I wish the conversation were not moderated as much because of how thoughtful and patient and courteous the two speakers were, but I do appreciate that they want a broad conversation about several things vs. getting bogged down on one point or another.
Indeed! What's his best point in your view? For me, it's how he claims that the labor theory of value is a thing, even though it was wholly debunked by the marginal productivity theory of value in the 19th century.
@imperfectious I like how he says he cares about equality but only talks about how great the GDP growth of the Soviet union and China were, completely ignoring the human rights violation and incredible inequity between the haves ( party members) and the have not(common citizens).
@@nautdead3197 well he never had the chance to elaborate on how the Soviet Union pulled more people out of poverty in the twentieth century than any other country on earth. China now holds that title for the 21st century.
Good faith my ass. That race and class traitor should be ashamed of himself. But kudos to Wollf for being so civil in the face of such hateful ignorance.
Rick's comments about Russian economic growth are true but very misleading. Russia in the 20th century built it's economy on the backs of millions of forced laborers. Rick, you're smart, why won't you mention that when you proclaim them as the best model of the 20th century?
It also suffered in ways the US couldn’t possibly imagine from the two world wars as well as being shut out economically by western powers. The US was literally an apartheid state for the first 60 years of the 20th century, with appalling labor conditions for most of the labor force. Yeah Wolff could definitely afford to talk more about Russia’s oppression of its people though.
@@MelGibsonFan I don’t know if you are being sarcastic or not. The Soviets killed tens of millions of their own citizens. I think that is far worse than anything the US did.
@@akp167 And despite that still experienced unprecedented economic growth. You guys aren't getting it. Simply saying Russia bad doesn't refute Wolff's point.
@@akp167 Yes, that's an argument in their favor. The didn't start out as an already wealthy powerful economy and they were left much worse off after the world wars.
Regarding housing, at 1:10:06 Wolff says: "For me, I see a market whose end result has been homelessness, whose end result, given the other problems of society, has to plunge the people who need housing the most into the situation where its accessible the least and vice versa." Undoubtedly the US has housing issues, but to isolate the effect of capitalism there, you can look at the results of other capitalist countries, like Japan with notoriously one of the smallest homeless populations per capita: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_homeless_population. In 2021, 0.00304% of their population was homeless, whereas the US had 0.15%-0.17%, a huge difference. When two capitalist economies have very different results, I don't see how you can blame capitalism, the biggest thing they have in common. The difference is how the government intervenes in the market. Japan is a social-minded capitalist economy with more public, subsidized government housing. Many European countries are like this too. But this makes the debate about "how much should the government intervene in a capitalist economy," not "should the economy be fundamentally tilted towards capitalism or socialism." Just using poor housing policy in the US as a full indictment on "capitalism" seems like a lazy argument.
LaJuan, IMO, your hosting premier showed a heartfelt inclination for peace and restraint. It was lovely. Hope to see and hear more of you and your charming smile.
I must apologize, but it seemed to me Mr. Wolff waxed poetic about valid ethical critiques about capitalism but that is all. Mr. Loury seemed much more open in recognizing the trade offs that each and any possible action would have. At the end Mr. Wolfs initial summation statement of socialism (not his entire description) was ‘a yearning to do better than capitalism’. This is almost a religious call to liberation, far from a specific overview of a proven sustaining system. He speaks As though, the moral and ethical grounds for enforcing socialism is the validating quality of his argument, and not whether we can prove inequity can be reliably solved by the regime. I do wish home well in all he does and I know for certain he’s more read than me, this however I feel is ideologically/ religiously driven rhetoric.
Perfect, thank you. I clicked hoping to hear Wolff actually respond to the technical points that Glenn was making, instead we got over an hour of Wolff pointing out the imperfections of capitalism and then saying "come ON, look at that, that's bad! shouldn't be like this!". There's no cross referencing, he doesn't test his arguments up and down various scales, he's just kinda complaining and conflating his moral instincts with some kind of moral mandate. Shame because I'm quite interested in hearing out a true technical challenge to capitalism.
To be fair, you see this in Loury as well. To name a few: 1. His deference to the market as an almost sacred entity that we must not tamper with and that should be the ultimate policy goal 2. His peddling of the entrepreneur myth as a sales point of capitalism as opposed to objectively sketching out how the system is actually organized on a large scale 3. His obsession with state versus market as being at the core of the socialist-capitalist debate which is an error Marxists have been correcting for decades (but one that gives the producers of capitalist ideology like Loury easier ground to debate on) One powerful example of Loury's religiousness is his fatalism over the Fed's interest rate hike as just being "reality," that there are absolutely no solutions to our current inflationary crisis than to raise interest rates to increase unemployment. This is him just "living with reality," as he says. No, Glenn, raising interest rates to curb the power of labor (which, yes, is the goal of the Fed here) is not the only way to deal with inflation. No, immiserating working and middle-class folks and contributing to mass suffering is not the only way to deal with inflation. It's simply an orthodox, monetarist line based on ridiculous theories like the NAIRU that has come to dominate economics departments and central banks since the late 1970s, and has little relevance to the specific realities of our current inflation. He gives no mention of supplementary monetary policy levels (like reforms to macroprudential and mortgage lending regulations), counter-cyclical fiscal policy that invests in public service delivery and capital spending, redistribution of excess inflationary profits, strengthening of labor organizing and collective bargaining, which would all play a much more significant role in tackling inflation than bluntly rising interest rates. Frankly, it's no surprise he doesn't consider these policy options. For one, they'd seriously undermine and challenge the power of the Manhattan Institute's donors. Anyway, don't think what you're describing doesn't exist on this side. It certainly does, and if you're unaware it's there, what does that say about its ideological effectiveness?
@@dakotahoeppner605 it's not that Glenn doesn't have blind spots. Each of the things you raise are great launching points for long discussions. It's more that Glenn, even if you disagree with each of his points, is pulling more from a place of empirical observations, weighing figures / inputs / outputs against alternative configurations. In this exchange at least, Wolff barely even scratches the surface on the technical performance of the system he desires. It's mostly critique and appeals to moral sensibility.
@@dakotahoeppner605 I am sorry if it appeared as if I thought Glenn was perfect at being objective and unbiased. I didn’t think he was. The point is all of those things you’ve brought up could’ve been addressed in a more empirical manner on the program but it wasn’t. Glenn opened the door for such level analysis a couple times and there wasn’t as much coming from the Wolff. I never even said explicitly who I agreed with, you assumed my disposition bc of who I thought was using more productive rhetoric considering the forum.
“We can’t simply dictate what economic outcomes are going to be.” -Loury. He says this without irony after admitting that the Fed is consciously creating unemployment. 🤣 49:30
Unemployment is a consequence of raising interest rates this is to say it is an unintended result. The Fed's dual mandate is to control inflation and maximize employment. If they did not raise rates inflation would continue to run out of control. Jobs are lost due to raising rates because the fed funds rate drives all other rates. Corporations have become levered up with debt and as rates rise so does the cost to finance their debt. This is the same with mortgage rates.. etc.
@@anthonyesposito7 Unemployment is a problem the solution is not socialism. Unemployment in itself is not a bad thing, in times past if you couldnt work you would die, there was very little possibility of earning without labor. Full employment is unachievable but maintaining or rather reducing at a constant rate the level of unemployment is ideal.
This was lovely. I often check in with Loury from time to time to see what my philosophical adversaries are conjuring up. I almost always disagree with him, aside from some of his analysis surrounding the dangers of idpol weaponization. I follow Professor Wolff at least a few times a week as he is a wonderful educator and his commitment to freedom and socialism is inspiring. I just think that this type of discourse is extremely healthy and I commend Glenn and his lovely wife/partner LaJuan for presenting this show in this civilized manner. Many thanks.
My favorite point is when Glen was explaining why Marxism isn’t fought in the economics departments of academia. Economics teaches a set of techniques that allow for analysis. “Marxism” is a political flavor about how economies ought to be structured based on a set of values. Economics is not the correct social science for that. His point that most marxists don’t even speak the language of modern economics is such a great description of EXACTLY what Wolf does. Perfect point.
I'll partially agree with you. Wolf been whining like a biach on this one. But I highly disagree that Marxism is political flavor about how economics ought to be structured. It's more than that. It's a science. Imagine if Newtons physics would be described as a political flavor about how universe ought to be structured based on a set of values. Obviously it's not. Both Marx and Newton were able to come with some rules (of variable precision based on the current knowledge that we have) that reflect the objective reality. And then imagine how would world looked like If say church rejected Newtons physics because of their religious beliefs. That's what kapitalists do with Marx, they just throw it away instead of building upon it and gain greater understanding of laws that govern a society. It's a great loss.
thank you Glenn, Richard and the beautiful moderator! I'm thrilled to hear the conversation being had. it sharpens my opinions, helps me organize my thoughts, and also to learn the opposition side to understand why they feel such a way. I feel very strongly about the free market and while I don't think I would ever agree that socialism is the way to go, I enjoy hearing another perspective
This was an incredible experience... I thoroughly enjoyed the exchange between these two brilliant minds.....I really appreciate their critical analysis on polirical economic systems....but Prof. WOLF have me intrigued.....disclaimer: I have no desire for "material wealth"
What exactly is intriguing? The fact that despite all his claims and beliefs go against reality, he still spouts them everywhere he goes? I suppose that is indeed puzzling. It doesn't matter how blatantly debunked his drivel gets, he doesn't change his rhetoric one bit. A perfect example of being a victim to ideology. Facts don't matter to Prof. Wolf, only what he wishes to be real. He seems stuck in an adolescent cycle of rebellion, fighting for that maligned, secret belief that was so taboo in his youth and seems to have marked him for life as a great crusade to fight for.
Yeah, but what is his definition for that. Whoopi Goldberg does not think she is rich and was upset about some of the new tax schemes that were being proposed that would impact her and she went on to say how she supports many other family members yet her net worth is in the range of $60 million and make $5 million plus each year.
There is no such thing as a "brilliant" socialist marxist. They fail 100% of the time. Yet here they are...stupid is as stupid does...defining insanity.
57:05 "Capitalism comes into the world in the French Revolution and the American." Wolff must be living in a different reality than I am. AFAIK, capitalism developed over several centuries in Europe, not as the result of any revolution. It's particularly strange that Wolff associates capitalism with the French Revolution, which led to several forms of socialism.
Yeah I have heard this from him too and it just delusional. The French Revolution brought in socialist factions that created terror over the population.
@@davidsmith5917 I'm not quite sure how your comment relates to mine since I didn't write anything about feudalism. On that subject, didn't Marx say that capitalism was the successor to feudalism? That might be one thing he was right about.
Thank you Glenn and LaJuan for having Richard Wolff on, much respect to all three of you. I hope to see more conversations like this, perhaps with Mr. Varoufakis next.
Such an incredibly thoughtful and interesting dialogue with the absolutely lovely & skillful moderator being the best part of this talk. Please bring us more thoughtful contrasting economic debates. We need this now more than ever.
It seams like everyone is praising how civil this conversation was. But it wasn't really a challenging conversation I wish that the debaters were given more room to directly challenge each others claims.
@@arthurzetes well the conversation was limited. He made great points though. And the moderators very last question that definitely needs to be teased apart, as I feel it's a very good point. I do feel Wolff's sense of the interest of Socialism on the rise.
