set by the market. If we are in search of a moral system we should choose the system with the most progressive consequences not the most progressive intentions. If we look at the examples he gave for how companies cut costs "moving manufacturers overseas" and "exploiting immigrants" are not the quite the detriment to society as he suggests. We have a different perspective of how of what the standard of living should be because of our privileges of living in the first world but "sweat shops" prop up economies and they wouldn't exist if the workers didn't want them.

[@bretttheroux8040]

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 a tip of the hat to you, sir

[@FilnetMgnigon]

Yea pretty middle of the road POV. The construction of a true perfect society might be more of a mystery then anything else in the universe. But capitalism is a such a buzzword, people use it so matter of factly. Capitalism is barbaric in nature. People might preach capitalism, but never define the margins of their belief. There's also some distinctions between capitalism and free markets. Leaders rise because of capitalism. Kings wear crowns because of capitalism. Governments form due to the capitalistic nature of the universe... Capitalism is the base layer of evolution. And everything else is a abstraction of it. Just some thoughts

[@bretttheroux8040]

@@FilnetMgnigon I’m having difficulty with the claim that kings wear crowns bc of capitalism, or that evolution is capitalism. Both kings and evolution seem to be driven by pure power, the exercise thereof , no?

[@albionicamerican8806]

Anyone who has run a real business can tell you that you have to deal with some of the worst aspects of human nature, namely, incompetent, unconscientious or dishonest employees, suppliers and customers. It's a miracle that we can go to the supermarket and find the shelves adequately stocked, given the kinds of people businessmen have to work with.

[@ryanarborist]

I notice people who hate Capitlism and grit their teeth when they have to acknowledge its positive aspects have a few things in common. They never grew up in, say, a Communist country. They also never ran a business, supervised people/ personalities, or left academia long enough to talk to people from the lower class who used Capitlism to improve their lives. They all speak from this esoteric, almost whimsical mindset where the ills of Capitlism somehow make another economic system look appealing.

[@TheMaxKids]

Highly agree. This guy isn’t living in reality.

[@ebecerra85]

My thoughts exactly, what about the "risk" aspect of capitalism. Are workers also going to share in that responsibility as the employer.

[@Vinicius.Passos.]

@@ebecerra85 exactly my point. The business owner has all of the liability, hence power to decide how to lead the company and eventually make profit.

[@firstprinciplesinvestor3464]

If his hypothetical capitalist had competition who could produce his widget for the same cost then his revenue would go down because the business who sold for a lower margin would attract more customers. This means the consumer (everyday people) benefit from lower prices. if we were communist or Marxist we would have tons of inefficiencies which is why when these systems are implemented we see mass poverty and mass starvation i.e. soviet union and communist China

[@Alanjtt]

Maybe if the manufacturer of , say, cars was collective maybe we would have the best cars. The best ideas would all be shared to make the best product. Your car might last a lot longer because it isn’t engineered with a shorter longevity to keep us buying new ones, to keep making profit. Communism hasn’t worked but capitalism has a lot of faults too - anarchism though - there’s a system which has worked through most of human history. But maybe the best system is whatever they’re running in Star Trek 😆 they get shit done

[@RocketDog797]

Where is the mass starvation in china? They, for a hefty price, took record numbers out of poverty

[@mwddmn]

@@RocketDog797 interesting you mention that. China began embracing capitalism (free market, private ownership) ~40 years ago. During that time it lifted much of it's population out of extreme poverty

[@popbasketball1696]

@@Alanjtt I don't think we should base our economic system on a fictional TV show

[@firstprinciplesinvestor3464]

@@mwddmn facts

[@rkalla]

His counter to capitalism not bringing incredible innovation is all about how capitalism treats people. These are two very different topics.

[@shake6321]

that’s because he has no answer so he dodged the question like a politician.

[@rkalla]

@@shake6321 yea I think you are right - he really wanted to make his points even though they are off topic.

[@shake6321]

@@sadface7457 yes. the state can create innovation. but what is the price? in todays dollars, it cost 1 trillion to put a man on the moon. Elon will do that for 1/100th the cost. thats the issue with the State. The State always over promises and under delivers. the market is the inverse. to become a great company you under promise and over deliver. You provide a great ROI. I have no problem with the State starting "Gov Corps" and giving all their profits away to citizens. In-fact, it would be my ideal system if the State could compete with the private market, earn revenue and run the State without taxes. But i dont think the State would be very good at beating the private market at anything.

[@ChristyWitham]

In Capitalism, people have choices. In Marxism they don,t.

[@toegrit]

@@shake6321 Elon only has access to the technology to even do any of what he's doing due to the tech being invented by the state. He also takes billions of dollars a year in government subsidies. You guys might wanna look into what your saying a little bit.

[@arnaldosanchez9243]

Mr Wolff states a fallacy. If a new technology arises, and a capitalist replaces half of the workers with that technology, other capitalists (competition) will do the same. The first to do it will tend to lower the price to sell more units and make more money. The other capitalists will follow. So society will benefit from the lower price of the product. In reality what has happened is that humans are lowering the energy required to have a good or service. The laid off workers will be incentivized to become more productive or participate in other areas of the economy where they are more productive, and even those who don’t find a job will live in a society that is wealthier enough to help them, because precisely the decrease in the energy needed to have more stuff means that a society is wealthier. What he suggests is to halt efficiency, to transfer that saved energy to the workers disincentivizing productivity, and decide in a “democratic” way (the soviet way) on innovation.

[@sphigel1]

@Dienye Wilcox When exactly are people going to have "no jobs"? Unemployment has been stable over decades of increased efficiencies that have resulted in far less labor input for a given economic output. People have been clamoring against innovation for decades out of this fear of "no jobs". It certainly hasn't happened yet.

[@creed5157]

Capitalism needs unemployment in order to function.

[@Cheryworld]

exactly, he thinks he is speaking to fools. where there is competition, increase in productivity results in lower prices.

[@shawnradke]

100% Its simply the fact that technology is deflationary

[@kestutisvedegys7820]

All innovation has been produced trough collective money. Space X is just Nasa owned privately nothing else. People still pay for progress not capitalist they only halt or slow down progress or even look for regress. One person said a right sentence what kind of system are we living in if we are afraid of more free time because of advancement. Because that is what progress in capitalism look like joblessness and homelessness or a rise from 2018 to 2019 US had massive jump in homelessness and joblessness. And people that are fired will not suddenly look for more productive work they get buried by debt and depression in the end, ending themselves and statistic shows that fact, losing a job in US is close to dying. Society is not wealthier at all US is not a rich country not even close, to be fair its easily the biggest 3rd world country on the planet. Having 3 people raise GDP and say look were rich is the dumbest thing ever. Rich countries are in Scandinavia and Europe sadly Capitalism failing there too causing more and more people close to poverty. Face it system is dead it failed it does not work and we need change more socially inclusive system are way to go no communism a proper socialism. Where every one in company is equal to CEO and shares profit with little extra to reward achievements keeping every one motivated to make more advanced things and produce more quality things. There would be no poverty and people would make enough to have good life's while money stay in circulation completely erasing issue of inflation and because every one makes a lot of money taxes produce more revenue for the government who in return will provide better social nets to people. Suddenly staying on government support does not seem like a good or lucrative idea instead work and self improvement becomes more important plus you have a free choice to seek those bonuses or spend more time with the family. Well there would be need to do one more thing and that is regulate Housing, house is not a luxury product and rent is not a long term solution, House is every human right they work for and rent only temporary solution anything else is just dishonest and pathetic way of abusing others for your own gain.

