Markets Don't Supply According to Demand - Professor Richard D Wolff
Vložit
- čas přidán 10. 12. 2011
- PUBLISHED ON NOVEMBER 8, 2011
A short clip from "Global Capitalism: A Monthly Update and Discussion - November 2011"
Original Video: rdwolff.com/content/global-cap...
.......
Professor Wolff's Website: www.rdwolff.com
Professor Wolff's RSS Feed: blip.tv/professor-wolff/rss/flash
Professor Wolff's Podcast: www.truth-out.org/economic-upd...
Permission to reprint Professor Wolff's writing and videos is granted on an individual basis. Please contact profwolff@rdwolff.com to request permission. We reserve the right to refuse or rescind permission at any time.
Why is it so satisfying to see Wolff and Varoufakis chilling together ?
Why do I feel like we just learned how a young Richie Wolff's first Thanksgiving back from college went?
👍🏿😂😂
Markets are not democratic. If I want to have a public transportation system which is better for the environment, markets don't give me that option, they give me the option to buy a car instead. Endless consumerism in a planet with finite resources, allocating goods and services only to people who can afford them. It's madness.
The government who run the transportation has to go to the market to manufacture the busses and trains, they buy parts, they use private companies to build and upkeep of the infrastructure. And you're a moron.
Public transportation began in the market and was co-opted by governments. Much began as horse drawn trollies and converted to electric trollies. See William's Omnibus Bus Line or New York and Harlem Railroad for examples.
Much of our auto based societies is a result of the auto lobby.
And its amusing how Dr Wolf uses the exchange of services of cooking a Turkey in for not having to take care of the garbage as an analogy. Kind of spits in the face of his point.
@@nomad9338 Democracy is tyranny. It's mob rule. Lawmakers impose rules on people that don't consent to them, under threat of violence. Democracy is just a dictatorship in disguise. All government is unethical because it seeks to limit my freedoms.
Buy a pushbike
To this with an Eagle Eye ;) notice the guy in the bottom left corner. He is a younger Yanis Varoufakis. A distinguished professor of economics and Game Theory from Greece. He nnow since 2016 has created a European movement (along with America's dad Bernie Sanders) to unite the world together.
It's so funny seeing him here in a random video of Prof Wolf
...Uh huh... out of curiosity, what does Varoufakis have to say about the Greek financial crisis?
www.reuters.com/article/eu-election-varoufakis/greeces-marxist-minister-is-back-with-a-message-for-europe-idUSKCN1SS1RS
"self-declared "erratic" Marxist"
Nope, no, I've seen enough. Distinguished my ass, I do more distinguished things sitting down in the bathroom.
Yeah, I noticed him too!!!
All the disagreements in the Comments section prove Dr Wolff's point: that we have been conditioned to view what "a market" is.
@Frederic Bastiat calling someone a moron doesn't make it true
what did he say that was moronic?
@Frederic Bastiat you obviously didn't understand his point, maybe watch it again and take off your rose tinted glasses
Frederic Bastiat You missed the point of the video. Wolff is pointing out why it’s ridiculous to have money exchanged for acts of love we all value during the holidays. There’s a contradiction between love and money exchange in our country.
Not that hard to understand
@Frederic Bastiat i think you need to check the GoogleTranslate Russian to English settings, Ivan. 😂
Wolff - like all those in the Socialism kindergarten he so well represents - confuses "market" as a distribution system, with "market" as demand for goods which are not provided by your sisters. LOL!!!!!!!!!
Can't you just feel the love for us all from Wall Street? Thanks Mom!
almost 10 years ago - still true to this day - change is needed more than ever
More than this markets do not even serve demand within the standard neoclassical framework. The only demand that matters is the demand for greater returns on investment. Consumer demand for the product (which maximises return) is just another of the technical challenges involved in production. That's why there is a thing called marketing. There used to be thin sliced bread, and sandwich, and medium, and toast. I liked thin for sandwiches, and medium for toast. Many years ago those loaves disappeared quite suddenly. I remember the baking industry (with one voice) saying "there's no demand". There was demand alright but the profit maximising output is for bakers to sell only sandwich and toast loaves (and ideally only toast). Fewer, thicker slices means more loaves get sold. Fewer different sizes means lower cost of production. It is not consumer demand that drives the market.
Charging for health care? That's disgusting!
Too bad that's not the prevailing attitude in this country.
You don't want to pay for healthcare? Are you a moron? Then why would anyone be a doctor then? It's hard work that requires over 8 years of professional schooling. What is this nonsense you speak of.
+Primetime
Markets are just one of many methods to distribute wealth. Not having markets doesn't mean people aren't going to work. Marxist-Leninist Cuba has hardly any markets (people are paid only $25/month on average to spend on the market). Yet, Cuba has some of the best doctors in the world, and Cuba provides more medical personnel to the developing world than all the G8 countries combined. Why are so many Cubans doctors if they hardly get paid anything at all? It's because they do receive stuff, a lot of stuff, just not through markets. Their education all the way through university was free. Their healthcare is free. Housing and food is incredibly subsidized so that it is practically free. Unlike the US where medical doctors have incredibly elevated levels of suicidal tendencies due to excessive student loan debt, doctors in Cuba do not have to worry about finances, only on getting their degree then doing their job.
@@amihartz Where are you ... getting all of this from?
@@Observer29830 I'd like to know too. A handy list of references would be nice.
Thing is, i've encountered all this before, and my googling suggests that it's true.
but i'd still like to see their sources.
Actually we think you and your kind are disgusting. Not our healthcare system.
There's a reason that stories/movie plots/comics villains are almost always a rich Capitalist. Because if you've actually tried to write a grounded a story that's set in contemporary world, and have it be grounded as best you can. The best you that can think of as villains are Rich Capitalists / Evil corporations. People who have sociopathic and utilitarian tendencies who can justify harm to millions of people coz they've already calculated the cost to benefit analysis. (Breaking bad Gus?, the lego movie, superman, the incredibles, Up, Heroes, Spiderman, Iron Man, Rampage, Resident Evil, Mr. Robot, korean movie Psychosis, Heroes, Kingsmen, Avatar etc.) Why do you think this is? Is it just lazy writing? Do the wealthy capitalists watch these movies and feel disgusted with the villains' calculating/sociopathic/anti-human behavior or do they feel symphathetic to the villains' goal?
The workers provide. The rich capitalists take the profits from the labour of their workers.