@@Burtifly his argument: “The guy made the Factory and took the risk with his Capital. But where did the Capital come from? It came from the Labor of workers!” Yes. But they went into an agreement that they would relinquish rights to the results of their labor. They Transfer ownership to the person who bought it. Imagine If the Company That Sold you a lamp said “we are entitled to more because you continue to use the lamp we made you.” What would you say? “We made an agreement and transacted based on that agreement. You have no more say in the matter” Just like Glenn said. Wolff Falsely claims That Capital/value is the product of labor. No it’s not. Labor is one of the factors that is brought together by the true value creator: the capitalist. Without the Systems to control the flow ans Focus of That Labor, the labor is valueless. You can put 1 million of the most skilled Factory workers in a field. They aren’t going to build a factory. You can have Master masons mix with the Factory workers. You aren’t going to get a Factory. You only get a Factory when you have someone who assumes responsibility, coordinates effort, makes agreements with others to pool together vision, resources, and plans. That’s the capitalist. Labor is like a river. The River doesn’t have any economic value in and of itself. The River only holds economic value. It only holds economic value when someone creates a system of boats to facilitate trade, or creates a water wheel to create energy from that River. That’s where the real value is.
Wolff's assertion that socialism is not studied or adopted simply because it is considered a taboo subject is incorrect. Socialism was studied and even adopted, in part, during the early 20th century in many parts of the economy. And today socialism is used at the local level among many municipalities. The town I live it has a municipally owned electirc utility, for example. In some cases socialism works fine and under a free market society, any part of the economy is free to adopt socialism, if it is superior. In fact capitalism would assert that if socialism were superior then it would be adopted by all sectors and would displace any other system due to its economic advantage. But that has not happened. In fact the opposite has happened, globally.
@@computer_janitor socialism is a failure. The reason why we continue to warn people of its failures and are hostile to socialist countries is because stupid ideas are contagious. Have you met the average young person in the US? They’re idiots. It’s not surprising that they are susceptible to Wolff’s craziness.
Just a heads up, this actually is a part two. I believe their first one had McWhorter as moderator, but I might be misremembering. They said the format didn't allow them to discuss all they wished to, so they had this one set up. I believe it is also on the glenn show.
I would love to hear Glenn Loury's response to Adolph Reed after being asked about capitalism's supposed ability to naturally relinquish inequality and prejudice.
@@willpotter22 yeah, but it would sure be interesting to hear what Loury says after hearing Verafoukis's solution! And it would be very interesting after Adolph Reed weighs in, because he would basically say that racism is just a form that inequality can take within a capitalist society, and inequality is inherent in the system. Interesting to note too, guess that Loury says there are winners and losers, but the scope of his admission doesn't seem to set in, when the question is shifted to the one regarding the overcoming of inequality...
Is there anything by Professor Wolff that you would recommend as the best illustration of his arguments? Because I have watched this guy for hours and hours and he has failed to convince me of either his premise or his solutions from what I can tell. His premise appears to be that capitalism is unstable, greedy, inequitable. The evidence is often market inefficiency in areas that are heavily regulated by government (housing with zoning/permits/materials for example). His solution is 'democratic socialism' where the employees have more control of the business. Other arguments he makes some times to support this are just head scratchers about value and production. I remember something about the guy who makes a hammer missing out on all the value of the 'capitalist' who buys it. That is literally what the money exchange is for. If I buy a car to drive for Uber does Wolff want me to send Toyota a royalty every month above anything I already paid them? To me he feels like appeals to emotions and voice inflections.
Our democratically elected governments tend to be one rolling catastrophe after another. Yet they live indefinitely as they are funded and supported by the efficient private sector. So let's take that private sector and make it as competent and as efficient as the government. Sure it will implode, but then we can get funding from the government to keep it propped up... If this sounds stupid, that's because it is.
I would recommend his book: Democracy at Work. It's very straightforward and yeah he tends to drone, to my amusement, but understandably to many others' irritation
Enjoyed the civil discussion without participants interrupting each other. Loury is secure enough that even when he hears a Swiss cheese argument, he doesn’t have to jump in to point it out - the audience can hopefully recognize it as well. People vote with their feet and it’s always away from socialist dictator countries. Trust the experience of those who have lived through it currently as well as historical accounts. The notion that government employees will somehow be better at housing ( urban project apartments) and health care (VA hospitals) are undermined by our own attempts at gov running these programs
@user-ex9me7fd6o It's getting bigger the more obvious it becomes how poorly kipitalism perform compared to socialism. Housing and healthcare are just two areas in which socialism will by large.
The thing that gets me about this conversation is that Richard Wolff keeps talking about a "Class of Employers" as if that group of people is static or somehow pre-ordained. And yet, in Capitalism, that's not the case. Employees become Employers. Employers sometimes become Employees. Class is just a snapshot in time, but when you take it out of that snapshot, it's very fluid and the differences are primarily driven by individual choices and motivations.
There are 31 million businesses in the US alone, the vast majority of which are owner-operated. So something like 1 in 4 people are simultaneously in the capitalist and worker "classes". Cranky Professor Fruit Nut does not address this, because it is not found mentioned in Marxist scripture.
The distinction between the employer class and employee class only look fluid to bootstrappers who think being self-employed makes them entrepreneurs.🙄🙄
@@appolo08 Err.. actually they are entrepreneurs. 🤣 The fact that you're too lazy and/or stupid to join this "class" doesn't really count for much does it? 😆
@@appolo08 So are you saying none of the managers were ever, themselves, workers? Or the CEOs or other corporate executives? None of those self-employed entrepreneurs ever hire other people and grow their business beyond just themselves and their one location? No workers were ever, themselves, managers?
As a person who can recognize a well crafted arguement when it is read or head Glen your opening statement should be a masterclass. You stated your position what you would defend and what you wouldnt defend. Which stops all logical fallacies in their tracks.
glenn's idea that mentally ill people are homeless can often be true, but it's important to remember that most mentally ill homeless peopel are not mentally ill when they become homeless - the process and experience of becoming and being homeless is what turns most people mentally ill in the scenario glenn is addressing. most of the time with regards to homelessness, it's economic issues that cause people to be mentally ill. providing free public housing would largely alleviate this. it's true that many of these projects haven't worked out in the USA, but there are political and social reasons for this and it can be done different. Canada and many Europeans countries are several of the examples, but there are more
The problem is, opinions are like arseholes. Everyone has one, hence yours is nothing special. Do you actually have any evidence to support your opinion?
@@TheColdFrontmusic "Google it!" just means you're talking out of your arse. (I've actually done abnormal psychology at the university level and while financial stress can exasperate mental illness, I've never come across the claim that it's a cause of mental illness. Presumably if it was, billions of people in the third world would be mentally ill, right? So basically you just typed a lot of stupid stuff based on your wishful thinking.)
That is absolute nonsense. Becoming homeless does not "drive" people to mental illness; that's not how mental illnesses work. Many homeless people are mentally ill because of the cause and effect relationship that goes from mental illness to inability or unwillingness to lead a typical life and provide for oneself. The idea that trouble finding housing could cause someone to become schizophrenic.. I can hardly even believe that you actually think this. It's utterly laughable.
1:12:53 Mr Wolffs idea that all markets have government interference and therefore that interference should not be held up as a reason for the failure of a market (housing, in this case) seems fairly absurd. Perhaps I misunderstood him? I’m in housing. The idea that the vast number of regulations, primarily zoning and primarily local, are just one more thing for the market to overcome is ridiculous.
I think he's trying to deconstruct the idea that all failure of capitalism is state interference as most of those to the center or further right might claim. Not that it can't be a reason, but Instead that it's not an all encompassing reason, since many of the successes of capitalism were helped by government interference, and the very existence of money and markets in the first place is due to governments.
I worked for a Cuban woman who bought a run down apartment complex, in 5 years, sold it made enough to pay cash for another apartment complex then she was able to send for her family. Come to find out her dad had an engineering degree but made more money selling fruit from a fruit stand. However despite fixing all the problems, day and night I only made 13 dollars an hour. That’s Florida
I have such a hard time taking Wolff seriously. I have never heard him give any concrete way socialism will solve anything. Homelessness is not generally a housing problem, it's a mental health and drug addiction problem. We have already tried socialism. It's a disaster. Public housing has been a disaster.
In every generation the young fall in love with Marx. Yes, Marx was correct about the flaws of capitalism. The problem is that the prescription of Marx (socialism) was a billion times worth.
Maybe the young have to figure that out for themselves, and when the older generations say "capitalism good, socialism bad, because we say so, just go along and stop questioning," that just makes the young double down in defense of Marx.
@@emergencyCALL911 The young have been told that socialism is great at nauseam. They do not know that socialism killed 100 million in the 20th century. Many still think Cuba has awesome medical care because they have universal coverage. They do not understand that socialism requires coercion.
@@julian65886 Maybe there are high schools that teach that and I've simply never been to them, but what I heard all through middle and high school was the opposite version of what to think instead of how to think, and all it did was make me critical of the position that was being pushed on me. I was fortunate enough to go to a good university though, which, while left-leaning for the area it was in, was an evangelical Christian university, so it wasn't ideologically captured, and aside from one woke sexist (a.k.a third-wave feminist) English teacher, the professors tended to be liberal (for the area, at least) rather than illiberal. Most of them took the teach-how-to-think-not-what-to-think approach. We were given an excerpt from the Communist Manifesto to read (in an economics class, actually, even though that was the most right-wing department on campus and probably the most right-wing professor) and instead of being told what to think, for the first time I was encouraged to decide for myself, and I came to pretty much the same conclusion as what you said above: that Marx had a knack for describing what was wrong, but sucked at coming up with solutions. I suspect that there are a lot of college students going to more typical universities who are primed for anyone wanting to sell them on Marxism precisely because they've gotten so sick of having the opposite view pushed on them that any other perspective feels like a breath of fresh air. That's why conversations like this one need to be had. Anathematising an idea may work on some people, but for others it has the opposite of the intended effect.
@@emergencyCALL911 Marx analysis of Capitalism was brilliant and hence in every generation people fall in love with Marx. The solutions do not work, however, people Dr. Wolf think that they can do better than MAO, Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Chávez,, Kim Jun et al. The truth is that they cannot do any better because ultimately true socialism requires state coercion. The only thing that works in 2022 is the Nordic model which is based on capitalism.
@@julian65886 I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just saying that conversations like the one Glenn Loury and Richard Wolff are having here is a far better way of dealing with that than telling people they're stupid or somehow complicit in the evils done in the name of communism if they find Marxism or socialism in any way compelling, much less the sort of repression that went on in America during the Cold War. I'm not saying you're doing that, just that it happens, and I'm pretty sure it backfires in a lot of cases.
Except for an enlisment in the US military in my 20s, I have been self employed all my adult life. I have barely afforded medical insurance (and at the time I was young and vigorous and had no major medical problems); I have lived without any medical insurance whatsoever (with the unremitting weight of the possibility of doom and debt hanging over every day and every life decision); and I have received my medical care from the VA. Of all those options the VA is clearly the most preferable. I voted twice for Barack Obama partly because I thought the "market based" approach of what ended up being called Obama Care was a likely solution to the broken employment-based "system" we have had since the post war era, and which has underserved or frankly abandoned millions over the decades. To my mind, no system that includes as part of it's functions a "pay or die" rubrik (which is the implicit devil's bargain as an inherent element of our for profit medical insurance system) no system so constructed should be used to provide healthcare to anyone. "Pay or die" skews the negotiation inherent to a "market based" approach to such a degree as to be untenable. There is no negotiation when one side faces death or debt penury, so there is no free market. Our health insurance system is a racket. Obamacare is a bandaid that-true to the spirit of such market based solutions-still leaves millions either wholly without medical care or millions more unwilling to use their medical care because they can't afford it. No society that cares about its people would inflict such a travesty on millions, for generations. If I were using Obamacare right now I would probably be homeless, or without medical care at nearly 60. Decades ago I was a Republican. Now I have voted for Bernie twice and am a vocal MedicareForAll supporter. Investment capitalism should have No Place in medical care.