[@alexluke_again]

Nothing wrong with capitalism in its purest form: you work, invent and create which leads to profits. What we have now people rigging the market and the whole system to acquire wealth created by others.

[@Noamchomsky1917]

LOL

[@daysjours]

Capitalism in its purest form is fascism and monopoly. A capitalist is the one w/ the capital. Just like an industrialist is the person who owns the industry. A small business owner is not a captialist. All the good stuff we have in modern capitalism is due to the fight back AGAINST it. Next time you enjoy playing with your kids on the weekend thank the labor union for the days off and that your kids do not work in a factory from the age of five on.

[@DawryMike]

Capitalism in it's purest form doesn't exist, it's pure idealism. The basic mechanism behind the system is the accumulation of capital and the capturing of market share. Idealized enterprises don't survive because the market is not concerned with whether or not you fixed it.

[@mjmatteo]

Lets just call it as it is: usury, extortion, and plunder. Look at the U.S. political economy. It has reached the level of a crime racket, basically racketeering. That’s capitalism in its purest form, unfettered full frontal Crap All Over You Gouge And Gorge Show Me The Money Barbarism... “Rapacious Oligarchy” “When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.” Frédéric Bastiat

[@liberty193]

government rigs the market and picks winners and losers.

[@FreelanceJanitor]

He left out a vital part of the story for the factory owner. Since it’s a fictional story, it could have any outcome and perhaps the outcome would have been, instead of pocketing the profit out of greed maybe he invested it back into the business. Maybe he opens a new division after he saves his new profit and hires more workers as his company expands.

[@Mart-Bro]

It also just paints a picture of a harsh and uncharitable factory owner, which is a criticism of that particular owner's moral character, not of the system of capitalism per se, which never forced him to do that. As he in fact highlights, the capitalist system would have continued working just as well had he kept paying the workers for a half day

[@rasputozen]

But that's exactly his point. The factory owner is unfunctional without the workers and yet they don't get a share in the factory's production proportional to their input. It's a bit like the head of a human body thinking it's more important than its organs and limbs, and so it ties a noose around its neck to prevent the nutrient-filled blood circulating in its skull from nourishing the rest of the body.

[@ChristyWitham]

yes, I agree. Also his business could fall.

[@soulcapitalist6204]

Amazon is also US's best workplace for years, directly debunking these idiots.

[@spazzywhitebelt]

Charlie and the Chocolate factory story. Charlie's dad loses his job of screwing lids into toothpaste by a machine and he later gets a job fixing that machine. Obviously the # of jobs fixing those machines is less than manually screwing the lids on but there are also jobs in making the machines. I've been fortunate to not work in a low end job like screwing lids into toothpaste for more than a few months but I gotta imagine that wouldn't be enjoyable to do year after year.

[@alphacat4927]

yea i don't want some dude tasting my toothpaste before they put the cap on either.

[@rasputozen]

The problem with your example is that if it was set up the way this guy are arguing it, Charlie's dad would have been one of the people in the factory deciding to invest in the machine to either give himself more leisure or to learn to become a repairman for the machine.

[@shawnradke]

@@rasputozen why does charlie's dad have a say in that now?

[@rasputozen]

@@shawnradke because it's a different economic structure with different assumptions and values.

[@kestutisvedegys7820]

@@shawnradke Why not? Is he not part of the process and reason factory is operational? That's is the weird notion separating capitalist from the rest as some nobles I mean without workers there's nothing. If all worker, the ones said to be low value would stop working for one day World would collapse. No food, no electricity, no medicine nothing world would enter complete stand still. Capitalist are worthless its the working people that make everything so they have a right to equal vote when deciding on their work conditions.

[@danielandrad382]

The reason most Americans support capitalism is because they have very little knowledge about it, especially what the cost is for underdeveloped countries. They also don't understand how other countries' currencies are put down by the mechanisms who control the markets like the World Monetary Fund and the World Bank. It's more than an unfair advantage. It's simply sinister. Christian socialism focused on renewable materials like hemp which can be used to make so many things such as fuel, resins, paint, fabric, food, medications, and even materials that are harder than steel (look up Henry Ford's hemp car),.would be a much better option than capitalism. Capitalism's path will get us to humanity's destruction.

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

Dr Wolff is awesome. He educates everyone about real history.

[@juanmilano224]

They just dont give up.

[@juanmilano224]

@Down with Corporate Amerika Socialist. State Central Planning Loving Individuals.

[@juanmilano224]

@Down with Corporate Amerika The market system is people, and it works despite all the attemps of goverments to take over/control/sabotage it.

[@juanmilano224]

@Down with Corporate Amerika If something never happened(lets asume that is the case) in history doesnt mean that is not possible in any way, shape or form. The State promotes mono/oligopolies through goverment regulation, restricting competition entering, thus allowing market capture, that lowers quality and variety of products and services and of course the quantity available of those thus higher prices(also fewer providers raise prices, obviously) And Less supply of jobs means lower wages/salaries. Then the goverment steps in and imposes price controls, caps(product prices) and floor(minimum wage laws), those create scarcity of goods and services and job offerings(higher bar of hiring. What do you think about what I said?

[@juanmilano224]

@Down with Corporate Amerika I am not an American(in the yanki, US citizen sense).

[@juanmilano224]

@Down with Corporate Amerika 94% -->Then rich country!? Jajaja that is a joke. Propaganda, of the Keynesian flavour. Loopholes my friend, legal Loopholes. 94% 😆 didnt happen. Of course there were expropiations(like the gold on roosevelt times)

[@nunya2076]

I bought one of his books on Marxism which ended up being as long as a pamphlet. $25.

[@nunya2076]

​​@@netsoldat Ya now I just gotta buy AOCs expensive Tax the Rich hoodie which of course she totally doesn't sell for her own large profit.

[@ADPax10]

@@nunya2076 Nope. It goes all to a foundation she set up to help the homeless. We think. Probably.

[@jimmydane34]

@@nunya2076 fuking AOC. One of the first politician that.got famous that is literally born in my generation (millenial) and boy oh boy.........i thought I would finally say "about time we start getting us millenials in congress n ruling out the boomers" well....i lost all hope. IF my fellow peers (the majority) think like her. If so, im becomming so third party that.ima just build my own little place out in alaska and just survive on my own merits. If i die.....i die

[@dave9547]

@@jimmydane34 I feel ya on that..

[@JFLOJUDO]

@@jimmydane34 well,,, bye

[@SeleckPlays]

I applaud Lex for his patience in this interview.

[@maambomumba6123]

So do I

[@malcolmpalm]

Indeed

[@dan8490]

His argument is easily dismissed when you analyze the incompetence of 99.99% of DAOs. To think that works at scale is laughable.