Now I wouldn't say they're all villains but some are like those who overcharge for medicines, price gouge during disasters, and basically try to squeeze as much money grom people without caring about the social consequences.
@Frederic Bastiat Again, you describe the products of labour, and of the government.
Capitalism is about who own the means of production.
Not labour, and not technology.
anarkijex
I suspect on some subconscious level, we all already know who the bad guys are.
After all, if you let people starve, or die from disease, because you make more money that way, you are not the good guy.
@Momento Mori Someone who willingly exchanged it for money. Should the person who made it be entitled to the profits of the person who bought it? No, that would be stupid.
@Momento Mori That’s dumb. It’s not like the person who sold is going to into debt if the business fails. The person selling the tool is not an investor, they’re selling an item.
Just Yani chilling in the corner.
Anyone got a link to the full video?
Is there more footage of this conference?
Published on December 11, 2011
PUBLISHED ON NOVEMBER 8, 2011
Markets supply according to opportunities to profit by expropriating surplus labor. Demands are not supplied where there is no surplus value to be expropriated as profit. Therefore, markets do not supply according to demand.
@Frederic Bastiat Well maybe, but you will always be worse off for it. Why? Simply because you are forced to sell your labor to someone in order to survive, and I will never pay you x for your labor even if you starve as a result. I will only ever hire whichever laborer "freely" agrees to do your work for min(x_i) for available laborers 1 to n such that laborer i charges x_i to render the same service as the others. If I refuse to follow such a heartless policy out of compassion for you, then any competitor who lacks my scruples will use his edge in profit to expand beyond my means and put me out of business. This is a simple case of the tragedy of the commons. It will only come to a stop just shy of the point where the labor force is no longer able to reproduce itself. Honest question: Why must every worker force themselves to pretend that they are "free" under this arrangement even if it systematically pushes them to the brink of starvation? This may sound like an exaggeration if you are sitting in the first world, but consider that industries based on little girls stitching rich men's apparel for a pittance in order to remain competitive in the market have moved to places like Bangladesh, leaving the West at the mercy of employers like service, technology and marketing.
@Frederic Bastiat I am not "forced to labor". In fact, I am personally in favor of labor. What I am forced to do is to sell my labor at competitively cheap prices. My boss is forced to hire me at only such prices on pain of bankruptcy. Leaders of industry are forced to support policies that keep their goods scarce to keep business profitable. In order to ensure that whole industries don't go bottom-up, workers are forced to function under conditions of scarcity. This is not nature's fault either. The earth contains sufficient resources to support many times our current population with a comfortable livelihood. It is not even the case that I will starve if I refuse to labor regularly. You see, "work" is not done by organisms exerting their life force, the elan vital or qi. Work is always ultimately powered by nuclear energy, primarily in the form of solar radiation and its stored forms. As this is the case, machines can theoretically take over most of the grind from me. I am a human being, and therefore a technological being, not a bird. So if the laborer, the boss, captains of industry and nature are all innocent, who then is at fault? This is entirely the fault of you, Frederic Bastiat. You and your friends push an interpretation of "freedom" that props up a system which renders it impossible for workers to claim their most fundamental right, the right to life. It is not physically impossible for humans to obtain this. If you, Frederic Bastiat, and your friends would only give in and admit that the right to life is a necessary component of the conditions of freedom, then we could have a society where technological development would create lives of ease for workers. In the one we have now, technical innovation forces workers to labor for longer hours at lower pay. But you will never choose to side with science because you are paid by those who profit from social inequality and are terrified that in a society which cares about things like objective facts and basic human decency, they would be forced to live like everyone else.
"Markets supply according to opportunities to profit by expropriating surplus labor. Demands are not supplied where there is no surplus value to be expropriated as profit. Therefore, markets do not supply according to demand."
Where a tragedy of the commons threatens our livelihoods, the only solution is a collective agency tasked with enforcing the treaty whose violation will ruin us all.
Regarding the rant about anti-intellectualism you or your friends are sure to bust out sooner or later: What passes for "rationality" in non-Marxian economics contradicts what we know to be possible in the prototypical scientific discipline, mathematical physics. The fantasies you outline are absurd consequences of the absurd definitions of "freedom" with which you begin your inquiry. These definitions make it impossible to design a system that optimizes for life over monetary profit even though we know that it is physically possible for systems to do the former. The only thing that needs to change is that you need to define "freedom" the way most humans who work for a living actually experience it, not how a spoiled brat decides to spend his pocket money. Therefore, you are quibbling over semantics. No serious thinker agrees that it is anti-intellectual to assign higher plausibility to the laws of physics than the consensus among non-Marxian economists, which resembles less a scientific theory than fashions that change every couple of decades. Even capitalists are taught how to actually organize production in business school, not economics departments.
PS. Regarding unemployment, I'm obviously talking about expanding the public sector, but you knew that already.
@Frederic Bastiat Show me one physics textbook which claims that payment is a law of nature. This is what I mean when I say that you are arguing semantics. You are quibbling over what words mean within a system that I'm proposing to abolish and ignoring my actual proposal, which is as follows: Capitalism pushes workers to the brink of starvation. This is a tragedy of the commons. We must set up legal machinery designed to optimize for the living standards of the workers, which includes collectivizing the means of production in the industries that are relevant for doing so. Making production more efficient is not my highest priority, so how are the other factors relevant? Raw materials, tools and such in the industries that are relevant for raising the baseline of living standards for workers should be collectivized to avoid starvation.
Of course, you could argue that starvation is inevitable because "human nature" will not let us live under better systems. However, by that argument, other outcomes that are inevitable and imminent include nuclear war, drastic climate change and/or the extinction of the species. Even if we are all going to die because we are a race of blood-sucking vampires fundamentally lacking in self-control, why not at least attempt one last flail at life before going under for good?
@Frederic Bastiat Clarification: Regarding the applicability of the labor theory of value to capitalist market systems, that is determined empirically: reality.gn.apc.org/econ/Zachariah_LabourValue.pdf czcams.com/video/Plqmx7j4nqk/video.html "Premises" come in with respect to the proposal for change.
Edit: Relatedly, you might also want to check out papers on the rate of profit fall, like: carecon.org.uk/QM/Papers/Zachariah_AverageProfitRate_v7.pdf
What a fabulous teacher you are Dr Wolff! Love from Sydney Australia.