The world has turned upside down. I am not left wing, but am also a double Bernie voter, and I agree with your statement in it's entirety. Who would have thought we would see avowedly liberal people wearing t-shirts that say "I heart pfizer" in 2021?
While you MAY think that 'being uneducated as all f-cking f-cks in the f-cking world' is a good argument: we now have the internet. You may be f-ing allergic af to factchecking but what about Me? You expect me to believe your big comment and your 'Socialism is inherently eviiiiil'?
Good talk. I disagree on almost every point on both sides but it is always good to hear different views. My personal distaste for the style of Mr Wolff's rhetoric not withstanding.
Very happy to see this conversation. As always, Glenn kills it. I don't know much about Wolff but I know he is one of the prominent figure in the socialist movement. I've been wanting to know more about Wolff and to hear his arguments about socialism. Quite honestly I was little let down. I really thought he would have more "tricks" up his sleeve. His best example of socialist success is Soviet and China??? The reasons he listed as success indicator for the Soviet was not compelling at all. I have no idea why he thinks China is successful because of socialism. As Glenn pointed out, it was precisely capitalism which China finally relented and turned to(they started economic reform in small area and kept expanding over the years), that lifted more than 700 million people out of poverty. Glenn pointed out North / South Korea and West / East Germany as an example of comparison of capitalism vs socialism. I would submit two more: China vs Taiwan and Maoist China vs post Maoist China. Taiwan being a tiny island nation with no natural resources became an industrialized first world country while China is still dirt poor. 90% of advanced micro chips are produced in Taiwan. There was NO WAY that could've been achieved if Taiwan had adopted socialism. One thing I observe whenever I see this capitalism vs socialism conversation or debate is the objective isn't precisely defined. What I mean by that is are we tackling the same problem in the same context? In other words, I think capitalism and socialism achieve different things using different measurement. I hate putting people in a group and give them a label because people inside a group, while have similarities, thinks differently. But for the sake of argument, I think pro capitalist and pro socialist are aiming for different outcome. The two groups' objective seems similar but there's a slight difference. I think BROADLY speaking, the two groups want: Socialist - wants stability and have everyone taken care of. Zero unemployment and zero homelessness and medical care for all. But they want it yesterday. They think taking the struggle away from humanity will unleash its potential. Capitalist - wants a advancing and prosperous society and understand there will always be volatility and a small percentage of people left behind but that percentage will get smaller and smaller over time. They think the immense completive pressure of the free market will unleash humanity's potential I think the key difference is socialist want solutions and make things perfect now. Capitalist think about incremental trade offs over a long period of time. If we want absolute equality or at least perceived equality and hell with anything else then yes, socialism is the tool to get us there. But if we want an evolving society that's natural and organic then I would say capitalism is the tool. In any case, I'm gonna go look at some more videos on Wolff to get to know him better. Again, I really feel his arguments were weak. But I'll chalk it up this was his off day and plus he was going against Glenn. He needs to speak to someone like me who doesn't know much so he can look like a genius. Lastly, I found it interesting to see LaJuan in action. From the interaction of it, it seems Glenn and LaJuan has this type of conversation on the regular but LaJuan still not buying what Glenn is selling. Hahaha. But good to see her here.
48:05 "You don't solve inflation by slapping on price controls." The Fed controls the price of money. If Dr. Loury's assertion is correct, then the Fed shouldn't be allowed to control prices.
Great talk. And Mrs. Loury is a terrific moderator. I'd enjoy hearing you talk with other left-leaning thinkers. Some suggestions are Robert Reich, Chris Hedges, Thomas Picketty, and Yanis Varoufakis. If she were still alive I'd suggest for a woman the late great Barbara Ehrenreich.
The structure of this debate is Cornball. Richard Wolff is EXCEEDINGLY polite here. No laughter. Not much rolling of his eyes. Smart, ultimately. No doubt there are ears engaged with this who might be interested in challenging their perspective. Glenn on the other hand (while snorting and huffing and sucking his teeth) is hilariously clueless about the terms in which Wolff is describing systems that produce economic growth. Yet he's allowed to just be comically -- LOUD -- wrong without Dick having the opportunity to set a correction. This is how these Loury Stans in these comments are so "excited" to hear him talk about economics. Their hero gets to love the sound of his own voice regarding a subject he knows little of substance about (yet pretends to). Clearly. Almost none of Loury's bloviat....er, comments demonstrated a clue he understood what Richard was saying. Its like a skit. But yall go ahead and cheer your guy. Jesus.
It reminds me of Religious debates. So far the only arguments I see Capitalists have is "Capitalism = liberty, individuality, good ..." and "Socialism = guvment takeover, equal poverty, utopia, bad ..." They refuse to see that the definition of Socialism is not "when the government."
For 90 minutes, I was waiting for Glenn to ask where has socialism ever worked? I thought that would be one of his strongest possible arguments. He had to wait until the debate was ending to ask it? I was trained as a lawyer (and a Pizza Man) not an economist. But my understanding is that socialism has failed everywhere it's been tried, on a large scale at least. On a small scale a socialist collective can work because it's made up of self selected individuals. Actually, a nuclear family operates on a "to each according to their needs" basis. But once you move beyond families and relatively small groups, socialism runs smack dab into human nature. Most people are unwilling to expand extra effort without perceiving a personal benefit If I get paid exactly the same whether I work really hard or do just enough work not to lose my job, why would I work hard? I believe that is sometimes called the freeloader effect. The institution of socialism is largely incompatible with personal freedom because it requires the creation of a strong central government with the power to make the decisions made by the market in a capitalist system. It is at least theoretically possible for that central government to be democratically elected, but it usually devolves into a dictatorship. While Hugo Chavez may have come to power through a democratic election, I don't know anyone that believes Nicolas Maduro remains in power because of free and fair elections. In the real world all economies are mixed. I don't know anyone advocating pure socialist or pure capitalists economies. Scandinavian countries that are sometimes cited as socialist success stories have moved in recent decades much closer to free market systems albeit with high taxes and high social services. One of the chief complaints about free market economies is the way they allow and often exacerbate income inequality. The rich get richer faster than the poor and middle class do. I think that's true. Elon Musk has (or had till he bought Twitter) a net worth of something on the order of $100 Billion. But is that really a problem? The problem with focusing on income inequality rather than standards of living is that a system that puts a limit on the ability of people of people to profit from their innovation reduces the overall amount of innovation in the economy and innovation is what allows for increased standards of living. So long as our economic system raises the standard of living for the poor and middle class does it matter if the wealth of the super rich increases by 300% rather than merely doubling? More importantly, if policies to reduce income inequality by reducing the income or wealth of the super rich will also slow or reduce increases in the standard of living of the poor and/or middle class, should those policies be implemented? I used this hypothetical example when I taught high school social studies. Let's say the class got to vote on whether everyone in the class except for Johnny would get $10 while Johnny got $100 or everyone but Johnny got $5 while Johnny got $10. The second option is worse for everyone, but it could be seen as fairer with Johnny getting only twice as much as everyone instead of 10 X.
Regarding 'when/where has socialism worked?' I think by implication touting how quickly the Soviet Union rise to be an economic power was the example. Of course, no mention of the forced labor camps, starvation, & theft of technology to get there was mentioned....
@@davidvanmersbergen5335 There is also the fact that what finally led to the downfall of the Soviet Union was that they couldn't match the economic output of the West. When Ronald Reagan began his very expensive Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI also called Star Wars) the Soviet Union not only couldn't match the technology they couldn't afford the cost of trying to develop it. At least that's how I remember it.
@@michaelmcchesney6645 Oh, yes. (Just finished watching HBO Chernobyl, it was posited that the event & fallout [pun intend] was the beginning of the end) Anyway, these facts about the collapse of the USSR should be known to this Marxist prof...That he ignores them is telling. Facts and truth have to dissappear for socialism and Marxism to thrive.
@@davidvanmersbergen5335 Anyone that can claim to have a degree in economics and also be a socialist is either lying or isn't very bright. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez talked about her economics degree when first elected to Congress. With her it may be both. Amazon was going to build a headquarters in Queens but she raised such a stink they cancelled the deal. She complained about tax breaks they would get. But they were promising 2,500 jobs at an average salary of $100K. They would have to hit those targets to get any breaks. Instead those jobs don't exist in Queens. Great job!!! The thing about socialists is that they praised the USSR until it was impossible to do so, then it was Cuba, then Venezuela. These days, Bernie likes to talk about Sweden except their prime minister keeps saying they aren't socialist. They have more economic freedom there then we do in the U.S.
28:30 "They laughed at Milton Friedman at Yale" I find it interesting he said this after complaining his schools were censored for Marxist idea. The way I am reading this is that "Marx" may have been a dirty word but government intervention and control over the economy was not.
Great convo, but some of these questions needed more time. I would've loved to hear Wolff's response to Glenn's critique of LTV (which has been refuted repeatedly by many economists, particularly Steve Keen).
@@KarlMarxFanClub thanks for proving my point for me. Even in the 1970s it was being pointed out how universities and media were being used as anti-capitalist propaganda. Wolff is just continuing with that tradition. People and profits aren’t mutually exclusive either. What an idiotic username.
I appreciate this. Thanks for taking the time, effort, and thought to put it together. I just wish that it wasn’t in a “debate” format (no disrespect to the moderator; she was great). I wish it was just a conversation. I wanted to hear y’all dig more deeply into many topics, such as question about control over production. But overall, I learned some things.
I wish they would have discussed Venezuela. I lived there and watched socialism take over and it has been sad to watch. We have to account for human behavior including no matter who you are… money and power changes people.
Venezuela is interesting im just an outsider but i always thought that alot of Problems stem from using another Countrys Currency as the Main Currency. You can see a similar thing in North African Countries that were Colonized by France. France basically managed their Currency still does to this day i believe. So these Countries are basically producing goods for France its like a modern more smarter Version to do Colonialism. These Countries cant grow out because France can just Artifically deflate or inflate their Currency and Change Exchange Rates. There are Videos on this on TH-cam. Idk if its applicable to Venezuela but it seems to me that alot of Problems we can see are made by the West exploiting these Countries. After World War 1 Germany lost and had to pay reparations they got indebted to the winning countries that lead to every produced good being exported out of germany and the own currency would hyperinflate that leads to People feeling used and resentment in the population against these countries that lead to Hitler.
Unregulated criminals posing as socialists doesn't make it an automatic symptom of socialism. Greed is a human condition. The question is do we collectively agree to regulate greed or not.
I laughed out loud when Wolff said that gains have been made in the USSR and China despite capitalism. I'm trying to wrap my mind around the idea that the USSR is a positive story. I wonder if Wolff agrees with Putin that the dissolution of the Soviet Union was a great tragedy.
