Advanced & Applied Marxian Economics (Session 4) - Richard D Wolff

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 ธ.ค. 2024

ความคิดเห็น • 32

  • @rhysoliver227
    @rhysoliver227 7 ปีที่แล้ว +19

    Fantastic series. Finally a sophisticated analysis of the world I agree with.

  • @TheEyesOfNye
    @TheEyesOfNye 4 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    I’m not used to hearing a round of applause after a lecture but damn he certainly deserved it. What an excellent class!

  • @dudeman5303
    @dudeman5303 6 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    Holy fuck this 4 part lecture is mind blowing. I can't believe we've been lied to to this extent without knowing

  • @stephaniesunshine8310
    @stephaniesunshine8310 11 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    Is there a way to get the reading list for this class?

    • @janhouston9125
      @janhouston9125 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      I wish at least, references were spelled out. Audio is less than perfect

  • @123JumpingJacks
    @123JumpingJacks 5 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    What is the title of the book he holds up at 1:07

  • @MarxistAnarchist
    @MarxistAnarchist 7 วันที่ผ่านมา

    Where’s sessions 1~3?

  • @ParanoidFactoid
    @ParanoidFactoid 6 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    I watched the entire series. Interesting. I really wish you'd do a classical economics series. A sort of, compare and contrast. I had a lot of Marx and Engels assigned as part of a two semester philosophy course way back when. The 'ol red Marx-Engles Reader. And I had a few chapters of Capital assigned for another class. And found the money exchange section entirely incomprehensible. A discussion on that would be nice too. Because I concluded it was nonsense. Perhaps you could help make sense of it. Anyway, nice to get university lectures on TH-cam. Regardless of content.

    • @ianmilray1442
      @ianmilray1442 6 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Paranoid Factoid: Dr. Wolff has written a book that compares and contrast Neoclassical, Keynesian and Marxian theories of economics
      www.amazon.com/Contending-Economic-Theories-Neoclassical-Keynesian-ebook/dp/B00946TR46

    • @lilorphanobie9593
      @lilorphanobie9593 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      Hear here!

  • @JebacPresretac101
    @JebacPresretac101 11 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    In some video, I don't think that's the one. He was an efficiency analyst or something and when his firm got a contract from some legal department to "prove that x is more efficient then y", he would do just that (or he woudn't get the contract, obviously).
    So, while he's claiming x is more efficient, another legal teams analysts are claiming y is more efficient, cause they got paid to do it, obviously, like he did.
    Except he's from Harward and the other are not, so he's more expensive...

  • @KarlBonner1982
    @KarlBonner1982 11 ปีที่แล้ว

    I guess what I could say about 7:55 is that my criticism of capitalism is not nearly as harsh as it would have to be for me to advocate complete abolition of the existing system (unlike how I'd feel about feudalism or slavery). For the time being, higher wages and stronger unions are my objective - and maybe trying to introduce more worker-owned companies into the marketplace.

  • @Aaron3ous
    @Aaron3ous 12 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    I wasn't faulting Wolff for confusing the amendments, merely trying to be helpful for those watching this to learn.
    Also, while the numbers themselves may not be all that important, I (vainly) hope that every American at least understands that three huge civil rights amendments were passed in the aftermath of the Civil War.

  • @JebacPresretac101
    @JebacPresretac101 11 ปีที่แล้ว

    It´s possible, of course, but he is saying that what you´re measuring is crap.
    Imagine you are measuring profit? By cutting wages, are you measuring workers health and/or the overall effect on the economy? He's basically saying that you make anything look efficient as long as set things up right.
    He's also saying that it's at best, an educated guess, and he was also challenged by one guy in another video about it where he basically said he did efficiency estimates for a living...

  • @darkdragonsoul99
    @darkdragonsoul99 12 ปีที่แล้ว

    How many people do you know who can even name amendments past the second ?

  • @JebacPresretac101
    @JebacPresretac101 11 ปีที่แล้ว

    More expensive, more belivable to a jurry, etc, basically, if you've got more money, you can hire "better" analysts to convince the jury and basically win on reputation, since the efficiency estimates are bullshit... Basically.
    Sorry I don't have the video where he tried to not mention he did it for a living but had to in the end...

  • @N2Large0Shirt
    @N2Large0Shirt 11 ปีที่แล้ว

    Not a terribly big deal in the context of the talk given here, true, but it is important to know. Thanks for pointing that out.

  • @darkdragonsoul99
    @darkdragonsoul99 12 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Your average person probably doesn't even know there is a 14th amendment . I know he's a professor but honestly I bet lawyers get this stuff wrong.

  • @Aaron3ous
    @Aaron3ous 12 ปีที่แล้ว

    Not many. What is your point?

  • @이환식-b9b
    @이환식-b9b 4 ปีที่แล้ว

    Reach at hand Early at ten Day and night Rich land are called CAPITALISM..

  • @diomedes39
    @diomedes39 11 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Damn it Jim, he's a doctor not a scientist!

  • @Aaron3ous
    @Aaron3ous 12 ปีที่แล้ว

    Not a terribly big deal, but Professor Wolff is confusing the 14th Amendment (due process, etc.) with the 13th (abolishment of slavery).

  • @darkdragonsoul99
    @darkdragonsoul99 12 ปีที่แล้ว

    I don't really have that much hope in humanity or the american populous for that matter. You'd think everyone would want to know what exactly their rights are or in a lot of cases now days were. But I know better then to think that's the case intellectual curiosity is dead.

  • @bethanyhunt2704
    @bethanyhunt2704 9 ปีที่แล้ว

    This focus on the macro, with no concern about the actual relationships between workers, bosses and capitalists, has always struck me as a very male way of looking at society - "We'll change "the system" and everyone, like automatons, will fall into line." All a bit power-trippy and macho. Not surprising, considering that that most early Socialists were men, and probably misogynist ones at that!
    A woman, and a man with a female perspective, would look at relationships, and be concerned with how individuals would respond to the change in power relationships. Marx was one man who did - pity that more didn't pay more attention to him!

    • @illesnagytomjanovich381
      @illesnagytomjanovich381 8 ปีที่แล้ว

      This lecture is number 4 in a series. Watch number 2 which focuses on how men oppress women (from 44m30s). As a matter of fact, watch the whole series and you will see he is giving a whole critique of the system.

    • @flipshod
      @flipshod 8 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      He specifically talks about how looking at the power relationships is the wrong way to approach the issue, namely the system for handling the surplus created by the workers. He says that the power dynamics may be quite important and all that but are not what he's talking about. He says, in fact, that the focus on the change in power has been historically used to paper over the systemic problem.