[@chazzman4553]

Mr Wolff just just nailed it - corporate workplace is not a democratic place, never been, it is lemon squeezing machine and the lemon is you. In my country business owners drive super expensive cars, pay minimum wages and dear to complain that there are no good workers. What a despicable creatures !

[@graceann335]

This is just brilliant. These perspectives need to be available to as many people as possible ASAP

[@benjamindoverfield6973]

He speaks the truth of our pain

[@sonoftheright]

What absolute simpleton actually believes that a teenager trying to find his or her first job should be paid enough to make a living on his or her own? The minimum wage artificially prices out the entire lower workforce that is simply trying to build their reputation and their capability for hard work before being qualified for higher pay.

[@sonoftheright]

Oh my goodness, the correlation between capitalism and freer markets and higher quality of living and the raising of people out of poverty is essentially one to one. What on earth is this man talking about?

[@sonoftheright]

I'm sitting here, only halfway through this video, and I'm sputtering and exasperated at the thought that this man is an economist. I flat out don't believe it. If this video turns around at some point, I'm fine with looking like an idiot, but it's a struggle to listen to this man talk.

[@voutolliC22]

so am I "absolutely simple" for having the audacity to believe that a minimum wage should be a survival wage then? If not at least to cover bare survival, what else would be the purpose of a minimum wage? Should not the lowest worker have the right to survive if putting in their 40 hours, anywhere?

[@sonoftheright]

@@voutolliC22 I personally don't believe in having any minimum wage whatsoever. Instead, I think there ought to be more state investment in services for skills development and education for those that are struggling to find work that affords them a living. Labor is part of the supply and demand cycle just like anything else. You as a laborer are in competition with all other participants in the labor pool, and employers are in competition with other employers for the best workers at lowest rates (but not so low that their wages are essentially morale killers to their workers). Universal observation of the average worker shows that their wages rise over time as they gain skills and prove themselves to be good workers. That requires that you start working early and often so that you can build a record of past work to show future employers that you're capable and responsible. You can't do that if you're competing with workers 10 years older than you and more experienced than you over the same jobs because they're all artificially being rolled up into the same price bracket by minimum wage laws. It means fewer people are able to enter the workforce without education or past experience, fewer people are able to build experience early, and fewer people are able to start climbing their career ladders early enough to have a comfortable retirement.

[@sonoftheright]

​@@voutolliC22 OK. "Absolute simpleton" is an over-exaggeration when it comes to your statement. But it is not an over-exaggeration in reference to my statement about teenagers being expected to earn a living wage as teenagers entering the workforce.

[@mkprr]

The system he advocates means nobody can focus on their skilled work, they have to spend all or most of their time campaigning or else they will be abused by the majority who stopped working to campaign for what they wanted. Government should be democratic because governments are given authority to kill and imprison. We can't let that authority go unchecked, but businesses are only allowed to persuade. They have to persuade you to work for them, they have to persuade you to buy from them. Forcing them to also spend all of their time and money campaigning for their ideas and agendas is ridiculous.

[@Schnuron]

agreed

[@justincase3108]

I disagree, not only can they focus on their skilled work, they can actually use the extra time to work more for more wage. They don’t have to not work. But in the first 50% layoff example, those workers are screwed regardless!

[@mkprr]

Who do you propose makes up and enforces the rules of the democratic systems within these companies? And who governs the people that govern that? It is either going to result in an endless system of productivity killing beuracracies, or else a dictatorship, probably both. In capitalism, a company can decide to run in a democratic style of it wants to but nobody will force it to, and workers who don't like their boss can leave and start their own business if they want. In capitalism the power of the business owner is always kept in check by the fact that without happy customers and employees, the business tanks.

[@heelspur3403]

Democracy amounts to 2 wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

[@ChristyWitham]

EXACTALLY

[@counterpointapp]

His story about the workers and the new machine is so full of holes. If there's any competition, the capitalist won't pocket the extra $50, he'll have to lower prices and pass the extra $50 on to consumers. Obviously, all workers are also consumers, so the benefits would in fact go to workers in general. The working class has been screwed by our inflationary monetary system, which is not capitalist at all.

[@gwills9337]

You sound confused. Companies always pass on price increases to customers were watching this literally happen in real time - infact it's worse because execs will use inflation to pass on even larger price increases. Walmart was literally saying this recently. This year PPI is about +11% prices up 18%. You don't understand competition at all

[@zvndmvn]

I was just wondering the other day why work isn't more democratic. Instead of abstract corporate directives being imposed by strangers from above, employees should be allowed to vote on their managers, and those managers should vote on their own managers all the way up the chain so that the CEO is organically the most respected employee in the company. Votes could even be proportionally weighted in order to counter corruption in upper level management by enough votes from the lower level employees.

[@lemond2007]

There's no law stating you can't run a business like that, but introducing democracy into the leadership selection process would be a great way to go out of business faster.

[@thegoodpimps]

@@lemond2007You could make a corporation democratic by paying employees stocks, so the employees are the stockholders and the stockholders are the employees. instead of this strange system where the ones who vote don’t work and the one’s who work don’t vote.

[@cameronrobinson187]

This is the first guest on Lex I've ever disagreed with whole heartedly. This guy is a basket case

[@chribjslaha]

good input

[@sheedy9]

Let's hear what you disagree with, and your evidence.

[@soulfuzz368]

@@sheedy9 do you think people should have a peer reviewed study for every opinion they have?

[@alexanderordinary2110]

Marx was a loser. in every sense of the word, never accomplished anything and lived off of others. Capitalism has been doing well in countries like china, India, for at least 3000 years. and in places like north africa, middle east and southeast asia for at least 2000 years. So what the hell is this guy talking about?

[@svarog63]

Capitalism has existed for less than 300 year, so what the hell are YOU talking about?

[@alexanderordinary2110]

@@svarog63 mercantile-based culture has been in existence for thousands of years, they just didnt call it "capitalism". YOU obviously dont know jackshit about world history

[@davidg1838]

You can tell this guy has never operated a private business. His example of technology replacing workers in a factory completely ignores the capital expense of acquiring that technology.

[@slappyfun]

Factor that in though and keep the conversation going about it. Let's say the machine in this example costs one time $100 or whatever. What's the point that contradicts what Wolf is saying?

[@davidg1838]

@@slappyfun He's claiming that the money saved from not paying staff goes straight back to the owner, when it actually gets re-invested into the business to buy the new technology, so that the business can remain competitive in the market. Additionally, technological change does not usually mean long-term unemployment for workers made redundant. More often than not, it means new jobs, new industries, better safety standards for workers and improved goods and services for the customer.

[@omarmafia234]

@@davidg1838 Have you heard about buying back shares which companies invest huge portion of their profits in, instead of acquiring new „technologies“. Have you seen the spike in compensations dor C-level executives?

[@davidg1838]

@@omarmafia234 Absolutely. I'm talking mostly about small and medium, privately owned business: Sole traders, partnerships, cooperatives and private companies - not the big publicly-listed corporations with limited liability. That is not free trade, as I understand the definition.