Wolff didn't get a chance to respond to Glenn on this, but from another debate he said for a period in the 20th Century, Soviet Union's economic growth was incredibly impressive and more successful than most economies of the world. I only did a quick Google search to verify this, but it seems like it was for a time, between 1920s to the 1970s, had been the second in the world in economic growth.
@@nukenfry The Soviet Union did experience great economic growth in its early years because the Russian Empire was so far behind the West. Also, the Soviet Union collapsed in 1990 after failing to keep up with the People's Republic of China and its "Communism with Chinese Characteristics."
@@JonathanRossRogers You mean it's growth was staggering by comparison of others because of where it had been at economically? It's ranking isn't an explanation of growth, the mechanisms of action are. It experienced economic growth because it invested in its own economy.
Let a thousand flowers blossom was mainly just a gig to find the "reactionaries" who dared to critique Mao's dictatorship, in order to destroy them. It was the beginning of the Culture Revolution turning bloody.
Glenn was like a dog on a leash which his beautiful wife noticed and tried to calm him down... typical of neo-liberal capitalist whom is living in theoretical la la land... of course there are going to be people at the top and yeah many will fall by the side BUT too bad according to him and yet he has the nerve to politicise an economic debate... lol
Debate structures are terrible. A conversation with back and forth and a moderator to perhaps end a back and forth when its gets circular would be a much better format.
Life expectancy is getting worse every day in America (currently 52nd). Also idk if this was mentioned but it's important - Capitalism has never had full employment no matter where it existed. Not even close to full employment.
Life expectancy is getting worse because the vast majority of people are stupid, and eat garbage food. One thing I will grant you though, Socialism is great for dieting.
No economic system has ever actually had full employment, anywhere, at any time. Socialist hell holes like the Soviet Union, North Korea, or Mao's China may have _claimed_ to have it, but of course they never did and their economic systems were far less productive than their capitalist contemporaries. "Full employment" is one of those goals like "world peace"; everyone agrees that it sounds nice. But the fact that there is some small percentage of people who are seeking employment and have not found it yet is more a fact of life than a consequence of capitalism.
@@KarlMarxFanClub The gap is not what matters; what matters is the average standard of living within the society, which is extremely high in the United States. The only people who care more about the "gap" than about people's living standards are people who are driven by envy and resentment rather than practicality and a genuine concern for their fellow man.
@@therainman7777 over 65% of American's have less than 1k in savings. What world are you living in? There are on avg 132 suicides every day in America. Over 50% of homeless people are employed. Please spare us your American public education knowledge. Capitalism does not work. If you cared about the world and the future you should start there.
"I believe in historical examination as a clue on how to solve our problems now." ... but the Gulags are just an acceptable social issue you can brush off and every single failure of Marxism doesn't make you at least change the name of your philosophy...
@@davidsmith5917 now name the good things produced by capitalism and communism. The advances over the last 200 years are unprecedented. Communism got people to eat their dogs 👍. Also, attributing all war and death in the modern world to capitalism is silly. Communist policies on the other hand obviously and demonstrably lead to mass starvation and actual murder by the state. There is certainly some of that under capitalism, but the concentration and frequency is probably important.
Thank you BOTH for this debate! I have a strong bias towards capitalism, but I’m open to hearing out alternative as it’s clear our system isn’t perfect. I’ve heard from from professor Wolfe a few times, but I feel this was the best place to hear his thoughts, and observations. I don’t really agree and I find his pessimism about capitalism a bit too extreme, but he has some very valid criticisms.
It's insane to argue that the gatekeepers of academia would argue against their own self-interest anymore than The Supreme Court would self-impose ethics rules on themselves...come on man...
I don't understand why Wolff gets so much publicity, so much traction, and keeps showing up to talk with some of my favorite people. He's such an intellectual lightweight. It becomes painfully obvious in the course of this conversation.
Then it would be so easy for you to make a compelling counter argument to any of his many points! But instead you’re just worthlessly asserting that he’s an intellectual lightweight, despite his Harvard and Yale education and tenure, and the fact that Glenn thought he was worth having on AND agreed with him on multiple points. Yeah, Wolff is the intellectual lightweight here…
There's just something about Richard Wolff that gives me a strong strong impression that he is holding inside himself tons of anger and jealousy and indignation. U can see it in his face, eyes, body language, and you can hear it in his voice as well as with the words he speaks. He's one of the best defenders of socialism I've seen and I agree with him on some key points, but in every debate of discussion I've seen him in it's like Richard vs The World. Idk just my personal Bullshit psychoanalysis but anyway.... Absolutely brilliant discussion!
Capitalists are those who outsmart and trick people and congratulate themselves in materialism and what accomplishments they produced. They reflect the image of preconceived perfection, great life.
Someone selling hot dogs from a push cart is a capitalist. Capitalism is the free exchange of goods and labor, and private ownership of capital. I sell 3D printed little miniatures, I am a capitalist. Might want to use some granularity when describing a massive population.
Not being able to afford an apartment is not just about renters "needing to get their lives in order". It is about landlord greed and outrageous rents. LaJuan asked the RIGHT question, "Can we have a kinder, gentler capitalism?"
I believe we cannot. Capitalist will always seek profit above all else, look at Landlord's, better still the oil industry lying for 3 decades about climate change, BP implemented "carbon footprint " to distract from their pursuit of profit above the planet
Greed is only a small factor in high rent. You want to reduce rent? Kick out the tens of millions of illegal immigrants in the US consuming housing. Let us assume merely 30% of them consume a housing unit, this would free up MILLIONS of houses/apartments for citizens. Big business loves it's low wages which immigrants readily take though, driving down wages. Speaking of big business, ban any business or it's subsidiaries/ affiliates from owning more than 3 homes. Stop Private Equity businesses from consuming housing. Ban non-citizens/non-green card holders from owning property. Most countries we're friends with do this to us, there's no reason we shouldn't.
Thomas Sowell wrote a lot about this, high regulations, no respect for property rights and taxes is why landlords greed became such a problem. a kinder, gentler capitalism we already have it, yo make money by giving people what they want.
Absolutely great conversation👍🏾 I think that perhaps the answer is somewhere in the middle. I feel that there’s often this one rules over the other mentality, which has been a big problem throughout human history. I feel that Balance is Key.
I believe the 'somewhere in the middle' tradeoff was illustrated in this conversation by the example of housing vouchers. Providing resources for people to participate in the market is in my opinion the best solution for a number of reasons and has practical evidence. By providing resources to the consumer, business are motivated to compete for their money. In housing for example, giving marginalized people money to buy housing will most likely cause the short term cost of housing to rise, which will stimulate firms to build more housing. This should in theory increase the supply of housing, which will have downward pressure on home prices over time. Mandating housing policies (ie rent control or restrictive zoning) will most likely reduce the overall supply of housing.
![Understanding Marxism: Q&A with Richard D. Wolff [June 2019]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/eU-AkeOyiOQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I wish we had more discussions like this on youtube. I don't just mean cap vs marx, but a whole range of issues. Thanks Glenn and Rich.
Great to finally see Mrs. Loury! I hope she will become a common feature going forward...
I wish the conversation were not moderated as much because of how thoughtful and patient and courteous the two speakers were, but I do appreciate that they want a broad conversation about several things vs. getting bogged down on one point or another.
Richard Wolff is phenomenal! What a pleasure listening to him. Thanks for hosting.
Indeed! What's his best point in your view? For me, it's how he claims that the labor theory of value is a thing, even though it was wholly debunked by the marginal productivity theory of value in the 19th century.
@imperfectious I like how he says he cares about equality but only talks about how great the GDP growth of the Soviet union and China were, completely ignoring the human rights violation and incredible inequity between the haves ( party members) and the have not(common citizens).
@@nautdead3197 well he never had the chance to elaborate on how the Soviet Union pulled more people out of poverty in the twentieth century than any other country on earth. China now holds that title for the 21st century.
@@nautdead3197 The USA has the largest incarceration rate out of any country on earth. I’d say we’re pretty bad on human rights.
@@imperfectious you don’t debunk a theory with another theory without a proof.
Great conversation. It's good to see folks considering alternative arguments in good faith.
Good faith my ass. That race and class traitor should be ashamed of himself. But kudos to Wollf for being so civil in the face of such hateful ignorance.
@@mistershopen6563 no such thing. Grow up and stop simping for idiot Wolff
The debut of LaJuan! Here for it.
This is absolutely fantastic. The possibility to hear both sides is priceless. Thank you
Rick's comments about Russian economic growth are true but very misleading. Russia in the 20th century built it's economy on the backs of millions of forced laborers. Rick, you're smart, why won't you mention that when you proclaim them as the best model of the 20th century?
It also suffered in ways the US couldn’t possibly imagine from the two world wars as well as being shut out economically by western powers.
The US was literally an apartheid state for the first 60 years of the 20th century, with appalling labor conditions for most of the labor force. Yeah Wolff could definitely afford to talk more about Russia’s oppression of its people though.
@@MelGibsonFan I don’t know if you are being sarcastic or not. The Soviets killed tens of millions of their own citizens. I think that is far worse than anything the US did.
@@akp167 And despite that still experienced unprecedented economic growth. You guys aren't getting it. Simply saying Russia bad doesn't refute Wolff's point.
@@MelGibsonFan It’s because they started off from zero just like the Chinese did
@@akp167 Yes, that's an argument in their favor. The didn't start out as an already wealthy powerful economy and they were left much worse off after the world wars.
Regarding housing, at 1:10:06 Wolff says: "For me, I see a market whose end result has been homelessness, whose end result, given the other problems of society, has to plunge the people who need housing the most into the situation where its accessible the least and vice versa."
Undoubtedly the US has housing issues, but to isolate the effect of capitalism there, you can look at the results of other capitalist countries, like Japan with notoriously one of the smallest homeless populations per capita: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_homeless_population. In 2021, 0.00304% of their population was homeless, whereas the US had 0.15%-0.17%, a huge difference. When two capitalist economies have very different results, I don't see how you can blame capitalism, the biggest thing they have in common.
The difference is how the government intervenes in the market. Japan is a social-minded capitalist economy with more public, subsidized government housing. Many European countries are like this too. But this makes the debate about "how much should the government intervene in a capitalist economy," not "should the economy be fundamentally tilted towards capitalism or socialism." Just using poor housing policy in the US as a full indictment on "capitalism" seems like a lazy argument.
He only has lazy or nonsense 'arguments'.
LaJuan, IMO, your hosting premier showed a heartfelt inclination for peace and restraint. It was lovely. Hope to see and hear more of you and your charming smile.
I must apologize, but it seemed to me Mr. Wolff waxed poetic about valid ethical critiques about capitalism but that is all. Mr. Loury seemed much more open in recognizing the trade offs that each and any possible action would have. At the end Mr. Wolfs initial summation statement of socialism (not his entire description) was ‘a yearning to do better than capitalism’. This is almost a religious call to liberation, far from a specific overview of a proven sustaining system. He speaks As though, the moral and ethical grounds for enforcing socialism is the validating quality of his argument, and not whether we can prove inequity can be reliably solved by the regime. I do wish home well in all he does and I know for certain he’s more read than me, this however I feel is ideologically/ religiously driven rhetoric.