Is there a link to the full video?
The original video is deleted. Would anyone help me please to find the original video?
Is that yanis varoufakis next to him?
Markets don't supply anything. Suppliers supply, consumers demand. Markets simply adjust price in response to these two forces.
Back in the very early days of the internet I got into marketing information products. I was lucky enough to be acquainted with an old marketing guru who'd made millions in marketing starting back in the 1960s. I remember him giving me the advice: "When developing a product, good marketers look for what's in demand. Great marketers look for ways to create demand."
You can only create demand if you satisfy a need
@@snipview8363 So all you have to do is convince people they need something that they actually don't.
@@mj91212 sure, you do this and they will forget about rent and food, and money is no object anyway. LOL!!!!!!!!
@@snipview8363
It actually happens though. So many poor people have expensive I-phone I will never have but guess what ? They cut into their medication, heathing and food to pay their debts. Why ? Because of the power of ads on people's mind. Denying a cold hard reality all the while claiming to be realistic. Yeah sure.
@Hiro Takkan 👍
On that last point, I have a point of contention, and that is the famous saying of Entrepreneurial Capitalists - "Sell to the masses and live with the classes." Simply because if all the other businesses are catering to the very wealthy, who by the way got to be wealthy by getting a good deal, then all that competition for the top earners is steep, the supply is already there, thus, if there is less competition selling to the masses, then an efficient and good business person will get incredibly wealthy supplying that demand albeit at a higher volume and lower price point. Sam Walton figured that out, so have many others - and Walton's business was all about distributing to the masses.
You've made no point, Walmart got wealthy by getting a good deal; exploiting labor and public subsidy. Using monopoly and monopsony behavior in a race to the bottom, driving out less capitalized businesses. Walmart is a horribly toxic organization that maintains and reinforces poverty.
@@gwills9337 Oh, please. Walmart is no more evil than any other business. Most retail stores pay their employees minimum wage. And people shop there because the prices are good.
@@nerychristianand since low prices are good, keeping people at minimum wage is also good. But it's evil. Following money made everyone evil.
Also selling to the masses requires low prices since they are poor, and lower prices mean even lower wages, especially as a small business with small capital. Which will make the masses even poorer and the prices lower.
The Varoufakis cameo was totally unexpected.
Is there a casual Varoufakis sat in the background?
Please elaborate how does that apply to the "dismantling of capitalism, or markets as a whole"? In a family, everyone does the necessary stuff based on planning, not on markets, but when you're done with the necessary work to do, you're allowed to pursue to passion in your free time and also do business. Does an economic model which holds all the necessary resources communal, and lets markets exist for the resources for that are surplus, qualify as an egalitarian model?
Well yeah, demand in economics always refers to one’s willingness and ability to pay.
I so desperately need to see the hole event with these two giants. Varoufakis and wolff at the same table, I need to dress properly in front of CZcams.
With our rising facism over here in Brazil I wish we had such charming and instigating Marxist professors with sense of humor.
Love you two, all respect for academics who go to the battle field.
Lula W ❤️
6:50: I'm not sure I agree with that. In a sense that is correct, certainly yes, but that's looking at it from another plane. If X on a Cartesian plane corresponds with 'Affordability/inaffordability' Y may correspond to supply and demand. That doesn't mean the market doesn't determine via supply and demand, it means that the scope of the market isn't infinite, but rather practically confined to a specific range. I would certainly call that helpful and useful information, but I wouldn't say it redefines the market, overwriting the previous definition; adding to it as it were.
Edit: what comes after this point in the video seems in line with my theory too I think. The outcome is just as morbid unfortunately.
Just the one thing I am confused with : Isn't demand the effective desire of a product that one has the power to buy as well?
Yes, this dude is an idiot.
My favorite part of dinner with the family, is when my mother makes me wait in line for 2 hours to request food. I know, I should have made an appointment online, but I forgot.
Demand is a technical term. Your entire point boils down to "it's a misnomer".
Granny didn't make the turkey, she bought it at the market. Then she served it "free" to her family. Therefore Wolff thinks all suppliers should give their products away free.
Clare Stucki No, just that markets are not absolute or objective.
very, very insightful points. much love
It depends what is being sold. If there is a huge demand that outpaces the production of an item then at that point demand will control production.
Only if the demand can pay for it. There's a large and growing demand for homeless people to get homes. Who's paying for it?
@@Matt-ww9wv There isn't a demand for homeless people to get homes. A demand means that a large percentage of the population is asking for it. But homeless people are mostly ignored by everyone.
Hahaha Love it!
I was Challenged By a Guy, Who Mentioned Austrian Economics, What is That anyway? I know it has something to do with Gold, But what is Austrian Economics Exactly?? Thanks Julia.
It's a logic system based on few axioms among which the most important one is law of declining marginal utility and subjective theory of value.
@Frederic Bastiat
The state has a big role in Adam Smith.... taxes should be proportional to the revenue enjoyed under the protection of the state. The wage of the labourer should not be taxed.
Adam Smith: Part II: On Taxes
The private revenue of individuals, it has been shown in the first book of this Inquiry, arises ultimately from three different sources: Rent, Profit, and Wages. Every tax must finally be paid from some one or other of those three different sorts of revenue, or from all of them indifferently. I shall endeavour to give the best account I can, first, of those taxes which, it is intended, should fall upon rent; secondly, of those which, it is intended, should fall upon profit; thirdly, of those which, it is intended, should fall upon wages; and, fourthly, of those which, it is intended, should fall indifferently upon all those three different sources of private revenue. The particular consideration of each of these four different sorts of taxes will divide the second part of the present chapter into four articles, three of which will require several other subdivisions. Many of those taxes, it will appear from the following review, are not finally paid from the fund, or source of revenue, upon which it was intended they should fall.
Before I enter upon the examination of particular taxes, it is necessary to premise the four following maxims with regard to taxes in general.
I. The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. The expense of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expense of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate. In the observation or neglect of this maxim consists what is called the equality or inequality of taxation. Every tax, it must be observed once for all, which falls finally upon one only of the three sorts of revenue above mentioned, is necessarily unequal in so far as it does not affect the other two. In the following examination of different taxes I shall seldom take much further notice of this sort of inequality, but shall, in most cases, confine my observations to that inequality which is occasioned by a particular tax falling unequally even upon that particular sort of private revenue which is affected by it.