[@nihatyildirim9772]

Technology has a precise definition in economics that is different than the everyday use of the word. Technology refers to the process of turning inputs to outputs. Technological improvement implies getting more output for the same level of input. The idea of having more capital for production is known as capital deepening and it's not the same as technological progress. This is the story under the neoclassical model. There is one macro model of production known as the endogenous growth model where the marginal effect of capital on production does not diminish as you increase capital and using more capital improves technology. This leads to more output and capital which leads to growth.

[@parfner666]

oh yeah, and central planning has worked so well 🙄

[@taoisttiger4702]

That's why no one in China has to work, oh wait...

[@KarmaticEvolution]

Is that what he is recommending?

[@Nocturnus6355]

China is the country that has lifted the most people out of poverty with its planned economy, I am not saying that this is the solution for all countries, innovation can also work in the social economic system we chose, and the one we currently have does not work. and the alternative does not have to be socialism or capitalism, new forms of relations can be created. but the Americans are very clumsy on these issues, they do not take long to say the dogmas that they put on him since childhood

[@KarmaticEvolution]

@@Nocturnus6355 Well said! Not enough credit is given to China for what they have done these last 20 years. Yes it did come with a price with the lack of as much personal freedom as the U.S. and no I would want to live there but it’s not easy organizing a population of a billion and overall, it’s a commendable result for all involved.

[@ChristyWitham]

YOU HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD !!!!!!

[@Slywinters]

I like how "for the sake of simple math", he effectively enslaves the employees that makes the new machine. He doesn't add a cost to the machine, so how are the employees "making it" survive?

[@LightAndShaddow5]

The machine just comes along…. There is no incentivised risk taking process of entrepreneurship… it just… appears.

[@Slywinters]

@@LightAndShaddow5 I mean.... It kinda makes sense. This scenario, like Communism, only works when magic is involved. Ooh look, a new, free machine!! *Steps over dead bodies of previous owners.

[@bretttheroux8040]

@@LightAndShaddow5 lmao careful now, you can’t introduce logic into this exercise

[@graceann335]

The machine is owned by a separate company that keeps getting bailed out by the government. The company is majority owned by a hedge fund that never pays tax.

[@the_Dogpacker]

If a machine wasn't more cost effective, we wouldn't use it. As for the cost, big companies can write off buying machines from their taxes, get subsidies for research and development and so on. Especially if they're big enough to have a legal team. The actual building of the machine is often times then outsourced to China or other countries with low wages and worker rights. It is simple math, assuming you're applying some common sense as well. If 100 well paid engineers build and maintain robot arms that replace 500 low wage jobs in a production line that still funnels wealth from bottom up. Not a communist btw. just saying what he says about automation is a fact. It's the reason Elon Musk is for a ubi.

[@schmidsven]

"If you do nothing then you get nothing" and "if you get a lot you get to keep a lot" are two concepts that can't be applied to the fullest extent. They either lead to broken lives or broken environments.

[@baberaham]

I was willing to have my mind changed here but this man seems more emotional than objective, and that's not how you recruit me into your camp. He has a big issue with how slow our minimum wage has increased, but isn't it still better than Russia, China, or North Korea? Even South Korea and Japan (I know these aren't communist). If you can prove to me that the US performed underwhelmingly worse in this metric, I may be swayed a bit. Also I love innovation, and money drives it. Google recruited the best developers across the globe by paying significantly higher than their competitors. Isn't this an exclusive capitalist function? For a company to make billions of dollars, thus being able to pay their workers well-over industry standard? Could Elon Musk surpass NASA in a communist country? I would bet not, but prove to me that a communist country can be more innovative, and I may be swayed a bit.

[@baberaham]

​@@neam5446 He's emotional alright, I would bet my paycheck he hates capitalism in his conscious and unconscious mind. I'm 100% for a better system, but pitching hypothetical utopias that exist only in fiction simply won't sway me, give me big data analysis on better systems than ours with similar climates as ours.

[@spencedelic]

Elon taking gov subsidies makes your communist analogy a bit fit, don’t you say?

[@baberaham]

@@spencedelic Does it? Does accepting government subsidies make you communist? I guess to some, but I wouldn't say that accepting it automatically makes you communist.

[@matickristanc]

I am quite surprised by how many people find the presented ideas amazing or whatever. The provided example of introducing a new machine that would half the required workforce is completely flawed. The idea might work in a situation where you have a monopolist (a company that doesn't compete with any other company on the market). In the real world, however, it is not that simple. With the introduction of the new machine, every competitor has access to it, and with the promised benefits of halving the required workforce every rational company will buy it. Assuming that the products do not improve what will happen is that the companies start competing on prices, thus the price of the product is lower and the whole society is better off as it can access that product for less. The savings from the machine basically go to the entire society.

[@dalejames486]

I was surprised by how in the beginning he claimed that capitalists have done nothing to improve the lives of workers. They have innovated and created new products which have done just that

[@MrMicronano]

He’s totally going back and forth between the economic system and political system.

[@Theviewerdude]

Because people like him define capitalism as "things I don't like"

[@nuggzay8556]

@@Theviewerdude I'm sure he understands capitalism far better than you.

[@MrHubadub]

The two are inextricably linked. The political system's regulation of capitalism is how the system is fundamentally defined. Thats why capitalists are constantly trying to cirumvent political syatems. Once things go tits up, capitalists run as fast as they can to the open arms of government help.

[@CFlandre]

@@MrHubadub This. The political system is the decision-making apparatus for the economic system.

[@soulcapitalist6204]

Political economy is one thing studied by 2 specialties.

[@GregF13]

Interesting theory. But what has happened when these ideas are tested in the real world?

[@GregF13]

@@neam5446 So the mass starvation in both China and Russia was from foreign intervention?

[@GregF13]

@@neam5446 I think we may actually agree. What exact system do you support? I agree that pure capitalism has flaws, but it seems like the best starting point for a prosperous country. In every country that has adopted some form of capitalism, including modern Russia and China, the overall quality of life has dramatically improved.

[@omarmafia234]

The US finances a fascist military coup (LATAM) or imposes criminal Embargo, or considers plan „unthinkable“ to invade you while you are literally fighting nazis (Soviet Union) and then fight your new experiment with all its might. Weird why they do this, although communism is supposed to fail on its own?

[@sheedy9]

Real.... As in invented by the rich and you believe it.

[@imperfectious]

@@neam5446 There are two options because there are two ways to acquire goods: make them yourself or obtain from someone else. If obtained from someone else, there are a further two options: trade or steal. Trading is capitalist, stealing is socialist.

[@SeleckPlays]

The nerve of a person to blame capitalism for the corruption of our government.

[@nocturne3455]

Capitalists own and bribe government bro.

[@DawryMike]

Where do you believe corruption in the government stems from?

[@imperfectious]

@@DawryMike Human beings.

[@yellowflash5828]

The problem is y’all consider yourself capitalist but you aren’t billionaires who control entire markets and industries. Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are examples of real capitalists. When you have that much wealth and power, more than 40% of the US which is 126 million people that’s a problem. These people control our government and politicians with money. They are the root of the problems and we vote in the puppets that they parade in front of us. How about we vote in school teachers and scientists and doctors who are not funded by corporations and businesses. People are funded by grassroots and beholden to the masses instead of the few.