Perfect, thank you. I clicked hoping to hear Wolff actually respond to the technical points that Glenn was making, instead we got over an hour of Wolff pointing out the imperfections of capitalism and then saying "come ON, look at that, that's bad! shouldn't be like this!". There's no cross referencing, he doesn't test his arguments up and down various scales, he's just kinda complaining and conflating his moral instincts with some kind of moral mandate. Shame because I'm quite interested in hearing out a true technical challenge to capitalism.
To be fair, you see this in Loury as well. To name a few:
1. His deference to the market as an almost sacred entity that we must not tamper with and that should be the ultimate policy goal
2. His peddling of the entrepreneur myth as a sales point of capitalism as opposed to objectively sketching out how the system is actually organized on a large scale
3. His obsession with state versus market as being at the core of the socialist-capitalist debate which is an error Marxists have been correcting for decades (but one that gives the producers of capitalist ideology like Loury easier ground to debate on)
One powerful example of Loury's religiousness is his fatalism over the Fed's interest rate hike as just being "reality," that there are absolutely no solutions to our current inflationary crisis than to raise interest rates to increase unemployment. This is him just "living with reality," as he says.
No, Glenn, raising interest rates to curb the power of labor (which, yes, is the goal of the Fed here) is not the only way to deal with inflation. No, immiserating working and middle-class folks and contributing to mass suffering is not the only way to deal with inflation. It's simply an orthodox, monetarist line based on ridiculous theories like the NAIRU that has come to dominate economics departments and central banks since the late 1970s, and has little relevance to the specific realities of our current inflation. He gives no mention of supplementary monetary policy levels (like reforms to macroprudential and mortgage lending regulations), counter-cyclical fiscal policy that invests in public service delivery and capital spending, redistribution of excess inflationary profits, strengthening of labor organizing and collective bargaining, which would all play a much more significant role in tackling inflation than bluntly rising interest rates.
Frankly, it's no surprise he doesn't consider these policy options. For one, they'd seriously undermine and challenge the power of the Manhattan Institute's donors. Anyway, don't think what you're describing doesn't exist on this side. It certainly does, and if you're unaware it's there, what does that say about its ideological effectiveness?
@@dakotahoeppner605 it's not that Glenn doesn't have blind spots. Each of the things you raise are great launching points for long discussions. It's more that Glenn, even if you disagree with each of his points, is pulling more from a place of empirical observations, weighing figures / inputs / outputs against alternative configurations. In this exchange at least, Wolff barely even scratches the surface on the technical performance of the system he desires. It's mostly critique and appeals to moral sensibility.
@@dakotahoeppner605 I am sorry if it appeared as if I thought Glenn was perfect at being objective and unbiased. I didn’t think he was. The point is all of those things you’ve brought up could’ve been addressed in a more empirical manner on the program but it wasn’t. Glenn opened the door for such level analysis a couple times and there wasn’t as much coming from the Wolff. I never even said explicitly who I agreed with, you assumed my disposition bc of who I thought was using more productive rhetoric considering the forum.
“We can’t simply dictate what economic outcomes are going to be.” -Loury. He says this without irony after admitting that the Fed is consciously creating unemployment. 🤣 49:30
Unemployment is a consequence of raising interest rates this is to say it is an unintended result. The Fed's dual mandate is to control inflation and maximize employment. If they did not raise rates inflation would continue to run out of control. Jobs are lost due to raising rates because the fed funds rate drives all other rates. Corporations have become levered up with debt and as rates rise so does the cost to finance their debt. This is the same with mortgage rates.. etc.
I was saying this exact thing out loud! Everyone acknowledges that the Fed's currently policy will lead to unemployment.
Capitalism maintains unemployment, it's called the reserve army of labor, look it up.
@@anthonyesposito7 Unemployment is a problem the solution is not socialism. Unemployment in itself is not a bad thing, in times past if you couldnt work you would die, there was very little possibility of earning without labor. Full employment is unachievable but maintaining or rather reducing at a constant rate the level of unemployment is ideal.
@@gabriel-uc1uz that still doesn’t negate the argument stated in the original comment.
This was lovely. I often check in with Loury from time to time to see what my philosophical adversaries are conjuring up. I almost always disagree with him, aside from some of his analysis surrounding the dangers of idpol weaponization. I follow Professor Wolff at least a few times a week as he is a wonderful educator and his commitment to freedom and socialism is inspiring. I just think that this type of discourse is extremely healthy and I commend Glenn and his lovely wife/partner LaJuan for presenting this show in this civilized manner. Many thanks.
Freedom and socialism are extremely polar in nature. It's like being committed to steak dinner and veganism.
Commitment to freedom and socialism is an oxymoron.
My favorite point is when Glen was explaining why Marxism isn’t fought in the economics departments of academia. Economics teaches a set of techniques that allow for analysis. “Marxism” is a political flavor about how economies ought to be structured based on a set of values. Economics is not the correct social science for that. His point that most marxists don’t even speak the language of modern economics is such a great description of EXACTLY what Wolf does. Perfect point.
Spot on.
It’s evil and kill 100 mil. Chill.
I'll partially agree with you. Wolf been whining like a biach on this one. But I highly disagree that Marxism is political flavor about how economics ought to be structured. It's more than that. It's a science. Imagine if Newtons physics would be described as a political flavor about how universe ought to be structured based on a set of values. Obviously it's not. Both Marx and Newton were able to come with some rules (of variable precision based on the current knowledge that we have) that reflect the objective reality. And then imagine how would world looked like If say church rejected Newtons physics because of their religious beliefs. That's what kapitalists do with Marx, they just throw it away instead of building upon it and gain greater understanding of laws that govern a society. It's a great loss.
thank you Glenn, Richard and the beautiful moderator! I'm thrilled to hear the conversation being had. it sharpens my opinions, helps me organize my thoughts, and also to learn the opposition side to understand why they feel such a way. I feel very strongly about the free market and while I don't think I would ever agree that socialism is the way to go, I enjoy hearing another perspective
If you're going to do more of these, I would love to see Glenn debate Michael Hudson and Yanis Varoufakis. Thanks again
Be great, also michael parenti.
Need more free-flow of factual informationS!
I commented the same thing about Veroufakis before reading your comment! :D
@@jamesjerome6942 seems like he’s dropped off the face of the earth
@@matthewevans3718 who has?
This was an incredible experience... I thoroughly enjoyed the exchange between these two brilliant minds.....I really appreciate their critical analysis on polirical economic systems....but Prof. WOLF have me intrigued.....disclaimer: I have no desire for "material wealth"
What exactly is intriguing? The fact that despite all his claims and beliefs go against reality, he still spouts them everywhere he goes? I suppose that is indeed puzzling.
It doesn't matter how blatantly debunked his drivel gets, he doesn't change his rhetoric one bit. A perfect example of being a victim to ideology. Facts don't matter to Prof. Wolf, only what he wishes to be real.
He seems stuck in an adolescent cycle of rebellion, fighting for that maligned, secret belief that was so taboo in his youth and seems to have marked him for life as a great crusade to fight for.
Yeah, but what is his definition for that. Whoopi Goldberg does not think she is rich and was upset about some of the new tax schemes that were being proposed that would impact her and she went on to say how she supports many other family members yet her net worth is in the range of $60 million and make $5 million plus each year.
@@Adam-tj4oy the definition of what exactly?
There is no such thing as a "brilliant" socialist marxist. They fail 100% of the time. Yet here they are...stupid is as stupid does...defining insanity.
so happy to hear these discussions. this is the way forward.
57:05 "Capitalism comes into the world in the French Revolution and the American." Wolff must be living in a different reality than I am. AFAIK, capitalism developed over several centuries in Europe, not as the result of any revolution. It's particularly strange that Wolff associates capitalism with the French Revolution, which led to several forms of socialism.
Yeah I have heard this from him too and it just delusional. The French Revolution brought in socialist factions that created terror over the population.
Capitalist practices under feudalism is still feudalism, markets are as old as civilization itself.
@@davidsmith5917 I'm not quite sure how your comment relates to mine since I didn't write anything about feudalism. On that subject, didn't Marx say that capitalism was the successor to feudalism? That might be one thing he was right about.
Mrs. Loury is a lovely person.
Thanks for this debate between Prof. Loury and Prof. Wolff - both of whom I respect.
Thank you Glenn and LaJuan for having Richard Wolff on, much respect to all three of you. I hope to see more conversations like this, perhaps with Mr. Varoufakis next.
Such an incredibly thoughtful and interesting dialogue with the absolutely lovely & skillful moderator being the best part of this talk. Please bring us more thoughtful contrasting economic debates. We need this now more than ever.
Very nice to see Mrs. Loury! I hope you have additional episodes with her-she’s such a great moderator, very poised, and beautiful.
It seams like everyone is praising how civil this conversation was. But it wasn't really a challenging conversation I wish that the debaters were given more room to directly challenge each others claims.
Compared to most online commentators and their cliched talking points, this debate is an absolute GODSEND! Thank you 🙏
It seems Mr. and Mrs. Loury have probably had some interesting conversations on this very topic!
That could be some good content in it's own right!
I love seeing LaJuan as the moderator!
So glad Professor Wolff exists. Thanks.
Unfortunately Wolff only showed he’s a dogmatist that doesn’t really get the core of the issue.
@@arthurzetes well the conversation was limited. He made great points though. And the moderators very last question that definitely needs to be teased apart, as I feel it's a very good point. I do feel Wolff's sense of the interest of Socialism on the rise.
@@Burtifly I feel like he didn’t. His first statement about capitalism about “where did that capital come from?” Is super flawed
@@arthurzetes well he definitely did make valid points. What way do you feel his view (or Marx view) of capital is flawed?
@@Burtifly his argument:
“The guy made the Factory and took the risk with his Capital. But where did the Capital come from? It came from the Labor of workers!”
Yes. But they went into an agreement that they would relinquish rights to the results of their labor. They Transfer ownership to the person who bought it.
Imagine If the Company That Sold you a lamp said “we are entitled to more because you continue to use the lamp we made you.”
What would you say?
“We made an agreement and transacted based on that agreement. You have no more say in the matter”
Just like Glenn said. Wolff Falsely claims That Capital/value is the product of labor. No it’s not. Labor is one of the factors that is brought together by the true value creator: the capitalist. Without the Systems to control the flow ans Focus of That Labor, the labor is valueless.
You can put 1 million of the most skilled Factory workers in a field. They aren’t going to build a factory. You can have Master masons mix with the Factory workers. You aren’t going to get a Factory. You only get a Factory when you have someone who assumes responsibility, coordinates effort, makes agreements with others to pool together vision, resources, and plans. That’s the capitalist.
Labor is like a river. The River doesn’t have any economic value in and of itself. The River only holds economic value. It only holds economic value when someone creates a system of boats to facilitate trade, or creates a water wheel to create energy from that River. That’s where the real value is.
Very professional debate of simple yet big ideas. How refreshing!
Wolff's assertion that socialism is not studied or adopted simply because it is considered a taboo subject is incorrect. Socialism was studied and even adopted, in part, during the early 20th century in many parts of the economy. And today socialism is used at the local level among many municipalities. The town I live it has a municipally owned electirc utility, for example. In some cases socialism works fine and under a free market society, any part of the economy is free to adopt socialism, if it is superior. In fact capitalism would assert that if socialism were superior then it would be adopted by all sectors and would displace any other system due to its economic advantage. But that has not happened. In fact the opposite has happened, globally.
the guy is a con artist
He’s a commie
@@computer_janitor socialism is a failure. The reason why we continue to warn people of its failures and are hostile to socialist countries is because stupid ideas are contagious.