Article III: Taxes upon the Wages of Labour
The wages of the inferior classes of workmen, I have endeavoured to show in the first book, are everywhere necessarily regulated by two different circumstances; the demand for labour, and the ordinary or average price of provisions. The demand for labour, according as it happens to be either increasing, stationary, or declining, or to require an increasing, stationary, or declining population, regulates the subsistence of the labourer, and determines in what degree it shall be, either liberal, moderate, or scanty. The ordinary or average price of provisions determines the quantity of money which must be paid to the workman in order to enable him, one year with another, to purchase this liberal, moderate, or scanty subsistence. While the demand for labour and the price of provisions, therefore, remain the same, a direct tax upon the wages of labour can have no other effect than to raise them somewhat higher than the tax. Let us suppose, for example, that in a particular place the demand for labour and the price of provisions were such as to render ten shillings a week the ordinary wages of labour, and that a tax of one-fifth, or four shillings in the pound, was imposed upon wages. If the demand for labour and the price of provisions remained the same, it would still be necessary that the labourer should in that place earn such a subsistence as could be bought only for ten shillings a week free wages. But in order to leave him such free wages after paying such a tax, the price of labour must in that place soon rise, not to twelve shillings a week only, but to twelve and sixpence; that is, in order to enable him to pay a tax of one-fifth, his wages must necessarily soon rise, not one-fifth part only, but one-fourth. Whatever was the proportion of the tax, the wages of labour must in all cases rise, not only in that proportion, but in a higher proportion. If the tax, for example, was one-tenth, the wages of labour must necessarily soon rise, not one-tenth part only, but one-eighth.
How exactly does that negate what he said, unless you define 'market' so broadly as to be meaningless?
Now I know why Ford, GMC and Dodge trucks are all $40,000, $50,000 and $60,000 in Canada. Because the top 1% just got twice as rich, and the market is giving them good stuff.
Simple point being that the "efficient" market-based outcome is not necessarily a "good" outcome. The efficient market will always exploit or sacrifice something to improve the lives of the suppliers, whether that's the environment, children, foreign workers, people's health, or the power of their vote.
Excellent talk, I love it!
Thanks, RichardDWolff.:)
Idk about half of what he said but I’m gonna keep watching these videos so I feel smartest than I already weres a munite ago
Supply is influenced by purchasing not income. The 1% thing doesn't really workout because if the 1% was purchasing twice as much they would no longer be the 1% rich as they would be giving their money to the other 99%
Except when the 1% supplies the 1% like it does in America
@@Mdash37 who are the suppliers though. Apple, amazon McDonald's, coca cola. They supply the 99% because of markets
Demand creates the Market. And supply along with demand creates the price. And all that creates the market.
But not everything should be market driven.
And if that is not Yanis Varoufakis at the bottom right corner, I don't know! :D
Riddle us this, Jean-Baptiste Say!
So the market is not a commercial concept that is dictated or defined exclusively by economic profit, but rather incorporates other considerations of culture, moral value or individual taste or aspiration! A unique gesture that reminds us of what many things in life are about: we are not some economic beings as a whole: we are simply humans that have many more and other interests in life, not only an economic interest, to extrapolate the concept--simple fact yet many profit geeks want us to overlook. Such geeks have to a great extent succeeded in doping us into believing that markets are holy, mystical and perhaps divine powers of their own that all other concerns in life are subject to and only could be construed as mere consequence of!
Thx YT, I guess...
totally agree!
Public Transportation is a good example of this. The Market will give you a choice between a Ford or a Toyota, it won't give you a choice between a car or a train.
What the fuck? Of course it does. If you are wealthy enough, you can buy a train. With enough money, you can choose between a bicycle, a skateboard, a car, a truck, a jet, a yacht, a helicopter, etc.
And the government does?
So, the 1% has ACCUMULATED the wealth, they don't SPEND it. Therefore, they do not drive DEMAND. They are actually the ones monitoring the preferences of those who do SPEND the what wealth they have so they can ACCUMULATE more by SUPPLYING what the spenders DEMAND.
Corruption analogy is null because politicians don't actually own the benefits they provide. Family analogy is null because you can't force someone to be family if they don't want to.
First statement is dumb. stock brokers don't own the stocks that are being sold either. Second statement is a whataboutism. In the social organization we call family the analogy follows. I can say people can choose to not participate in markets thus markets are null.
Even if both your criticisms held, it still doesn't negate the thesis of this video.
@@elchingon12346 I'm not criticizing the idea that people should be more amicable, just that it can't be done by force, because the family type relationship you guys are talking about doesn't actually exist. If it did there wouldn't even be a need to discuss this
@@harunhernandez we already have a mechanism for enforcing behavior in this society, though. If people don't conform to behavioral expectations, they're ostracized into what we call prisons, where they're totally removed from society. You volunteer to conform to the behavioral expectations/social contract of the social organization to which you wish to join, else the social organization rejects you. That you can't force someone to be in the family isn't an argument, it's a descriptive of a phenomenon, and fits fine into the understanding of how social organization works.
@@elchingon12346 the social expectation that you guys want does not exist in the first place. You want to enforce it unnaturally by revolution, right?
@@harunhernandez the social organization of employee and employer did not exist either. It took an Enlightenment to move society towards liberalism's ideals. That's a great precedent for conducting revolution.
My advocacy is to move liberalism to it's logical conclusion, not at this halfway perversion that we stagnated at called market capitalism.
"private business/corporations are totalitarian institutions and totalitarianism is bad, change my mind"
Where's the lie though
Forgot that it's a company for a minute. If you have a lot of food that you worked very hard for and someone wants it from you but you, understandability won't give it to them because it's yours and you worked for it. Now that same someone says he'll clean your house, do laundry, etc for the food, now you'll give it to them. A company is simply a bigger scale of this.