[@heelspur3403]

@@DawryMike immoralty

[@rayrayray]

Notice how his argument is completely emotional and speculative. No stats or data to back it up. He may not be wrong, but his argument is extremely poor. Please have more critical thinkers on Lex.

[@validatemyexistence4602]

this

[@tonyclifton2230]

Like who. Jordan come to your conclusion before you read up on something peterson? I notice every else on this channel had boards and numbers when they come to talk. Utter nonsense.

[@TheCablebill]

What is actually unsupported is the presupposition that capitalism is responsible for the so called dynamism and creativity of humanity. Humans have been inventing things and science has been advancing for tens of thousands of years. Perhaps it has accelerated only because we can leverage prior advancements. Or perhaps we haven't really advanced as much as our hubris allows us to believe. When you consider how we have ravaged our environment, and how capitalistic constructs allow us to externalize that damage in our profit and loss calculations, we can appear to be downright delusional. Critical thinking indeed.

[@klosnj11]

In the instance of the capitalist replacing workers with a machine; who makes the machine? Other workers. Who makes the materials that go into the machine? The replacement parts? Who repairs the machine? Other workers. The initial investment in the machine is a capital gamble on the part of the businessman, hoping to increase efficiency. Why? Perhaps to increase profit. But if his competition also has a machine, they will fight for market share and the price will go down. Now, whatever products are being produced will be less expensive for all his workers and also all the workers employed by the existance of the machine. Efficiency is a net win in capitalism, even if it is a temporary loss for a few.

[@blahblahblah747]

yes exactly, he doesn't realize that capitalism is centered around the customer, not the producer. In his example, keeping the employees is silly because a competitor company that doesn't keep them could reinvest the money into making a better product. Keeping employees unnecessarily is at the expense of the product, and the product obviously affects the large group of customers who buy it.

[@thegoodpimps]

@@blahblahblah747Capitalism is not centered around the Customer, it is centered around the Stockholder.

[@davidrush333]

The minimum wage was created to cause job loss. I hate to break it to Professor Wolfe and other believers against capitalism, but American Progressivism was founded on eugenics. American Progressivism rejected capitalism because they thought it was creating social degeneration. However, they didn't blame capitalism or the "competitive system" itself, but that it allowed those who they deemed "unfit" to survive. As American Progressive Richard Ely wrote, "In conclusion, it must be admitted that there remains what has been termed the human rubbish heap of the competitive system. There are those who are not able to live in its strenuous atmosphere. The sad fact, however, is not that of competition, but the existence of these feeble persons. The sadness consists in the hard facts of life of which competition takes cognizance. If the weakest are favored and their reproduction encouraged, we must have social degeneration. The recognition of these hard facts, with suitable action taken with reference to them, reduces the amount of human pain for the present and the future by public and private charity. The socially rejected must be cared for and given as happy an existence as possible, provided only that we do not encourage the increase of those who belong to this sad human rubbish-heap." American Progressivism rejected capitalism because it allowed the most vulnerable of society to survive from the abundance produced. They sought to regulate capitalism to prevent those people from being part of society. The minimum wage was one way they could price those "unfit" people out of economic opportunities.

[@ZM-dm3jg]

This is why Marxists rarely engage in debates where they might have their ideas challenged. The guest completely dodged the question, straw manned the opposing arguments, and went off on a tangent that misses a very crucial point - that in spite of captailists acting in their own self interest, capitalism is the tide the lifts all boats. Capitalism created the economic wealth for societies to be able to PAY those improvements in the workers rights and minimum wage to begin with. Every country that has adopted free markets has seen a dramatic decrease in absolute levels of poverty, while countries that adopted Marxist economics say a huge increase in poverty and violence and corruption.

[@jackspinner4727]

Yea exactly. Every economy will have problems but capitalism is the best we have

[@seandavies5130]

Henry George in the late 1800s lamented how the progress of the industrial revolution seemed to have no effect on how much poverty there was. It even seemed to be increasing at that time. Fast forward to 2022 and we have technology beyond his wildest dreams and yet we still have large amounts of poverty. Take Britain. In the last 10 years there has been a large increase in the number of families who cannot afford food and need to use foodbanks. That to me is a complete and utter failure. It's as simple as that

[@Yandel21ableify]

You need capitalism but a strong safe net like the Nordic countries.

[@shawnradke]

@@Yandel21ableify no need, we can just stop printing money and lowering the value of our currencies technology is defaltionary and so things inevitably get cheaper over time what halts this and makes a mess of things is artificially increasing the money supply

[@ChristyWitham]

Poverty since than worldwide has decreased by over 90%

[@TalladegaTom]

This guy lives in fantasy land. The real world has proved him wrong so many times that it is ridiculous.

[@TB-ni4ur]

It's crazy, if you watch this clown on Jimmy Dore the people in the comments eats that proletariat propaganda trash up. Those are the people who would vote to give themselves money without any thought to the concept of scarcity. We really do live in two separate universes...

[@Hierosir]

I think these views on capitalism are screwed by the discussion of it within the context purely of the United States. I'm a staunch defender of capitalism, but as an Australian I find the American system particularly is it pertains to minimum wage, healthcare, and education to be inexcusable. But fundamentally, I think a huge problem with the critics of capitalism is that at some base level, they perceive the standard of living and wealth of the world to be finite.

[@immortalnightbody]

If Capitalism was so great, it wouldn't need to be defended. That's kind of the point. You're not a rational person at this point, you're religious and your religion is greed.

[@intrametaarchi1015]

And yet again, not even a word of truth. Simply story tellers, and quite possibly very dangerous people, since they are vulnerable. And those in the comment section are just bullying.

[@anab0lic]

Dumbest comment I've read in this section.

[@davissae]

How have countries founded on Marxist principles done in liberty, rule of law, standard of living, and internal genocide?

[@jackfrost2978]

He is blaming capitalism for what is done for greed, power, corruption. Lack of morals and ethics. Too many people are sacrificing their childrens future for their own limited gain. Making bigger profits for the right people by abandoning long term sustainable development. You can see greed, abuse, and corruption in any system. Abandonment of morals and ethics rapidly inflates the rate of collapse.

[@omarmafia234]

But this is literally capitalism, greed and profit seeking is the ultimate objective

[@strategic1710]

I love churchills comments about democracy. Capitalism is the worst economic system, except for all the rest.

[@bengsynthmusic]

3:14 If that's the goal, then why add to the cost of business via more regulations and taxes and push said capitalist to relocate? What's the assumption behind those policies? That the capitalist will just sit there and take it? The assumption is that the pusher gets votes while overlooking the consequences of a more intrusive gov.

[@peterhaag9344]

So are you saying that we should be more like China in order to keep businesses from relocating their factories there ? because if that is the case I think I would rather lose the business than have rivers, streams and lakes so polluted with heavy metals and industrial solvents that you can't swim in them and air that is brown, not to mention children working 16 hour days in dangerous factories.