Have you met the average young person in the US? They’re idiots. It’s not surprising that they are susceptible to Wolff’s craziness.
@@deenzmartin6695 that’s your critique? Good grief.
@@stevej.7926 and that's your rebuttal? Good grief.
Great discussion. Would love to see a part 2
Just a heads up, this actually is a part two. I believe their first one had McWhorter as moderator, but I might be misremembering. They said the format didn't allow them to discuss all they wished to, so they had this one set up. I believe it is also on the glenn show.
The previous discussion is called Capitalism and Democracy in Post-industrial America.
I would love to hear Glenn Loury's response to Adolph Reed after being asked about capitalism's supposed ability to naturally relinquish inequality and prejudice.
I'd also love to hear Loury talk to Yanis Veroufakis. That would be fuuuuun!
Yes that would be a hybrid of both which would be that of a social democracy similar to the nordic countries, as glenn was saying.
@@willpotter22 what would be a hybrid of both?
@@battyjr social democracy which is just capitalism with more robust social safety nets
@@willpotter22 yeah, but it would sure be interesting to hear what Loury says after hearing Verafoukis's solution! And it would be very interesting after Adolph Reed weighs in, because he would basically say that racism is just a form that inequality can take within a capitalist society, and inequality is inherent in the system. Interesting to note too, guess that Loury says there are winners and losers, but the scope of his admission doesn't seem to set in, when the question is shifted to the one regarding the overcoming of inequality...
Too bad this couldn’t continue. I would have liked to hear Rick and Glenn talk about Mondragón
Is there anything by Professor Wolff that you would recommend as the best illustration of his arguments? Because I have watched this guy for hours and hours and he has failed to convince me of either his premise or his solutions from what I can tell.
His premise appears to be that capitalism is unstable, greedy, inequitable. The evidence is often market inefficiency in areas that are heavily regulated by government (housing with zoning/permits/materials for example). His solution is 'democratic socialism' where the employees have more control of the business.
Other arguments he makes some times to support this are just head scratchers about value and production. I remember something about the guy who makes a hammer missing out on all the value of the 'capitalist' who buys it. That is literally what the money exchange is for. If I buy a car to drive for Uber does Wolff want me to send Toyota a royalty every month above anything I already paid them?
To me he feels like appeals to emotions and voice inflections.
Our democratically elected governments tend to be one rolling catastrophe after another. Yet they live indefinitely as they are funded and supported by the efficient private sector.
So let's take that private sector and make it as competent and as efficient as the government. Sure it will implode, but then we can get funding from the government to keep it propped up...
If this sounds stupid, that's because it is.
I would recommend his book: Democracy at Work. It's very straightforward and yeah he tends to drone, to my amusement, but understandably to many others' irritation
The Gulag was a social problem? I'm not sure if I want to hear any more.
Wolff exemplifies the fallacy that Thomas Sowell described as, Assuming that good things happen automatically, while bad things are somebody's fault.
You are so right. I have heard exactly this many times.
This is ironic coming from Sowell who attributes “good things” to free market enterprise and “bad things” to gov’t intervention.
@@MelGibsonFan You'll have to point me to the precise text where Sowell explains that good things happen automatically under a free market.
@@mikesmith542 Yeah the second you get the OP to demonstrate where Wolff stated or implied that as well.
he's a con artist that couldn't survive outside of a captalist system and he knows it.
I love Glenn AND Richard and have learned so much from both of them. Keep an open mind!
Lol, you must be joking.
What did you learn from Wolff?
What did you learn from Glenn?
Excellent Glenn - thank you enormously.
Need more of these debates
Professor Wolff handled all the topics and questions brilliantly as usual and made the arguments for capitalism look silly at best.
Tell me you're at odds with reality without telling me you're at odds with reality...
Centralized planning is just a non starter for me. The aggregation of power always leads to tyranny.
That’s what we have now.
Dr. Wolff agrees with you, hence why he advocates for democracy at work.
Enjoyed the civil discussion without participants interrupting each other. Loury is secure enough that even when he hears a Swiss cheese argument, he doesn’t have to jump in to point it out - the audience can hopefully recognize it as well.
People vote with their feet and it’s always away from socialist dictator countries. Trust the experience of those who have lived through it currently as well as historical accounts.
The notion that government employees will somehow be better at housing ( urban project apartments) and health care (VA hospitals) are undermined by our own attempts at gov running these programs
Nostalgia for the commie period is in fact very popular in eastern europe and the former USSR, as googling opinion polls will show you.
@user-ex9me7fd6o It's getting bigger the more obvious it becomes how poorly kipitalism perform compared to socialism. Housing and healthcare are just two areas in which socialism will by large.
LaJuan must have been a lion tamer or something in a previous life. That was great.
When she asked the rent too damn High question, I literally applauded 😆
Good guest, I hope to see mr wolff on the glenn show again in the future
The thing that gets me about this conversation is that Richard Wolff keeps talking about a "Class of Employers" as if that group of people is static or somehow pre-ordained. And yet, in Capitalism, that's not the case. Employees become Employers. Employers sometimes become Employees. Class is just a snapshot in time, but when you take it out of that snapshot, it's very fluid and the differences are primarily driven by individual choices and motivations.
There are 31 million businesses in the US alone, the vast majority of which are owner-operated. So something like 1 in 4 people are simultaneously in the capitalist and worker "classes". Cranky Professor Fruit Nut does not address this, because it is not found mentioned in Marxist scripture.
The distinction between the employer class and employee class only look fluid to bootstrappers who think being self-employed makes them entrepreneurs.🙄🙄
@@appolo08 Err.. actually they are entrepreneurs. 🤣
The fact that you're too lazy and/or stupid to join this "class" doesn't really count for much does it? 😆
@@appolo08 utter stupidity.
@@appolo08 So are you saying none of the managers were ever, themselves, workers? Or the CEOs or other corporate executives? None of those self-employed entrepreneurs ever hire other people and grow their business beyond just themselves and their one location? No workers were ever, themselves, managers?
A polite debate.
I recommend Wolff's debate with Yaron Brook.
we can do better than capitalism! glenn said that he believes that incentives drive behavior. profit incentives drive exploitation.
As a person who can recognize a well crafted arguement when it is read or head Glen your opening statement should be a masterclass. You stated your position what you would defend and what you wouldnt defend. Which stops all logical fallacies in their tracks.
Glenn ignores a lot of history to make his point. Gotta say Richard takes this one for me.
glenn's idea that mentally ill people are homeless can often be true, but it's important to remember that most mentally ill homeless peopel are not mentally ill when they become homeless - the process and experience of becoming and being homeless is what turns most people mentally ill in the scenario glenn is addressing. most of the time with regards to homelessness, it's economic issues that cause people to be mentally ill. providing free public housing would largely alleviate this. it's true that many of these projects haven't worked out in the USA, but there are political and social reasons for this and it can be done different. Canada and many Europeans countries are several of the examples, but there are more
The problem is, opinions are like arseholes. Everyone has one, hence yours is nothing special. Do you actually have any evidence to support your opinion?
@@willnitschke yeah, dunno why you needed to preface with your question with that silly statement but you can easily look up all of this
@@TheColdFrontmusic "Google it!" just means you're talking out of your arse.
(I've actually done abnormal psychology at the university level and while financial stress can exasperate mental illness, I've never come across the claim that it's a cause of mental illness. Presumably if it was, billions of people in the third world would be mentally ill, right? So basically you just typed a lot of stupid stuff based on your wishful thinking.)
That is absolute nonsense. Becoming homeless does not "drive" people to mental illness; that's not how mental illnesses work. Many homeless people are mentally ill because of the cause and effect relationship that goes from mental illness to inability or unwillingness to lead a typical life and provide for oneself. The idea that trouble finding housing could cause someone to become schizophrenic.. I can hardly even believe that you actually think this. It's utterly laughable.
1:12:53 Mr Wolffs idea that all markets have government interference and therefore that interference should not be held up as a reason for the failure of a market (housing, in this case) seems fairly absurd. Perhaps I misunderstood him?
I’m in housing. The idea that the vast number of regulations, primarily zoning and primarily local, are just one more thing for the market to overcome is ridiculous.
Wolff is a dummy.
Is government interference why the housing market crashed? I'd say it was because of a lack thereof.
I think he's trying to deconstruct the idea that all failure of capitalism is state interference as most of those to the center or further right might claim. Not that it can't be a reason, but Instead that it's not an all encompassing reason, since many of the successes of capitalism were helped by government interference, and the very existence of money and markets in the first place is due to governments.
Mrs Loury --- well done!!
Fascinating debate. Thank you!
Credit to Glenn for trying 😊 used to listen all the time then discovered a complete lack of material analysis which Richard provides.
thanks for having Rick on!
Glenn needs to have a discussion with Bob Murphy about the Fed and Austrian business cycle theory. Make it so!
I like Dr Richard Wolff and admire his desire to make the world a better place but he often sounds to me like he is completely off his rocker.
I worked for a Cuban woman who bought a run down apartment complex, in 5 years, sold it made enough to pay cash for another apartment complex then she was able to send for her family. Come to find out her dad had an engineering degree but made more money selling fruit from a fruit stand. However despite fixing all the problems, day and night I only made 13 dollars an hour. That’s Florida
Great discussion!
I have such a hard time taking Wolff seriously. I have never heard him give any concrete way socialism will solve anything. Homelessness is not generally a housing problem, it's a mental health and drug addiction problem. We have already tried socialism. It's a disaster. Public housing has been a disaster.
He’s not a socialist did you listen at all
@@ogskullomania3119 Yes, and I've listened to him before. He is a socialist.
Prof Wolff always a great guest on any show
always a scam artist and charlatan on any show.
@Adam Jacobs your mother jp morgan chases my nuts
I understand that truths can hurt one's feelings from time to time, it's alright. No need to take it out on him, though.
@@deenzmartin6695 shut up.
@@JaimeNoro NO
Extraordinary learning experience !
Thank you for sharing your knowledge!
In every generation the young fall in love with Marx. Yes, Marx was correct about the flaws of capitalism. The problem is that the prescription of Marx (socialism) was a billion times worth.
Maybe the young have to figure that out for themselves, and when the older generations say "capitalism good, socialism bad, because we say so, just go along and stop questioning," that just makes the young double down in defense of Marx.
@@emergencyCALL911 The young have been told that socialism is great at nauseam. They do not know that socialism killed 100 million in the 20th century. Many still think Cuba has awesome medical care because they have universal coverage. They do not understand that socialism requires coercion.
@@julian65886 Maybe there are high schools that teach that and I've simply never been to them, but what I heard all through middle and high school was the opposite version of what to think instead of how to think, and all it did was make me critical of the position that was being pushed on me. I was fortunate enough to go to a good university though, which, while left-leaning for the area it was in, was an evangelical Christian university, so it wasn't ideologically captured, and aside from one woke sexist (a.k.a third-wave feminist) English teacher, the professors tended to be liberal (for the area, at least) rather than illiberal. Most of them took the teach-how-to-think-not-what-to-think approach. We were given an excerpt from the Communist Manifesto to read (in an economics class, actually, even though that was the most right-wing department on campus and probably the most right-wing professor) and instead of being told what to think, for the first time I was encouraged to decide for myself, and I came to pretty much the same conclusion as what you said above: that Marx had a knack for describing what was wrong, but sucked at coming up with solutions.