@@logical-brain- "all for ourselves and nothing for everybody else" is the motto
@@Mr47steam isn't that your moto too? Why not live in a tiny apartment and give all your remaining money to poor kids? You won't. Same with everyone else. Nobody has any obligation to help you, you are not their brother, father, etc. You are just a stranger. Capitalism actually unites you in this way, "you help me, I help you"
@@logical-brain- while it is the social consensus that to get ahead you must provide the worst service you can get away with, while taking the highest possible profit for yourself, then yeah I wouldn't share it. But if this sociopathic system called capitalism wasn't the norm, I would, and so would you, as we do with our family, friends, pets, etc
I have a problem you make single claims you blow out of proportion. You show valid reason why markets aren't effective in every situation. But then make a leap that they aren't valid in any situation. A family system is nice to keep a system running but not to make it productive. If we want progress we should not only reward the minimal effort required to stop the system ftom collapsing. Also this only works if people 'love' each other.
he was talking about supply and demand in markets I don't think he dismissed the whole idea of market's
Most of us don't believe in markets for the most important things - markets in family, markets in children, markets in sex, markets in organ donation, markets for laws, etc. Most of us can see clearly that markets fail radically in their ability to provide many of the most basic amenities of life in even a vaguely decent or remotely equitable fashion - healthcare, education, basic utilities, public infrastructure and transportation, emergency services. And an increasing number of us can see how dysfunctional other markets for the remaining quite basic goods are - in housing, or our abysmal global food system, or our unsustainably individualistic modes of transportation, or in how clothing is transformed by markets into a wasteful consumerist frenzy for ephemeral fashion. Nor are there markets selling clean air, ecological sustainability, distributive justice, workers' dignity and autonomy, etc. (although there are innumerable markets which destroy all of those things).
Somehow, however, the zealous apostles of unbridled free-markets believe with fanatical sincerity in the sacred "magic of the market", the invisible arbiter of all that is valuable whose will must not be questioned or meddled with lest it should unleash its wrath. It really takes cultish indoctrination to find that sort of market fundamentalist rhetoric remotely persuasive, when a moment's thought indicates that the usefulness of markets is inversely proportional to the importance of the task they are supposed to perform.
Says the person that literally enjoys the fruits of free markets every single day. That I'm sure buys a latte every morning at Starbucks, shops at various stores, drives a car, writes ignorant comments on CZcams with his computer. ALL VOLUNTARY FREE MARKET EXCHANGES. You're welcome.
Phil 556 look at that feudal serf! Every day he goes out into the field and tends to his crop. When he harvests he gives some to the king. The king, in return, uses his military to protect the serf from raiders and bandits. How dare the serf question the system that he 1) participates in and 2) benefits from?
Don’t base the quality of someone’s argument based on their personal situation, especially not on the internet where you don’t know them. We do not choose our countries of origin or the economic system we live under. You essentially say that no one is ever allowed to question their country or its systems because they participate in and benefit from those systems. Defining who is and is not allowed to question the status quo is a dangerous game.
Also, cell phones, internet, and coffee can and do exist without capitalism. The people who invented the internet did so for free. The cell phone is only possible through decades of government-sponsored microchip research. Coffee and milk existed for centuries before capitalism.
@@52flyingbicycles first of all, I'm not saying that a person shouldn't question the status quo or the system in which they have to operate. I'm saying people need to have perspective on how well they have it, generally speaking, compared to the world's documented history of alternatives. I don't think most people would argue that capitalism is far from perfect. But it has resulted in more prosperity for more people around the world than any other economic system, weather it materialises naturally among citizens freely or by central authority. Freedom amongst the people is always a better alternative then any system that is controlled. And the majority of the problems capitalism has isn't defined by its function of free exchange amongst willing participants the problems are nearly all born from government intervention, regulation that is unequally enforced, cronyism and and corruption. For most of my life up until the mid-90s, private enterprise generally wanted government to stay out of its way, but then there was a transition at least for me that I noticed late 90s early 2000s, when corporations started welcoming government intervention as a tool to control markets for their benefit. There are countless examples of this.
That being said, of course we need government as government conducts many beneficial services for its people but this has spiralled out of control. People should question authority people should question the status quo come up but they need to ask the right questions and they need to target their suspicion in the right direction. Capitalism is freedom. Born from a bartering system were people could freely trade. And of course at some point currency came along and greatly simplified the entire process. But I digress
To cite a few examples of things that were born from government development or generously given to the world freely is disingenuous. these examples are the exception to the rule, and not the rule itself. A person has an idea on a product or service that he thinks people will want, he develops it, and sells it for a price that makes him a profit. People see the product and decide for themselves FREELY whether that product at that price is worth it or not. If they think that it will make their life a little better or easier etc they buy it, if not, they don't. And if enough people decide not to buy that product that business needs to consider reasons why. Do people just not want this product, do they think it is too expensive? If there is no demand, there will be no supply and it is a very efficient and fair system. For some reason people have been brainwashed by talk of Marxism and socialism and some reason believe that capitalism is a dirty word. The definition of capitalism is simply "free exchange" as it's guiding principle. Anyone who thinks free exchange is a bad thing is grossly misguided.
Phil 556 people are not perfect automatons who make purely logical economic decisions. I bet you can think of several times you’ve bought something you’ve never used or otherwise regretted. That’s normal, everyone makes mistakes, but to pretend that’s what makes a market good? Madness. The best and brightest don’t necessarily thrive under capitalism. The most ruthless and manipulative make it to the top. People don’t really care that they can choose between 300 brands of shoes; they must be made to care through advertising. Capitalist markets only offer the illusion of choice - choice for choice’s sake. Free markets don’t make people freer, despite their name. Oh boy, I can go to Target and choose from 20 brands of shampoo! I’ll just buy Head and Shoulders again because otherwise my scalp gets itchy. I’ve never tried another brand of anti-dandruff shampoo. Head and Shoulders is just the brand my mom bought me years ago. Am I more free because I can pick from 6 kinds of anti-dandruff shampoo? Does that kind of power make me happy? No! I don’t give a flying flip about shampoo I just buy the kind I know makes my hair not itch. Capitalist markets give you options, choices, but they don’t make you any more free or happy.
Whatever though, shampoo isn’t that important. As long as it’s regulated so I don’t poison my hair or something I’m fine with the mild existential horror. Why bother nationalizing the shampoo industry - too much effort! Unfortunately, many markets aren’t so trivial. Healthcare. Housing. Food. Transportation. Those who have buy, those who don’t can’t. Being able to choose between 70 different apartment buildings is pointless if you can only afford the one with rats and asbestos. The cost to treat an injury or illness doesn’t relate to who can pay. If a rich person gets cancer, they get the finest doctors. If a poor person gets cancer, they are toast. Debt or death. Choice is only meaningful in a market economy if you have enough money to make those decisions. What good are a thousand restaurants if you have no money for food? If everyone makes more money, prices increase due to demand. That’s why people still struggle with bad housing and insufficient healthcare centuries after the industrial revolution. Market economies decide that the poor don’t get to have, and to the poor, choices don’t mean much because they can’t afford anything other than the minimum.