[@saguirre760]

Some regulation is necessary. Taxes tend to help the lower and middle class. I mean they can go to a tax friendly havens like Texas, but who the fuck wants to live in Texas?

[@bengsynthmusic]

@@peterhaag9344 We should be a truely free market with an abundant market competition, not China. Hong Kong is among the top economic freedom index and they're not a polluted mess, versus the mainland that's more bureaucratic. A clean environment is not something that's only attained through politicians. The politicians simply use environmentalism to justify their existence and keep siphoning our paychecks. Let innovations mitigate environmental hazzards. All politicians do is just issue fines and wag fingers. The real work and innovation comes from the private sector. If you're willing to lose businesses to nebulous regulations, then you're left with no jobs and income and become just another Detroit or Baltimore.

[@bengsynthmusic]

@@saguirre760 The people who are escaping from the expensive California. And Tesla/SpaceX. Taxes hurt the working class especially doing overtime. The thousands taken away from paychecks mean a lot to workers. All to fund hundreds of bloated departments and their sub-divisions who in turn provide sub-par services.

[@saguirre760]

@@bengsynthmusic I agree with you on that. I work for a state hospital in California, and that organization is ran like shit. It is a waste of taxpayers money. The ironic thing about it, is that law enforcement officers and plenty of right wing staff are making 6 figure incomes doing absolutely nothing, while at the same time complaining about California policy. It’s funny, because this particular staff who complains about taxes, right wing talking points, etc etc, are the ones who profit the most by having low stress, non productive jobs. So I’m basically in the middle; let’s cut the bloated law enforcement budget, and particular social services as well. Law enforcement is a subpar service, especially in California.

[@greg6500]

You just have to go to any antique store to see what Capitalism has done to the quality of our products

[@astrobullivant5908]

Capitalism was a major factor in making those antiques so beautiful in the first place. Do you think Stradivari worked for free?

[@greg6500]

@Astro Bullivant Did he craft those violins with ONLY profit in mind or did he give a damn about what he was doing? Was he a skilled craftsman, or did he outsource each stage of production to the cheapest people he possibly could, using the cheapest crappiest materials he could get away with? We are in what's called Late Stage capitalism where the result of hundreds of years of relentless profit seeking and corner cutting and compromise has left us in a world where quality and even the safety of the products and services don't matter.

[@huckelberryfizzle]

Imagine setting up a company and investing all your money to hire staff to grow. Then they decide they don't like you and collectively fire you lol

[@keithschaub7863]

which is exactly what would happen. We'd literally have take over groups that went around and would steal everything company by company, thus negating the incentive to ever even start a company, which we know where that leads. Please people, read a book or two.

[@jiketagg4251]

It happened to Steve Jobs but it wasn’t from his engineers, which perhaps would’ve made more sense. It was from the hired wallstreet goons

[@magusd123]

@@jiketagg4251 i mean to be fair, on the trajectory steve was going apple probably wouldn’t have existed if he wasn’t. dude needed to figure out how to chill

[@OBCWarDogs]

@@keithschaub7863 That happens in capitalism right now. Gates, Zuckerberg, Musk, these are not innovators. They're people who ousted innovators and then bought out all of their main competition.

[@Aelendris]

Actually what Wolff in many other places talks about is cooperatives (companies set up by communities and in which the workers have a stake in the company itself) not by one single wealthy individual or family. So there's literally nobody to "fire" because no one person is single handedly deciding everything. By your logic, the workers would have to fire themselves to get rid of the people who call the big shots. These do exist and some are very successful such as the Mondragon Corporation from the Basque in Spain.

[@NzakM]

Just started watching but want to know: 1) Capitalism failed in comparison to what? 2) I think Marx didn't see how bad the ideas he promoted are so he couldn't have had a real appreciation of the positivity of free market enterprise and the emphasis is on the free market side of it. 3) minimum wage is not a good thing and making minimum wage higher is not a good thing. 4) the claim- Marxism doesn't create the wealth to solve problems, capitalism created the wealth to solve problems but don't distribute it in a charitable way. So first agreed that the competence is on the side of capitalism. But what causes the competence to be there? If a Marxist would wresel with that question there could be a movement forward. 5) Jesus Christ, the totalitarianism of the proletary? Is it a fair use of the word totalitarianism? People that entered concentual relationship.. Jesus.. No one forces people to work in a certain group. The point that he is avoiding is the abolishing of private property by force because that where his point goes 6) I'm from Israel here there was the experiment of the kibbutzim when on paper everything was equal but in reality like everywhere else petty tyrants took over everything and drove it to the ground.. It's a bit more complicated and more high resolution than this guy is presenting it to be..

[@TheJoker-um9tp]

Well capitalism led us to where we are now , the billionaires shape policy, democracy is a fading memory, automaton is coming, alot of people aren't needed in the world. One question I have is does America need the best military to stay on the top in a capitalist world. Plus do we need half the world to be poor to stay on top. I couldn't imagine the usa letting some other country out competing them economically with out trying to start dropping bombs.

[@mysterioanonymous3206]

You (the US) already are being outcompeted, technically. It's just that those nations are smaller thus not a direct threat. Switzerland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Denmark, the other Nordics all do a lot better on many metrics from competitiveness to filing patents to qol to life expectancy to equality and so on... Idk what's wrong with America, you could be in the top spot, but let's face it, you aren't, and that is due only to ignorance and arrogance. Just looking at the top layer of society doesn't make it better when you have to ignore the bottom end of the distribution.

[@andynosretep007]

@@mysterioanonymous3206 the U.S is internationally the most impactful nation. its not even close.

[@TheJoker-um9tp]

@@mysterioanonymous3206 why do you think I'm an American?

[@TheJoker-um9tp]

I'm in Europe 👍

[@monsieurbrock4156]

Every rights for the working force has been fought for by the workers them selves; 8 hours working day etc. The generation before me had 1 household income after ww2 - a time many now looking back to as “the golden age” for middle class families. What’s not talked about is that for rich people in that time period the highest tax bracket was 90 % - but was in 70 and especially 80 removed. It lasted 30-40 years with a good lifestyle for many - but afterwards it went down for everyone - even in the how they treat people in hospitals due to “public management”. I live in Scandinavia - we regulate minimum salaries, safe regulations at work etc, got free healthcare, free colleges etc, paternity/maternity leave at childbirth (up to 1,3 years). We are aware of the cracks in the system regarding wealth distribution- and try to keep it in check. What’s going to happen is it will be uproar due to middle class breakdown and the mobs will be loose as France in the revolution. It’s going to be worse for rich people - they are the targets when that happens.

[@hickorytomato8904]

Take away the rewards afforded the employer and all that's left are the risks. Where's the incentive to hire people then? I'm writing this on the crapper at work.

[@TG-rx8kd]

The real question is which societies fail harder?

[@MitchellMakesVids]

mind blown

[@imperfectious]

@@neam5446 What is currently failing is corporate fascism, fiat currency, and Keynesian economics.

[@shawnradke]

@@imperfectious Tell em bro People out here misdirect their hate for capitalism when it should be govts and fiat currency Free market always ain't a smooth ride but it enables us to make a smoother ride better than any other fucking system

[@imperfectious]

@@shawnradke Well said, and agreed: the delusion is thinking "if it weren't for the people who disagree with me, I'd be immortal and I'd never be hungry or sad".