I suspect that there are a lot of college students going to more typical universities who are primed for anyone wanting to sell them on Marxism precisely because they've gotten so sick of having the opposite view pushed on them that any other perspective feels like a breath of fresh air. That's why conversations like this one need to be had. Anathematising an idea may work on some people, but for others it has the opposite of the intended effect.
@@emergencyCALL911 Marx analysis of Capitalism was brilliant and hence in every generation people fall in love with Marx. The solutions do not work, however, people Dr. Wolf think that they can do better than MAO, Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Chávez,, Kim Jun et al. The truth is that they cannot do any better because ultimately true socialism requires state coercion. The only thing that works in 2022 is the Nordic model which is based on capitalism.
@@julian65886 I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just saying that conversations like the one Glenn Loury and Richard Wolff are having here is a far better way of dealing with that than telling people they're stupid or somehow complicit in the evils done in the name of communism if they find Marxism or socialism in any way compelling, much less the sort of repression that went on in America during the Cold War. I'm not saying you're doing that, just that it happens, and I'm pretty sure it backfires in a lot of cases.
Would love to see Glenn debate an Austrian Economist such as Tom Woods. Not even debate. Discuss. Would be a delight.
Except for an enlisment in the US military in my 20s, I have been self employed all my adult life. I have barely afforded medical insurance (and at the time I was young and vigorous and had no major medical problems); I have lived without any medical insurance whatsoever (with the unremitting weight of the possibility of doom and debt hanging over every day and every life decision); and I have received my medical care from the VA. Of all those options the VA is clearly the most preferable. I voted twice for Barack Obama partly because I thought the "market based" approach of what ended up being called Obama Care was a likely solution to the broken employment-based "system" we have had since the post war era, and which has underserved or frankly abandoned millions over the decades. To my mind, no system that includes as part of it's functions a "pay or die" rubrik (which is the implicit devil's bargain as an inherent element of our for profit medical insurance system) no system so constructed should be used to provide healthcare to anyone. "Pay or die" skews the negotiation inherent to a "market based" approach to such a degree as to be untenable. There is no negotiation when one side faces death or debt penury, so there is no free market. Our health insurance system is a racket. Obamacare is a bandaid that-true to the spirit of such market based solutions-still leaves millions either wholly without medical care or millions more unwilling to use their medical care because they can't afford it. No society that cares about its people would inflict such a travesty on millions, for generations. If I were using Obamacare right now I would probably be homeless, or without medical care at nearly 60. Decades ago I was a Republican. Now I have voted for Bernie twice and am a vocal MedicareForAll supporter. Investment capitalism should have No Place in medical care.
The world has turned upside down. I am not left wing, but am also a double Bernie voter, and I agree with your statement in it's entirety. Who would have thought we would see avowedly liberal people wearing t-shirts that say "I heart pfizer" in 2021?
Richard Wolf is an envious man devoid of reason and logic but most of all any sense of biblical justice and presence like his model Karl Marx.
While you MAY think that 'being uneducated as all f-cking f-cks in the f-cking world' is a good argument:
we now have the internet. You may be f-ing allergic af to factchecking but what about Me?
You expect me to believe your big comment and your 'Socialism is inherently eviiiiil'?
You lost all credibility at "biblical justice" 😂
Good talk. I disagree on almost every point on both sides but it is always good to hear different views. My personal distaste for the style of Mr Wolff's rhetoric not withstanding.
Very happy to see this conversation. As always, Glenn kills it. I don't know much about Wolff but I know he is one of the prominent figure in the socialist movement. I've been wanting to know more about Wolff and to hear his arguments about socialism. Quite honestly I was little let down. I really thought he would have more "tricks" up his sleeve. His best example of socialist success is Soviet and China??? The reasons he listed as success indicator for the Soviet was not compelling at all. I have no idea why he thinks China is successful because of socialism. As Glenn pointed out, it was precisely capitalism which China finally relented and turned to(they started economic reform in small area and kept expanding over the years), that lifted more than 700 million people out of poverty. Glenn pointed out North / South Korea and West / East Germany as an example of comparison of capitalism vs socialism. I would submit two more: China vs Taiwan and Maoist China vs post Maoist China. Taiwan being a tiny island nation with no natural resources became an industrialized first world country while China is still dirt poor. 90% of advanced micro chips are produced in Taiwan. There was NO WAY that could've been achieved if Taiwan had adopted socialism.
One thing I observe whenever I see this capitalism vs socialism conversation or debate is the objective isn't precisely defined. What I mean by that is are we tackling the same problem in the same context? In other words, I think capitalism and socialism achieve different things using different measurement. I hate putting people in a group and give them a label because people inside a group, while have similarities, thinks differently. But for the sake of argument, I think pro capitalist and pro socialist are aiming for different outcome. The two groups' objective seems similar but there's a slight difference. I think BROADLY speaking, the two groups want:
Socialist - wants stability and have everyone taken care of. Zero unemployment and zero homelessness and medical care for all. But they want it yesterday. They think taking the struggle away from humanity will unleash its potential.
Capitalist - wants a advancing and prosperous society and understand there will always be volatility and a small percentage of people left behind but that percentage will get smaller and smaller over time. They think the immense completive pressure of the free market will unleash humanity's potential
I think the key difference is socialist want solutions and make things perfect now. Capitalist think about incremental trade offs over a long period of time. If we want absolute equality or at least perceived equality and hell with anything else then yes, socialism is the tool to get us there. But if we want an evolving society that's natural and organic then I would say capitalism is the tool. In any case, I'm gonna go look at some more videos on Wolff to get to know him better. Again, I really feel his arguments were weak. But I'll chalk it up this was his off day and plus he was going against Glenn. He needs to speak to someone like me who doesn't know much so he can look like a genius.
Lastly, I found it interesting to see LaJuan in action. From the interaction of it, it seems Glenn and LaJuan has this type of conversation on the regular but LaJuan still not buying what Glenn is selling. Hahaha. But good to see her here.
Wolff is a liar and a sophist. The reason why you don’t know much about him is because he is only taken seriously by other socialists.
48:05 "You don't solve inflation by slapping on price controls."
The Fed controls the price of money. If Dr. Loury's assertion is correct, then the Fed shouldn't be allowed to control prices.
The Feds shouldn't be allowed to exist in the first place. They are unconstitutional at every level.
@@mostlysunny582 Preach.
Great talk. And Mrs. Loury is a terrific moderator. I'd enjoy hearing you talk with other left-leaning thinkers. Some suggestions are Robert Reich, Chris Hedges, Thomas Picketty, and Yanis Varoufakis. If she were still alive I'd suggest for a woman the late great Barbara Ehrenreich.
The structure of this debate is Cornball. Richard Wolff is EXCEEDINGLY polite here. No laughter. Not much rolling of his eyes. Smart, ultimately. No doubt there are ears engaged with this who might be interested in challenging their perspective.
Glenn on the other hand (while snorting and huffing and sucking his teeth) is hilariously clueless about the terms in which Wolff is describing systems that produce economic growth. Yet he's allowed to just be comically -- LOUD -- wrong without Dick having the opportunity to set a correction.
This is how these Loury Stans in these comments are so "excited" to hear him talk about economics. Their hero gets to love the sound of his own voice regarding a subject he knows little of substance about (yet pretends to). Clearly. Almost none of Loury's bloviat....er, comments demonstrated a clue he understood what Richard was saying. Its like a skit. But yall go ahead and cheer your guy. Jesus.
It reminds me of Religious debates. So far the only arguments I see Capitalists have is "Capitalism = liberty, individuality, good ..." and "Socialism = guvment takeover, equal poverty, utopia, bad ..."
They refuse to see that the definition of Socialism is not "when the government."
hope to see more discussions like this
Great debate- the real star here is Luann-
For 90 minutes, I was waiting for Glenn to ask where has socialism ever worked? I thought that would be one of his strongest possible arguments. He had to wait until the debate was ending to ask it? I was trained as a lawyer (and a Pizza Man) not an economist. But my understanding is that socialism has failed everywhere it's been tried, on a large scale at least. On a small scale a socialist collective can work because it's made up of self selected individuals. Actually, a nuclear family operates on a "to each according to their needs" basis. But once you move beyond families and relatively small groups, socialism runs smack dab into human nature. Most people are unwilling to expand extra effort without perceiving a personal benefit If I get paid exactly the same whether I work really hard or do just enough work not to lose my job, why would I work hard? I believe that is sometimes called the freeloader effect.
The institution of socialism is largely incompatible with personal freedom because it requires the creation of a strong central government with the power to make the decisions made by the market in a capitalist system. It is at least theoretically possible for that central government to be democratically elected, but it usually devolves into a dictatorship. While Hugo Chavez may have come to power through a democratic election, I don't know anyone that believes Nicolas Maduro remains in power because of free and fair elections.
In the real world all economies are mixed. I don't know anyone advocating pure socialist or pure capitalists economies. Scandinavian countries that are sometimes cited as socialist success stories have moved in recent decades much closer to free market systems albeit with high taxes and high social services.
One of the chief complaints about free market economies is the way they allow and often exacerbate income inequality. The rich get richer faster than the poor and middle class do. I think that's true. Elon Musk has (or had till he bought Twitter) a net worth of something on the order of $100 Billion. But is that really a problem? The problem with focusing on income inequality rather than standards of living is that a system that puts a limit on the ability of people of people to profit from their innovation reduces the overall amount of innovation in the economy and innovation is what allows for increased standards of living.
So long as our economic system raises the standard of living for the poor and middle class does it matter if the wealth of the super rich increases by 300% rather than merely doubling? More importantly, if policies to reduce income inequality by reducing the income or wealth of the super rich will also slow or reduce increases in the standard of living of the poor and/or middle class, should those policies be implemented? I used this hypothetical example when I taught high school social studies. Let's say the class got to vote on whether everyone in the class except for Johnny would get $10 while Johnny got $100 or everyone but Johnny got $5 while Johnny got $10. The second option is worse for everyone, but it could be seen as fairer with Johnny getting only twice as much as everyone instead of 10 X.
Regarding 'when/where has socialism worked?' I think by implication touting how quickly the Soviet Union rise to be an economic power was the example. Of course, no mention of the forced labor camps, starvation, & theft of technology to get there was mentioned....
@@davidvanmersbergen5335 There is also the fact that what finally led to the downfall of the Soviet Union was that they couldn't match the economic output of the West. When Ronald Reagan began his very expensive Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI also called Star Wars) the Soviet Union not only couldn't match the technology they couldn't afford the cost of trying to develop it. At least that's how I remember it.
@@michaelmcchesney6645 Oh, yes. (Just finished watching HBO Chernobyl, it was posited that the event & fallout [pun intend] was the beginning of the end) Anyway, these facts about the collapse of the USSR should be known to this Marxist prof...That he ignores them is telling. Facts and truth have to dissappear for socialism and Marxism to thrive.
@@davidvanmersbergen5335 Anyone that can claim to have a degree in economics and also be a socialist is either lying or isn't very bright. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez talked about her economics degree when first elected to Congress. With her it may be both. Amazon was going to build a headquarters in Queens but she raised such a stink they cancelled the deal. She complained about tax breaks they would get. But they were promising 2,500 jobs at an average salary of $100K. They would have to hit those targets to get any breaks. Instead those jobs don't exist in Queens. Great job!!! The thing about socialists is that they praised the USSR until it was impossible to do so, then it was Cuba, then Venezuela. These days, Bernie likes to talk about Sweden except their prime minister keeps saying they aren't socialist. They have more economic freedom there then we do in the U.S.
