Richard Wolff on Monopolies
Vložit
- čas přidán 26. 08. 2019
- "This is crazy, what we're doing. Our problem isn't monopoly or competition. Our problem is a system that displays the transition from one to the other, during which we are overcharged for the monopolized goods, overcharged for the legal shenanigans in which they argue with each other for the umpteenth time. How many times do you need to get ripped off before you recognize a ripoff?"
Watch the entire episode here:
• Economic Update: Injus...
We make it a point to provide the show free of ads. Please consider supporting our work. Become an EU patron on Patreon: / economicupdate
Want to help us translate and transcribe our videos?
Learn about joining our translation team: bit.ly/2J2uIHH
Jump right in: bit.ly/2J3bEZR
Follow us ONLINE:
Patreon: / economicupdate
Websites: www.democracyatwork.info/econo...
www.rdwolff.com
Facebook: / economicupdate
/ richarddwolff
/ democracyatwrk
Twitter: / profwolff
/ democracyatwrk
Instagram: / democracyatwrk
Subscribe to our podcast: economicupdate.libsyn.com
Shop our Store: bit.ly/2JkxIfy
Prof. Wolff's latest book "Understanding Marxism"
Paperback: bit.ly/2BH0lkL
Ebook: bit.ly/2K6iI8v
And this is not capitalism going wrong.
This is capitalism going right.
This is what it does.
There was an advanced antediluvian civilization that existed existed before they start of the Younger Dryas. This civilization was decimated by impacts from the Taurid meteor stream which landed on the North American ice sheet and melted millions of tons of ice and plunged the planet back into the ice age from which it was recovering from before the impact. The few survivors of this civilization sought to repopulate the earth and this story is immortalized in the stories of Atlantis, flood myths around the world. Also in Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Native American, Amazonian, Central American, etc myths about ancient “divine” beings that came from a destroyed homeland to help people repopulate and teach them farming and construction techniques. This is why we see farming spring up in many places around the world simultaneously after the Younger Dryas. It wasn’t a discovery of farming, but a RE-discovery of farming. And Gobleki Tepi could possibly have been a center of teaching where the survivors of this past civilization passed on their knowledge to the hunter-gatherer survivors. The vast underground cities under the mountains of Turkey were probably huge shelters built by/under instruction by that civilization. As geophysicist and geologist Robert Schoch says the Taurid meteor stream could have also impacted the sun and caused massive solar flares. The ions from these flares could have reached the Earth and caused massive, widespread, and long-lasting thunderstorms, which would have devastated the land with huge continent-wide forest fires. The myths of the region tell of gods who warned the people of a coming catastrophe and told the people to build shelters. All this and so much more can be found in Graham Hancock’s books “Magicians of the Gods” and “America Before”, in addition to talks given by Graham Hancock and also Randall Carlson which can be found on CZcams.
@@dogeness what does this have to do with monopolies?
@@miguelthealpaca8971 It has to do with the commenter's nickname; and its a nice story I have never read on, which is cool...
@@sebastianshaw7448 oh ok lol.
Yeah, I've watched videos about it. It's very interesting and probably true. Ancient people were able to build the pyramids and Gobekli Tepe and lots of other marvelous structures and then later people couldn't. So there were clearly lost technological capabilities even if there wasn't a civilization like Atlantis.
Miguel Aveiro nothing lol but the guys name was antediluvian so I felt like sharing that
Please do a segment like this on rent seeking- I'm sure it will be highly illuminating to many of your viewers!
YES!
@Elevated Status you've just confirmed that my hunch was right about needing to do a video on the topic. Google the term. It's about much more than leasing a flat.
He doesn’t want illuminated viewers...
He wants dogmatized audience....
He’s not a Michael Hudson Richard Werner type....
This is about “energizing” his audience
@@augurcybernaut4785 What is the dogma here?
That all people deserve to live with dignity? That all people deserve not enslaving themselves most of their waking time? How extreme! I'm joining the cult.
Alberto T. Get this and let it sink in.... nothing he is proposing INHERENTLY stops all the things He(and his ilk) keep laying at the feet of capitalism.
Simply put, great for shareholders and executives, bad for consumers.
🎯🎯🎯
The essence of the struggle. Could this be overcome by making the consumers the shareholders. Every item purchased includes a fraction of a share? Just for thought-kicks!?
Worse for the long term sustainability or humans existing.
Worse for the producers. (Ya know, those kids living on 3 bucks a day who actually pull the shit out of the ground, make the shit, and breathe the pollution.)
I’ve always said this to pro-capitalists: competition under capitalism only exists to be eliminated. It’s one giant game of monopoly and in that game there is eventually 1 winner.
There is No other way, when youre playing Monopoly.
That is ridiculous. tThe very nature and heart of capitalism is anti monopoly but when the state takes over the means of production the a monopoly exists .
The ultimate form of success of every company or corporation in a given market is a monopoly.
Wait, you mean to tell me Capitalist CEOs don't wake up every morning and think "what my company needs is more competition"?!
Do you think a socialist government wakes up in the morning thinking "ya know what ", "we need competition" ?