[@jamesrh9193]

Easy. Capitalist ones. 3 biggest collapses of the world economy (not due to wars) were 1930s, 2008 and 2020. All massive capitalist failures.

[@nojuan7650]

This all sounds great! It’s sounds awesome! Sounds perfect! I’d like to know who creates the work for the workers? If a person/group creates a “business” how are they supposed to be compensated for their initial investment?

[@intptointp]

That’s somewhat lopsided. It’s like saying to the egg, “You couldn’t have been made alone! You needed me, the chicken!” When the chicken also needed the egg. This is not about one creating the other. Actually, both needed each other and to ignore that ignores the full picture.

[@vancecookcobain]

People don't need lords or capitalists or employers to organize their labor

[@taughtbytragedy]

Youre probably thinking about a small business. Big companies where CEOs earn 100x more than their employees are the real problem

[@jl4018]

@@vancecookcobain how would one organize their labor with someone they don’t know to accomplish something that they may or may not share a common vision for? Who assumes the risk for the capital required to do this as well? Or is the state assuming all risk and investing in the capital that is required when anyone wishes to start a co-op venture? Genuinely curious. I could see some instances arriving organically but it likely goes a lot smoother when the vision is defined by one or a few members early on and the risk can be assumed by said members.

[@joaogarcia6170]

Anyone who thinks socialism is a good idea is morally corrupt at this point, it NEVER worked, every place that's "socialist" and successful like Denmark or Sweden are not socialist at all, they're 90% free market economies. I live in a hellhole of government intervention and let me tell you something, IT'S SHIT, people who live in advance societies have NO IDEA about how important individual initiative and freedom are to the economy. Don't be swayed by envy, because someone has 1 billion dollars and you make 50k a year, in socialism everyone is equally miserable (go ask the swedes how their socialist experiment went down), in capitalism you at least have the chance to grow.

[@defenstrator4660]

Computers are the best example of capitalism pushing technological innovation vs the stagnation of communism. All the communist countries had the resources to develop computers the same way the west did. The problems is that they didn’t have the constant need to innovate and be more efficient. This feedback loop of constant demand due to constant competition meant that in 1991 when the USSR fell apart it had aprox 10,000 mainframes and minicomputers. Home computers were practically non existent. Conversely the United States alone had 1.3 million mainframes and minicomputers, and a massive and growing home computer market.

[@kenanaojacob2854]

That "we all" scratches my head in the wrong way. Something weird about it, . . . . . . .

[@bigskeet]

As many others on here have pointed out, there’s a LOT of issues with his argument against capitalism. One in particular is minimum wage being $7.25/hour. It’s nearly impossible to find anyone being paid $7.25/hour today. Hourly wages are set by the market. Businesses pay higher and higher wages to attract the best employees. The only time you’ll seen someone paid 7.25 or less is for jobs where the position is mostly made up of tips. In capitalism, workers have much more power than the Marxist is willing to admit or realizes. Businesses that provide great pay and working conditions among other benefits attract and enjoy the best employees. Competing businesses have to keep up to continue to attract great, productive employees. Also, Risk is not mentioned at all by the guy.

[@agus87005]

Ridiculous argument🤦🏻. That machine will allow poor people to have goods and services at cheaper prices. He assumes that the capitalist will take all the profit, but under a competition environment there will be a capitalist that will prefer lower profit and sell at cheaper price to be more competitive and gain market

[@tonyclifton2230]

You should read more of his work.

[@agus87005]

@@tonyclifton2230 i already heard this kind of non sense explanations of capitalism, what this one has of special?

[@tonyclifton2230]

@@agus87005 what?

[@skytech2501]

capitalism has a terrible name in the public but excellent track record. at the core, In the Capitalist system, A person has to make useful things for fellow human beings to thrive whereas socialism takes things with false virtue.

[@skytech2501]

@@Grosflam why?

[@bradleydrawsweirdstuff]

minimum wage in Ontario is 15 and hour. Bu t that doesn't take away from the point Richard Wolff is saying...

[@ChristyWitham]

What point is he saying? He does nothing but insult Capitalism and gives no concrete description specifics , guidlines on how Marxism works.

[@anewperspective247]

These questions are getting longer and longer, with less and less clarity for the interviewees and audience. Additionally, the questions are filled with degenerative heuristics that continue to cycle the conversation into biopic/bianary perspectives that you claim to seek to elevate our social conversation above. The main issue with capitalism or insert any conversation topic you scratch at, human interest isn't humane, and any derivative can't be expected to perform to the imaginary standard (at least until the values of those standards are taught and enforced- but lets not be nazis). Captitalism, as case in point, he harps on the negative impacts of successful capitalization because of the lack of morality by its participants- yet it is the individuals cultural framework that observes the concepts of "capitalism" to give their personal actions value and justification in their social hierarchy. Capitalism and Democracy are not values, systems or tools, they are mindsets humans fall into for the sake of socio-cultural convention and control.

[@slappyfun]

I wish that were the case but the capitalism he's talking about isn't the ma and pa shop where it's harder to fire employees just to increase profits. Wolf is talking about the element of capitalism that invariably gives rise to the corrporation that buys out that ma and pa shop and, even if the CEO wanted to be more humane, is ultimately beholden to increase profits and grow (not just sustain it) and will get punished if they don't . SO, inherently, the system cannot support the good parts of capitalism which is that humane ma and pa owner that cares about their employees. Is there a good example where that isn't the case? I hear about google paying their people amazingly but only because they try to find and keep the "best of the best". If they had a warehouse army of employees, I would be curious if they reward them as well if the company has a good year of profits. Any examples of publicly shared companies that are humane to their lowest employees, for example, by giving them a living wage?

[@anewperspective247]

@@slappyfun this is my point, the framing of the question provided a context to talk about immaterial matters that you are raising. Saying shit like “even if the ceo wanted to be humane… market forces blah blah blah.” The only impulse we all have is an internal one to either fit into the groups we align with, or reject alternatives, in capitalism- capital is the driving force for effort. How one negotiates their forces for effort is their moral paradigm- not capitalism or democracy.

[@slappyfun]

@@anewperspective247 I wish I could otherwise. Let's talk about that. In real world, a CEO that wants to be humane but most choose between people over profits, how does the system allow for this humane choice?

[@ChristyWitham]

Capitalism does though provide for owning ones property, .freedom to compete, and not be totally controled by a central body.

[@dannysullivan3951]

This is an interesting discussion. Wolff is right, let’s vote on the pluses and minuses, instead of letting Elon or Bezos or Jamie Dimon make the decision.

[@jackroman8821]

People vote every single day with their dollars and purchases.

[@dannysullivan3951]

@@jackroman8821 Let me guess, libertarian?