Additionally, capitalist ownership is antithetical to freedom. People spend 1/2 of their waking lives at work - their boss has authoritarian control over their schedules, pay, activities, break, etc. during that time. The existence of benevolent dictators does not validate authoritarianism. Hip-hopping from one dictator to the other until you find one that likes you is a sadistic way to run a society. Property creates class interest - and one class has the property (resources) to fulfill those interests.
Also- capitalism is an economic system that relies on free markets and private ownership of the means of production. Both are important to the definition. “Free exchange” has existed forever, that doesn’t make it capitalist.
Public research is not the exception, but the norm. Universities, government labs, etc. make the bulk of all material progress in modern society. Corporate R&D departments, which mostly improve production method rather than making new things, are paid by salary and don’t get the vast sums of money their corporation rakes in from their work. The owners do none of the research, none of the effort, none of the writing, but get all the credit. Elon Musk never invented anything. He hired the people who hired the people who hired the people who build reusable rockets and electric cars. They take their foundational research from NASA papers and university electrical scientists. The people at Tesla who build are only piecing together the last bit of research needed and improving production method. Still difficult, but people act like Elon Musk invented rockets and electric cars. He did no such thing! The progress of human society has been a succession of millions of workers improving on the previous generation’s work - not the unique genius of a few captains of industry.
This (my) comment is a tonal mess - no singular direction or cohesive thesis. I’ve only written things I can remember off the top of my head from a patchwork of lessons. So don’t take my word for it - I’m just some rando trying to communicate complex political theory through the worst medium possible. Find a real, well educated socialist, and chat them up. Don’t debate them (it messes with how you take in information), just figure out what socialism means and what capitalism means and why they think socialism is better. We are working with different axioms and we cannot solve that through CZcams comments.
Not that I expect “knowing socialist theory” to change your mind. Politics is a war of propaganda - not logical proofs. I’ll see you on the battlefield! 😎
Thanksgiving dinner is a great example of market exchange.
Dude's analysis is EZ in the ekonomia of the family, where there is no common medium of exchange (money). So what?
Maybe, try remembering and imagining that in many successful places people conceived of each other as family (imperfect as that is!) in an economy of sharing rather than robbing and hoarding? Could be worthwhile.
So maybe we should treat people outside our family as though they are family?
Traditionally, we had tribes where everything was shared within this extended family. Trading was done with those who we couldn't share with as we didn't trust those outside our tribe. I reckon humans can learn to trust each other and share, at least a little bit more than we do today.
@@miguelthealpaca8971 You bet! Where I live, groups of interrelated families (i.e., clans) either grow or make everything they have, and each gets their share of work and benefits. They socialize almost constantly to keep bonds strong, and administer their own justice (without prisons). "We" don't trust or share much because there's so little to create/refresh our real bonds in the culture, so only catastrophe brings people together. Guess we're going to learn (again!) one way or another! After all, who ISN'T dependent on everybody else to make their day work?
This is why I call the "first" economics "communalism". And, I believe it is the ideal distribution. But, exclusive ownership makes that impossible.
You can't live on love, you need a market for that.
Acts 4:32-37
Throwbacc7
True Christianity defined.
Tributes given as willing sacrifices... not as mandated by governments.
Wolff has clearly never been to Thanksgiving at a Ferengi house.
Thank you for your work Dr. Wolff!
forbid transactions in sex, drugs ect. that works well?
That's cool and all, but how are we gonna guarantee that all or atleast most members of society are gonna treat eachother like a family?
Do you feel the urge to hurt other groups of people? If not, we have the basic foundation to set up such a society.
@@acutechicken5798 no, but I don't feel like doing anything for them, "treating eachother like family" doesn't only include not hurting them, I hope you realize that.
When you charge mom for taking out the trash, dad slaps you. Better education and a little negative reinforcement go a long way.
@@52flyingbicycles Umm, no, that's not a good enough motivation especially to do shit jobs, unless you mean violence.
Professor Wolff might enjoy this article which seems to confirm "economic bias" in American Universities: www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/fatal-flaw-economics-funding/
Money is a means of exchange. In a family the means of exchange isn't money as it isn't as useful to the consumer. The mother provides a service in exchange for love. It's still a market just trading different commodities
Edit: it's not a market as they aren't agreeing on anything before deeds are done
@@kileyowen6275 what makes you think that gifts dont give some value back to the giver?
@@kileyowen6275 good point
Mama made the turkey because of the love and display of affection she gets from you.
Not in spite of it.
If you hated your mom and she hated you too and both of you never wanted to do anything for each other, you wouldn't be under her roof in the first place, talk more of eating her turkey.
And if you did want to eat her turkey you would have to pay for it.
Large societies are not related to each other so that mutual love isn't there to guarantee that when I provide a free service, someone somewhere I don't know will also do the same.
That's where the barter system comes in.
And if you're saying, "well why don't we just love each other?"
Because we're humans that's why, you can't legislate people into caring for each other.
7:10 starts to sound sort of zero-sum-game-y here. Just because someone is wealthy doesn't mean someone else has to pay more or consume less. The 1% don't stuff their money in their mattresses, they put it to work to make more money. Ideally, those dollars can't do that unless they find a quid-pro-quo arrangement to participate in. That means to make more money for their 1% owners, those dollars have to make money for the other half of the deal too. On unnuanced capitalism, the rich get richer by making others richer. There are endless reasons why that's an oversimplification, but so is Dr. Wolff's claim that "the other 99%, with 10% less of the income, are going to get less of what they need and want." I'm just a casual consumer of economic theory so I welcome other points of view, corrections, and contradictory insights.
Hiro Takkan financial services do generate real value. An economy as complex, adaptable, and efficient as ours could not exist without them. I don't know how much wealth is being sheltered off-shore, but it's clear that if the wealthy did not invest at least some of their wealth the markets for stocks, real estate, and other commodities would be far smaller. How productive is the average iPhone assembler now compared to how productive he would be working from his homestead. Without capital investment the labor of most people would be less efficient and therefore less valuable. That's why people move to developed economies. Their labor is worth more there and so they can earn better livings for themselves and their families. However "exploited" they might be, they are better off for it. Anytime I engage in a negotiation for a good or service I try to exploit the seller and they try to exploit me. It's not a pretty picture, but it's reaped fantastic results in terms of standard of living for increasing billions of people.