Powers in few hands is Threat to Humanity !
There's a pretty easy solution for monopolies, when they get to that point, nationalize them and convert them into a co-op. It's just what makes sense considering the history.
yes comrade socialism is the final solution.
Thank you for your work Professor Wolff.
i'm not sure i agree about the tendency for monopoly power to dissolve. it seems like whenever a firm comes up with a replacement product it is almost immediately bought out.
Last statement is gold!
A smaller number of enterprises can also form a cartel to fix prices
Look at gas pump prices. Any time there's price change in our city, just about every station (and there's thousands) all set to the new price within about an hour or so. Doesn't matter the seller or brand name, it's alllll the same. So much for capitalism breeding competition.
@@mohmoony3918 I'd like to see a study that showed how much time it takes to raise prices vs lower them.
Dr. Wolff: we support your Democracy at work idea. Any information on how worker co-op handles automation and improvements that may be objectionable to members for the consequence of reduction of jobs.🎈
When a corporation introduces automation, it cuts it workforce down. When a cooperative introduces automation, it cuts hours down without cutting pay.
Here is an example: Corporate Factory A can introduce automation that double productivity, it used to produce 100 units of product and has 100 workers, now it can produced 100 units of product with 50 workers and fires half of them to save on labor cost and the cost of benefits per employee. Cooperative Factory B has the same opportunity, produces the same amount, and has the same number of workers, however instead of firing half of its workforce it just cuts their hours in half because each worker has double the productivity, however even though they are working less hours they still get the same pay (so cutting hours did not also cut pay).
Yes, you must do an investigation and its name is das kapital.
Alot of consumer products are sold by dualopolies.
Can someone please give a specific example of a company out competing similar businesses and resulting in becoming a monopoly without the goverments help, (i.e. making laws and regulations that only benefit said company), and then deliberately increase their prices to the public?
United States antitrust law
Well said .... however why not provide a leveling tax or follow the VAT idea such that the tax monies received are redirected to the public or consumer instead of the government, to help balance the gains and losses. Something like what some of the presidential candidates are proposing.
the final is great! It would be only better if you used coarse language.
I like mr Wolff's handsome voice just the way it is!
Good reasoning, Mr. Wolff!
Got a video about private vs public monopolies that you'd recommend?
Well it is clear the if the state takes over the mean of production then it is a monopoly.
It is also possible to experience the negative effects of monopoly even when there are many participants. This occurs in markets where the supply of the asset is inelastic. Land markets are inelastic; and, in the absence of an annual public charge for control over a location equal to its potential annual rental value, the "owner" is rewarded without effort. Speculating in land is, as is well known, a very profitable form of "investment" even though nothing is actually produced by speculating in land. Winston Churchill famously stated while campaigning for his first seat in the House of Commons that monopoly was the enemy of democracy, and that the monopoly in land was "the mother of all monopolies."
Edward J. Dodson, Director
School of Cooperative Individualism
www.cooperative-individualism.org
Umpteen
Watching a Wolff video about monopolies while reading an article about the possible tmobile/sprint merger; I'm yelling "BREAK EM UP." while these merger deals still keep going on.
Please do a piece on the exploding mortgage costs and assessors inflating home value to raise property taxes.
government intervention is the culprit.
@@trollpolice Corporate seizure of government is more like it.
@@McPherson123 corporations can only seize government if government has coersion over the populace.
@@trollpolice CAN only? Or WILL only?
We need more monopsonies!
For some reason, the government's a lousy example.
You will love communism NOT ! .... it one huge monopoly
OMG... i NEVER LOOKED AT IT IN THIS WAY!!ITS TRUE
The bad news: monopolies will still be a problem after workplaces have been democratized.
The good news: There is a very simple way to (partially) fix it. Ban all employee discounts so employees have to deal with the consequences of being greedy. Eventually, every industry will either disappear or turn into a monopoly. At which point the people in each industry can work together instead of against each other.
Tell me how much a dollar cost!
Oh like Australia's BIG 4 BANKS.
America only has 100 or so
@@timeWaster76 Only a few big ones, Australia does have small banks.
@@Gumardee_coins_and_banknotes My money is in a small bank, it is FDICI
Being a Pragmatist like Deng Xia Peng their are benefits and negative to monopolies. Dr Wolff point out that monopolies will eventually generate competition which will eventually dilute out monopolies . The problem with current Western Capitalism is that it is not Adam Smith's capitalism. The government, in the West, are dominated by the Corporate Elites who grants huge capital advantages to large corporations. Unfair advantages like huge tax subsudues, creating complex legal hurdle to private companies in issuing binds, etc.
Capitalism will always evolve to monopolise. Even if you could reset Capitalism to one that Adam Smith envisioned, it’s natural path will always lead to oligarchy, cyclical market crashes, monopolies and vast wealth accumulation in so few greedy hands......it’s what the system excels at and it doesn’t do it by accident my friend✌️
Ben Wong.......to put it simply. Capitalism, as system designed by rich people, so that rich people can stay rich people, whatever the cost to the rest of us👍
@@spiritlevel6901 Every system devised by man have within it, its own seeds of destruction. That is the law of thermodynamics - everything will turn into chaos unless energy is used to maintain it. That is the heart of dynamic pragmatism - any system must be constantly monitored and regulated. Of course regulatory errors can be made because the regulators are human. Thus no system is perfect and there is good and bad in all systems. In the end it comes down to the morality of humans regulating any system.