[@jackroman8821]

​@@dannysullivan3951 Eh, maybe... sure. Really, I'm just a business owner of a small mfg. company for over 15 years. I don't actually decide whether I'm right or not, ultimately the customers do. The democratic mechanism Wolff is asking for already exists and he's right, it's one sided but it's the customer that has the ultimate vote. Wolff clearly doesn't understand how companies or markets work beyond a very thin and incorrect hypothetical straw-man argument that he has crafted. I depend on my workers for my company's survival. Every company does. We also compete against every other competing company in the market place. There's also no choice on whether to generate profit and spend it on new development, any company that fails to do so will be outcompeted and go out of business (and those jobs will then go away).

[@tractioncontroloff9796]

I would like to see a Wolff and Sowell debate

[@chaosdweller]

I wanna see 🐺 and Ted kazinki talk about captilsm .

[@tractioncontroloff9796]

@@chaosdweller that would be interesting!

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

Without MATH, without QUANTIFYING HOW MUCH each party benefits and risks, brainless one-sided rhetoric (like the hypocritical anti-employee rhetoric I see here, but ALL one-sided rhetoric, even when it favors me in a particular situation) is worthless.

[@inigoabascalmontano693]

Competitive forces would shift the labor cost savings from the owner on to the clients, assuming there’s free market and other competitors seeking to satisfy customers more deeply (through improved quality or lower prices).

[@inigoabascalmontano693]

And we should also consider the jobs created in making the machine…

[@francisybas9821]

@@inigoabascalmontano693 Absolutely. I am not saying that every change from automation is going to hurt workers. Because obviously, if an employer is going to put a machine in his factory, and get rid of half of his labor, but sell the same number of products… the prices would go down. Prices are always adjusted by the competition. And the consumers are the big winners at the end. - Ludwig von Mises

[@soulcapitalist6204]

Substantial automation has been implemented without this price decay. The reason is that this has not impacted employment, profit and welfare and prices are a factor of demand. Rate of profit decays and this seeds higher prices while business owners may seek relief from tight margins through automation.

[@juicedawell2402]

I always felt like robot/machine employees should be like an option for human employees. Dedicate a portion of each check to buying a machine to make your money for you. Saving up to buy your own replacement except you get your replacements paycheck

[@joshualamance6053]

You can already do that. It is called buying stocks that pay dividends.

[@juicedawell2402]

@@joshualamance6053 no.

[@Anonamoosemouse]

What happens if some people can afford more or better robots than others? What if some people choose to work and use their robot while others just rely on their robot? It would create a more inequitable system based purely on resources rather than hard work and effort

[@iiMadSZN]

Let’s say you can find a machine that does your job be it whatever, you are now supposed to save money so you can buy a machine so your employer profits. Also, will the company not replace you in a heartbeat if they can buy a machine to replace you?? What is this take I do not understand

[@Weazla-]

That would work in socialism but not capitalism

[@lokiholland]

That logic seems a bit flawed to me. Less humans focused on one complete task, means more human resource to potentially focus on other tasks, or more variation (competition) of task. Maybe i didnt understand what he said

[@JumboStiltskin]

I think you did understand, and the analysis you present is more closely aligned with the actual benefits of the free market system.

[@tylerbradley8124]

an argument I would also have against his point you just mentioned is that the creation of certain specialized manufacturing / technological inventions will of course make people's lives easier (which he acknowledged). however, he said that it only resulted in people loosing jobs for being out due to the new competition. I would say that this would be true however how will this machine that makes peoples lives easier now be produced? who will maintain / fix it? who will continue to engineer it so it can be perfected? These questions can only be answered by more jobs being created for that specific technology.

[@klosnj11]

The worst moral condemnation is that capitalism is capable of ending all hunger but doesn't? Thus it would be far preferable to switch to a system incapable of ending all hunger? To tie the comfort of the working class only to wages is to ignore the other side of the equation; costs. If a workers wage stagnates, but those things the worker most desires become less expensive by means of market efficiency, does the worker not experience higher standard of living?

[@klosnj11]

@@JohnSmith-mc2zz it is false because it can not be proven true or false? That is an appeal to ignorance. You can do better than ligical falacies, I hope. As for "positive rights" you do not have a natural right to the product of someone elses labor. All "positive rights" are privileges, not rights. And many of them are privileges that we as a developed society aught to be able and willing to provide for our fellow man. But just because you need something doesnt give you a right to take it from me by violence or coercion. Sorry if you dont agree with that.

[@ChristyWitham]

Capitalism is only a type of economy that allows for people to own things and a free market system. Due to its innovation though, world poverty has decreased by 90% Its not a capitalistic economy that allows for starvation, Its greedy self centered people that do a lot of complaining but very little about it. What are YOU doing about it?

[@nilindef9270]

What percentage of people get fired[*1] because their employer wanted to immediately increase their profit to spend it personally? [*1]: through not immediate fault of their own

[@drewthomasarnal5378]

What percentage get fired because they are shitty workers?

[@chronosx7]

Such a company would not last long; that behavior speaks of an employer incapable of delayed gratification and prudence in the use of resources, both of which are necessary to maintain and grow a business

[@TheHauntedKiwi]

@@chronosx7 This would be precious if it weren't so disastrously naive.

[@chronosx7]

@@TheHauntedKiwi care to share your experience?

[@KingAntDaProphet]

​@@drewthomasarnal5378whats the percentage of you killing yourself

[@aliakbarsafdari4084]

There's a pretty major flaw in the point Dr. Wolff makes at 9:00 - If I was the employer, my main concern isn't about guaranteeing job security for my employees, it's to make me money. Now, if I was the employee, I'd be in trouble, so I understand where he is coming from. The solution to this situation is NOT getting employers to retain their employees (at a personal cost to the former), but rather to strengthen the safety net if one were to hit hard times. I'm referring to free schooling, skilling, healthcare and an affordable housing market. This would be expensive, and one way to pay for it would be to have a stricter taxation policy for the rich. ..... Another area I disagree with is his point at 14:50 - Having employees elect their managers/executives is only going to increase inefficiency. Businesses exist to make money.

[@jamesknapp64]

Yeah I fundamental disagree with his arguement with his comments at 9:00 , unless that company has a monopoly that machine is being used by their competitors, thus the cost will go down to gain market share. Thus if you keep all you'll go out of buisness and then everyone is unemployed.

[@aliakbarsafdari4084]

@@jamesknapp64 Exactly! It's so bizarre that highly intelligent people hold on so strongly to so inane an idea like communism. Tbh, I fully support criticism of capitalism, but the solution to that shouldn't be the wholesale replacement of it with the dumpster fire that is communism. IMO, the best countries on the planet are those that have found the middle path: free markets with strict government oversight; with stable welfare states backed by high taxes for all, especially the rich.

[@ChristyWitham]

so let the employee work hard, save, educate himself, aquire significant experience and advance himself in the company or start his own.

[@shake6321]

he avoids the question and then spews nonsense. the goal of capitalism is not to make life better for workers. it’s goal is to provide customers with better products. capitalism forces competition which makes you invent better products. supply demand for labor makes life better for labor. it’s why doctors don’t work for min wage even though capitalist would love for them.

[@jackodonnell3463]

Can you have a truly democratic workplace if you're able to be fired? Does the accountant get a vote in what machinery upgrades we perform? Can I fire her if I don't like her vote?