Hiro Takkan do you accept that specialization and division of labor are more efficient than each person producing their own goods and services? If so, how do you propose to have division of labor without capital investments? How is a manufacturer supposed to do their job if they have to first raise the money for their own equipment? They can get a loan for their machines and pay it off (capital investment) or they can sell stock in their company (capital investment). Whatever other ways there might be to solve this problem, it's a worthwhile problem to solve and capital investment is a perfectly sensible solution. To solve a problem for someone is to provide value, i.e. financial services can generate value. Marijuana dispensaries in the US cannot hold bank accounts because of federal regulations. They would like to be able to because it's more convenient then paying all their bills in cash. That convenience is the bank's service and it's valuable. Financial services can be predatory/parasitic but they can also be symbiotic.
You and I have a different view of history when it comes to China and the USSR. I think the history of state-planned economies has given us as conclusive results of their ineffectiveness as we can hope for. I'm plenty happy to leave space for various non-market systems to be considered and tried, but I find it troubling when the most demonstrable failures of that family of systems are held up as exemplars.
The view that markets are man made is a fringe heterodox view, most economists and social scientists agree: “markets like law are a product of man’s actions and not design”
There are artificial aspects to modern markets like patent rights and protectionism. But the loose idea of a market is natural
Familial proportionality is great, but generosity can’t be scaled in the way reciprocity can. The incentive structure collapses as high trust homogeneity turns into low trust heterogeneity. Law can only be scaled via negativa: prohibition on the imposition of costs. This allows for the most rapid adaptation of a people -> survival of the polity.
Joe Howard well, the deterrent against charging mom for taking out the trash is getting slapped by dad, so a little bit of negative reinforcement goes a long way when scaling up.
And since when has that been the definition of a "market"? Who came up with the notion that "markets" are as broadly defined as you say?
This blew my mind
It blew my mind too- On how radically stupid it was. This guy Wolff is a moron. You should read up on Milton Friedman or Friedrich Hayek instead. Get some REAL education on economics.
You're not alone lol.
Granny didn't produce the turkey, she just cooked it, and she only shared it with her family. Wolff thinks the guy who produced the turkey should give it free to the poop people, which would result in the turkey farmer going broke.
Yes... And the act of cooking it is the value she adds to the already existing turkey, and prof. wolff is talking about that...
I see the issue but he does not provide a solution.
planned economies
Che Guevara Is there a single economist alive who still believes in a 100% planned soviet style economy? I get the appeal of socialism or a mixed system but planning is dead. China and Vietnam figured that out a long time ago and look how they’re doing
No, he implies a solution- it's just a blitheringly stupid one based on a grossly improper analogy of what markets are and what they should be.
The professor is talking about the contemporary capitalist market ("I'll give you this cup of coffee for four dollars") in this video. If you want to say that the thanksgiving analogy was still a form of a market, that's fine, but it is not the type of market Wolff is speaking about.
If it's not the form of market he's speaking about, then he'd damn well better stop making analogies between the two because the comparisons are inherently faulty.
I feel like the only thing Wolff proved here is how similar social and financial capital really is. That sure leads to questions about how much gift economies would actually change stuff, but it does not disprove anything about markets and/or capitalism. If anything, it proves it since there are such obvious parables between how we accumulate love in our family and how we accumulate money in our economy.
I remember watching this video a few years, ago, when I was still very confused and remembered thinking the example was attractive, even though I still was uncomfortable with the argument (but didn't quite know why). The idea that the situation of the family he presents has any bearing on what a market is good for is for naive people. Thing is, parents and children have completely different dependence relationships. But they are also based on exclusion. If someone from the outside came and sat down at the table, and said: feed me, and you said NO, and he then asked: well, don't you care about whether I will go hungry or not?!?! So not everyone can claim the services/goods the mother is offering. If that were true, the model of the family would be untenable. Who is the provider and who is the receiver? That is exactly you see in these societies supposedly based on "compassion" and "care" and "empathy": everyone wants to claim that they can't work (or simply waste time) and everyone wants to claim that they deserve a bigger piece of whatever pie is produced and inevitably, distributed by government (because there has to be some sort of arbiter, otherwise everything would devolve into anarchy). So markets are the most tenable system we have, where people can express their own wishes through voluntary actions, and if they can't afford something (who is to say that they should?) they need to figure out what they can trade from their own productive capacity (either some labor or some accumulated capital, usually also the product of some labor) to get the things they want. Wolff's ideas are very attractive to the untrained mind, but do not stand up to scrutiny for those who have gone at least a bit down the rabbit hole of economics and thinking how to organize free societies where people are not arbitrarily coerced. Even the examples that he gives in other videos, of the Spanish cooperative which is supposed to be super successful, is not something new. People are free to start cooperatives in the US, but most of them are untenable because as you allow more people to make decisions "democratically" or have veto power nothing moves forward. There are some isolated examples that manage to survive, but they are ignorable in terms of share of output produced in the economy. But as a matter of fact, most LLC's are free cooperatives, where a few people get together and form a productive institution. The fact is that Wolff has very few answers for any economy. If the US seriously adopted Marxism, he would be the initial "sensible" guy trying to build the brave new society of fairness and equality, and would get quickly eliminated by aggressive, self-centered ideologues like Stalin once the beans are spilled on the fact that I can force anyone to do whatever "society" wants in the name of compassion, fairness, and empathy.
Claps to you, well said!
Sorry, but that's all flawed.
firstoff, the point of the clip was simply to show that a markety is not applicable everywhere. Not to provide a model of how the market should be replaced.
And second, you seem to have no damn idea how a co-op works.
most large co-ops work like a government. everyone does not get a say on everything. They only have a referendum on serious issues.
There is management, there is leadership.
But those folks are appointed by the workers, and responsible to them.
And if the mess up, they are removed, and replaced by others.
In many places, the leadership rotates regularly, so you don't get a class divide.
Seriously look this stuff up. It's on the Mondragon website, for one.