@@davidvanmersbergen5335 It wasn't working ever. It just wasn't immediately fatal.
28:30 "They laughed at Milton Friedman at Yale" I find it interesting he said this after complaining his schools were censored for Marxist idea. The way I am reading this is that "Marx" may have been a dirty word but government intervention and control over the economy was not.
You think those who laughed at Friedman at Yale were Marxists?
Mrs. Laury, I hope I have a boss like you.
Great discussion! Please keep this conversation going!
Great convo, but some of these questions needed more time. I would've loved to hear Wolff's response to Glenn's critique of LTV (which has been refuted repeatedly by many economists, particularly Steve Keen).
Wolff is not capable of actually addressing the refutations of his nonsense. He is a grifter so read only is his setting.
@@ExPwner i don't think you know what grifter means
@@nukenfry I do. Wolff makes money off of lying.
@@ExPwner grifter? Have you ever read the 1971 Powell memo? If not, I highly recommend reading it.
@@KarlMarxFanClub thanks for proving my point for me. Even in the 1970s it was being pointed out how universities and media were being used as anti-capitalist propaganda. Wolff is just continuing with that tradition.
People and profits aren’t mutually exclusive either. What an idiotic username.
I appreciate this. Thanks for taking the time, effort, and thought to put it together. I just wish that it wasn’t in a “debate” format (no disrespect to the moderator; she was great). I wish it was just a conversation. I wanted to hear y’all dig more deeply into many topics, such as question about control over production. But overall, I learned some things.
I wish they would have discussed Venezuela. I lived there and watched socialism take over and it has been sad to watch. We have to account for human behavior including no matter who you are… money and power changes people.
Venezuela is interesting im just an outsider but i always thought that alot of Problems stem from using another Countrys Currency as the Main Currency. You can see a similar thing in North African Countries that were Colonized by France. France basically managed their Currency still does to this day i believe. So these Countries are basically producing goods for France its like a modern more smarter Version to do Colonialism. These Countries cant grow out because France can just Artifically deflate or inflate their Currency and Change Exchange Rates. There are Videos on this on TH-cam. Idk if its applicable to Venezuela but it seems to me that alot of Problems we can see are made by the West exploiting these Countries. After World War 1 Germany lost and had to pay reparations they got indebted to the winning countries that lead to every produced good being exported out of germany and the own currency would hyperinflate that leads to People feeling used and resentment in the population against these countries that lead to Hitler.
Bizarre comment, full of made up nonsense@@psydance4410
Unregulated criminals posing as socialists doesn't make it an automatic symptom of socialism. Greed is a human condition. The question is do we collectively agree to regulate greed or not.
I laughed out loud when Wolff said that gains have been made in the USSR and China despite capitalism. I'm trying to wrap my mind around the idea that the USSR is a positive story. I wonder if Wolff agrees with Putin that the dissolution of the Soviet Union was a great tragedy.
@@computer_janitor Thanks for another laugh.
@@computer_janitor that’s utter non-sequitur. Your reasoning is nonexistent here
Wolff didn't get a chance to respond to Glenn on this, but from another debate he said for a period in the 20th Century, Soviet Union's economic growth was incredibly impressive and more successful than most economies of the world. I only did a quick Google search to verify this, but it seems like it was for a time, between 1920s to the 1970s, had been the second in the world in economic growth.
@@nukenfry The Soviet Union did experience great economic growth in its early years because the Russian Empire was so far behind the West. Also, the Soviet Union collapsed in 1990 after failing to keep up with the People's Republic of China and its "Communism with Chinese Characteristics."
@@JonathanRossRogers You mean it's growth was staggering by comparison of others because of where it had been at economically? It's ranking isn't an explanation of growth, the mechanisms of action are. It experienced economic growth because it invested in its own economy.
Let a thousand flowers blossom was mainly just a gig to find the "reactionaries" who dared to critique Mao's dictatorship, in order to destroy them. It was the beginning of the Culture Revolution turning bloody.
Loury disavowed Austrian economics and ten minutes later used the phrase "road to serfdom" to denounce Nixon policies lol
LaJuan Loury makes an appearance! Joy!
Glenn literally got every single last word in every segment. Richard is so used to being screwed. He handled it well.
Glenn was like a dog on a leash which his beautiful wife noticed and tried to calm him down... typical of neo-liberal capitalist whom is living in theoretical la la land... of course there are going to be people at the top and yeah many will fall by the side BUT too bad according to him and yet he has the nerve to politicise an economic debate... lol
Debate structures are terrible. A conversation with back and forth and a moderator to perhaps end a back and forth when its gets circular would be a much better format.
Can't wait to listen to this. Thank you!
What a treat to hear Glenn talk about economics!
Life expectancy is getting worse every day in America (currently 52nd).
Also idk if this was mentioned but it's important - Capitalism has never had full employment no matter where it existed. Not even close to full employment.
Life expectancy is getting worse because the vast majority of people are stupid, and eat garbage food. One thing I will grant you though, Socialism is great for dieting.
And our wealth gap compares to other 3rd world nations. It’s unbelievable!
No economic system has ever actually had full employment, anywhere, at any time. Socialist hell holes like the Soviet Union, North Korea, or Mao's China may have _claimed_ to have it, but of course they never did and their economic systems were far less productive than their capitalist contemporaries. "Full employment" is one of those goals like "world peace"; everyone agrees that it sounds nice. But the fact that there is some small percentage of people who are seeking employment and have not found it yet is more a fact of life than a consequence of capitalism.
@@KarlMarxFanClub The gap is not what matters; what matters is the average standard of living within the society, which is extremely high in the United States. The only people who care more about the "gap" than about people's living standards are people who are driven by envy and resentment rather than practicality and a genuine concern for their fellow man.
@@therainman7777 over 65% of American's have less than 1k in savings. What world are you living in? There are on avg 132 suicides every day in America. Over 50% of homeless people are employed. Please spare us your American public education knowledge. Capitalism does not work. If you cared about the world and the future you should start there.
"I believe in historical examination as a clue on how to solve our problems now." ... but the Gulags are just an acceptable social issue you can brush off and every single failure of Marxism doesn't make you at least change the name of your philosophy...
Well said.
Just as many if not more human atrocities under capitalism via colonialism, slavery and nearly every major war over the last 200 years.
@@davidsmith5917 now name the good things produced by capitalism and communism. The advances over the last 200 years are unprecedented. Communism got people to eat their dogs 👍. Also, attributing all war and death in the modern world to capitalism is silly. Communist policies on the other hand obviously and demonstrably lead to mass starvation and actual murder by the state. There is certainly some of that under capitalism, but the concentration and frequency is probably important.
Thank you BOTH for this debate! I have a strong bias towards capitalism, but I’m open to hearing out alternative as it’s clear our system isn’t perfect. I’ve heard from from professor Wolfe a few times, but I feel this was the best place to hear his thoughts, and observations. I don’t really agree and I find his pessimism about capitalism a bit too extreme, but he has some very valid criticisms.
So much fun to hear this!
It's insane to argue that the gatekeepers of academia would argue against their own self-interest anymore than The Supreme Court would self-impose ethics rules on themselves...come on man...
I don't understand why Wolff gets so much publicity, so much traction, and keeps showing up to talk with some of my favorite people. He's such an intellectual lightweight. It becomes painfully obvious in the course of this conversation.
because the deranged woke democratic socialist types think he's smart and right.
Then it would be so easy for you to make a compelling counter argument to any of his many points! But instead you’re just worthlessly asserting that he’s an intellectual lightweight, despite his Harvard and Yale education and tenure, and the fact that Glenn thought he was worth having on AND agreed with him on multiple points.
Yeah, Wolff is the intellectual lightweight here…
@@Unclejamsarmy lol. It is easy. As loury demonstrated.
Or look up the soho forum debate he had with Gene epstein. He got slaughtered.
@@christopherarnold4692 Glenn is a heavyweight and apparently you have the weight of a piece of paper. You’ve contributed a lot today, take a rest
@@Unclejamsarmy his thinking is shallow. He refuses to consider anyone else's thoughts. He's rude. He comes across as angry.
There's just something about Richard Wolff that gives me a strong strong impression that he is holding inside himself tons of anger and jealousy and indignation. U can see it in his face, eyes, body language, and you can hear it in his voice as well as with the words he speaks. He's one of the best defenders of socialism I've seen and I agree with him on some key points, but in every debate of discussion I've seen him in it's like Richard vs The World.
Idk just my personal Bullshit psychoanalysis but anyway.... Absolutely brilliant discussion!
He’s Richer than you our I
Why would he be jealous
Capitalist are such thinned skinned individuals
Capitalists are those who outsmart and trick people and congratulate themselves in materialism and what accomplishments they produced. They reflect the image of preconceived perfection, great life.
Someone selling hot dogs from a push cart is a capitalist. Capitalism is the free exchange of goods and labor, and private ownership of capital. I sell 3D printed little miniatures, I am a capitalist.
Might want to use some granularity when describing a massive population.
Not being able to afford an apartment is not just about renters "needing to get their lives in order". It is about landlord greed and outrageous rents.
LaJuan asked the RIGHT question, "Can we have a kinder, gentler capitalism?"
I believe we cannot. Capitalist will always seek profit above all else, look at Landlord's, better still the oil industry lying for 3 decades about climate change, BP implemented "carbon footprint " to distract from their pursuit of profit above the planet
Greed is only a small factor in high rent. You want to reduce rent?
Kick out the tens of millions of illegal immigrants in the US consuming housing. Let us assume merely 30% of them consume a housing unit, this would free up MILLIONS of houses/apartments for citizens. Big business loves it's low wages which immigrants readily take though, driving down wages.
Speaking of big business, ban any business or it's subsidiaries/ affiliates from owning more than 3 homes. Stop Private Equity businesses from consuming housing.
Ban non-citizens/non-green card holders from owning property. Most countries we're friends with do this to us, there's no reason we shouldn't.
Thomas Sowell wrote a lot about this, high regulations, no respect for property rights and taxes is why landlords greed became such a problem. a kinder, gentler capitalism we already have it, yo make money by giving people what they want.
Absolutely great conversation👍🏾 I think that perhaps the answer is somewhere in the middle. I feel that there’s often this one rules over the other mentality, which has been a big problem throughout human history. I feel that Balance is Key.
I believe the 'somewhere in the middle' tradeoff was illustrated in this conversation by the example of housing vouchers. Providing resources for people to participate in the market is in my opinion the best solution for a number of reasons and has practical evidence.
By providing resources to the consumer, business are motivated to compete for their money. In housing for example, giving marginalized people money to buy housing will most likely cause the short term cost of housing to rise, which will stimulate firms to build more housing. This should in theory increase the supply of housing, which will have downward pressure on home prices over time. Mandating housing policies (ie rent control or restrictive zoning) will most likely reduce the overall supply of housing.
I agree. There is no pure system of government or economics as all have weaknesses that must be addressed.
Lujaun is such a lovely lady, and I can see why Glen loves and cares for her so deeply.
Thank you Glenn, you did a great job here talking unvarnished truth and common sense....