Wolff is totally wrong, because let's say that, for starters, the turkey is dry, and the stuffing has nuts and raisins, and it doesn't taste good, because it lacks bacon, and the apple sauce for some reason is hot and tastes like tabasco, and my dad gets angry and hits me on the head with a chair, and mom leaves home, and I go to my room to cut myself again, yes, Marx is to blame for everything, this would not happen if we were Austrians.
lol
LMFAOOOOOOO
Moreover, when we do things because of other people, we usually do them not to get paid, but for respect, self-respect, recognition, appreciation, understanding - or just for a smile. :) Not in exchange for goods or money! Neoclassical economists base their "science" on an absolute negation of what we know about humans, and this idiocy is taught in school.
I agree with this fully heartedly, a great analysis of this is “Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution by Peter Kropotkin”
I think any system that relies on people to want to work for the greater good is doomed. We live in an 80/20 society, 20% doing 80% of the work now. Take the profit away and your left with a bunch of slackers and saboteurs. It's always proposed by people who talk for there living. I've never met a hard-working man propose to even out another man's wallet who did not work as hard. This Robinhood ideal makes everyone poor and less free. But I support your right to say it.
Stefbot has a habit of even including family relationships e.g you choosing who to go out with or marry is akin to a market decision. So according to this definition there has never been a non market economy lol
Explain the iPhone, or diamonds. I just wanna smack knuckle head.
I'm not sure of your point. Dr Wolff is describing the society in which we live. In the video I watched he is simply describing the fact that in many exchanges we do not use a market.
Markets in and of themselves, don't "distribute" anything. Markets are simply places where buyers and sellers come together to make exchanges. Wolff wants the sellers who come to the markets to assume the role of charities, giving the fruits of their labors free to the poor and the needy. There is a role to be played by charities, but it has no connection to markets.
You're freak'n brilliant.
"Why am I going to pay for someone else's healthcare"?
Because we're a society that wants the best for each other and loves each other...
Oh wait. Lol
Victor Espino take the egoist approach. Why should I pay for someone else’s healthcare? Because they will pay for your healthcare. Mutually beneficial relationship.
@@52flyingbicycles But if someone is going to pay for your healthcare, and you are going to pay for theirs, why not just everyone pay for their own healthcare?
80's Nostalgia Guy because there’s a whole group of people who don’t make enough to afford the market priced healthcare and a whole group of people for whom the cost of the tax makes no detriment on their quality of life. A multimillionaire won’t notice the difference.
80's Nostalgia Guy efficiency
@@nerychristian because you're also paying for someone's else when they need it. And they're paying for you when you need it.
Everyone is pooling in their money
Who bought the turkey? I demand low costs of everything. Free health care and lots of holidays for good health.
Nice try but don’t love strangers
And one man can tell you everything about demand.
Bullshit. Such professor is a shame.
Logistic terms condition. This Jesus cross pitch guy is comedy woodie
Richard is a true economist. Proud to be a patron.
Family is not a society. Society is not a replacement for family.
How the fuck do you have a PhD in economics
I bet this guy doesn't want to work for free, he wants something in EXCHANGE for his labor
Families work on social credit instead of money due to trust and the small nature of the goods/services exchanged
This breaks down when the goods/serviced get pricey and complex (say, a car) or the people involved are too many or too far to personally meet, trust, and love
Besides hes not even critiquing markets hes critiquing the concept of money. Should we go back to barter then? And how many bags of trash do i gotta take out for the thousands of people who built my car and shipped it to the US to pay for it?
This guy has a fundamental misunderstanding of how the world works
"social credit" Still trying to make everything go back to money. Well no, sorry.
It only breaks down because the group cannot do it themselves AND that they operate in a system using money as a medium of exchange.
I've done for my family some work that would cost over 10K sometimes yet I don't remember ever asking them for a dime. Repaired engines and shit. Oh wait...They paid me...Wait for it....A gigantic 0. Waow.
Now yes You wouldn't do that without trust in a society based on competition however to try and say that "it is how the world works regardless of system of distribution" is non sensical. His argument is based on the idea that, since the market and money are not required, we should do without it and thus extend the same principle to everyone.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the world works because you think you get it all when, in fact, you're stuck in a very narrow view that far from encompassing it all.
...did someone say future generations are screwed? And, in considering time since the discovery of North and South American continents, relative in what is today called today the United States or any other slavery born nation, there has never been any consideration of the First Nations peoples with the theft of their lands or of the Proud African descendents and the theft of their labor. Thanks for helping me see.
For those who keep attacking mr wolffs dinner analogy: he is not saying families should work like the economy. He is saying that we can choose when to charge people for our labor. Ie, because we love our families we dont charge them for cooking or taking out the trash.
That said, his analogies are generally really awful and the more i try to understand his arguments, the more ridiculous they sound.
Dude, you'll choose to clean the house of a neighbor if they have an illness and they need help. But you can also choose not to if he's been a dick to you before. But key here is, you choose to help. These people believe that you should be forced to help the sick guy irrespective of your free will
Truptophane jn turkey maming people sleepy is a myth
Yep. It's carbs.
@@antediluvianatheist5262 i never said anything about carbs why are you oh the turkey myth!
@@ashtongrist because when you eat large amounts of food, you get sleepy.
Because large amounts of blood are diverted from other areas to do the digestion.
And the effect is more noticeable with carbs.
Which are invariably eated with turkey.
Tryptophan is found in turkey.
But so are the aforementioned carbs. In the spuds, salads, pasta etc that you have with it.
@@antediluvianatheist5262 so its not because of the tryptophane? I dont understand. He never mentioned carbs in the video... are you lying to me?
@@ashtongrist It's simple: he also fell for the myth. He was wrong.
www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-does-turkey-make-you-sleepy/
"Paradoxically, what probably makes people sleepy after Thanksgiving dinner is…dessert," he adds. "Eating carbohydrates increases brain serotonin in spite of the fact that there is no tryptophan in carbohydrates."
You missed out the whole point of families and markets. When a person is done with his necessary chores, he can trade whatever he makes later, a family member may sell his painting outside, or to a member of his family based on whatever the price is, bcz that thing is beyond whats necessary. Family members also have pocket money, and they can also run their own start ups after they've completed their responsibilities.
The communal ownership and control should be only for whats necessary, same as you join army, you train and learn for free, and in return give 10 years of service. But ur still allowed to do business after that, unlike north korea where you're locked up as a slave for eternity
What the fuck did I just watch. I get that hes haming it up for the audience but still, this was ridicilous. Yeah some market transactions are illegal and others are immoral but legal. And?
So much wrong with his analysis, I don't even know where to begin. How can this man say such crap with so much confidence, I'm shocked almost.