@@benwong4648 no system is perfect, but some are far worse then others
Ben Wong.......we live in a world that worships money Ben, money and morality are not good bed fellows. I agree that regulations are very much required to hinder capitalism’s inhumane end goal. It’s the influence of money that corrupts Ben, you are aware of that aren’t you? Maybe if we didn’t have an economic system that puts profit before people, we might not need so many regulations😉
Systemic injustice is cruel to all of us.
Would monopolistic intentions become lessened if say it was worker coops, I don’t see why a worker coop wouldn’t try and become a monopoly, thank you
monopoly is anti competition and without competition you can't have free markets.
Monopoly's never last anyway, not to mention companies can work togeather and form a oligopoly, but I have to agree, it is their political influence and blatant manipulation that's most destructive.
"Competition breeds excellence"
The is why the United States government has antitrust laws. And socialism is the state owned means of produciuton which is a monopoly
Sorry, having accountants and lawyers are a good thing, because it is boosting up the employment rate. The only thing that is not good is when these lawyers and accountants gets too much wages, which I think they are now.
Someone has to keep track of these things, and if it is not what it is called now, it is something else with a different name.
The problem is greediness of human and we need a system of balance with have everyone in check.
The problem is Classism which I see as the worst form of Bigotry due to excessive greed.
So called intellectuals are so focused with the linear Left-Right Socio-economic spectrum that they mostly ignore the Authoritarian-Libertarian spectrum which completes the political grid/compass.
Rampant Classism is a form of authoritarianism, which is ultimately idiocy (irrationality).
Citing Richard Wolff's worker owned co-op example, dogmatic co-op members can be even worse than a dogmatic business owner.
& obviously, many folks work for a business owner to help work on a business owner's capital because they don't have sufficient capital of their own &/nor do they want the hassle of being a full entrepreneur & everything in between.
Capitalist state/state capitalist
Monopolies are illegal, until you hire a fancy lawyer and convince the court that there are varying degrees of the word, then it gives you cover to proceed with a dam Monopoly.
But the video forgot to mention that monopolies also invest time and money attacking the new companies that could endanger their position, so maybe government intervention could be justified in some cases, because those monopolies disturb the cycle.
Of course, in the end, is as he says, futile.
do some reading
United States antitrust law
@@timeWaster76 do some reading. The law only acts when the monopoly is already in place and working, and there has to be a trial. Like Microsoft, Alphabet, etc.
And socialism is a monopoly and no recourse and no competition .... some monopolies are allowed under capitalism like city services...
@@lisakeitel3957 Do some reading that's rich
Show me where crimes are prosecuted before they are committed. . Corporations are regulated and closely monitored and warmed very often and remedies are negotiated before trials. Otherwise one company sues another.
@@timeWaster76 says you, that obviously don't know what socialism is.
But, Even in that case, they respond to someone. Private sector don't.
I understand capitalism by play game monopoly. From school and media didn't learn eniting. Entire system is screwed 😡
woof is right this time.... the anti trust laws are ignored
Socialism doesn't have the fault because it one big monopoly .
If the government hands the means of production over to the state then that would be a monopoly . But I love watching Wolff spinning in an attempt to rationalize the gross consistences of socialism then all attempts at socialism have failed to address.
Who is picking these thumbnails? Lol
Can someone help me out with my question?
So if this cycle keeps repeating it self, how else would we get innovations if not with this vicious cycle of competition-monopoly? (I've heard this talking point a lot, that "capitalism" promotes innovation) Is it not inevitable that in any other economic model when a product is better the demand for it becomes higher as well; unless maybe if we don't allow companies to copyright their innovation.
Necessity breeds Innovation, not Competition or Capitalism.
We can very well innovate under co-operation as well.
@@bagiee1 Nicely said.
Folks, Mr Wolff is pure intelligece speaking
Lol, you're so stupid.
@@jeffkeil1595 Don't self project on to others.
@@rafaelmelo2576 illegal alien says what?
@@jeffkeil1595 How am I an illegal allien if I am living in Portugal?
@@rafaelmelo2576 oh,okay. So you're my little bitch. Gotcha....
Juzus Christ. This guy doesn't even understand employees trading their labour for money, ...and he's a professor of economics.
Obviously a business makes more money from employing a person than that person gets, otherwise they couldn't employ them. The employee, however, makes more money than they would have done if they hadn't taken the job, and that money is worth more to the employee than the time it takes to earn it, otherwise they wouldn't have taken the job.
Thats basic...and I mean BASIC, economics
wow, we're in the presence of a brain genius here. so smart.
@@dmoneytron you think that's not basic economic?
@@dmoneytron you literally couldn't think of anything to say about the point I made could you. You just saw I'm not on your side ideologically, got angry and tried to think of something that might get to me.
Lol. Weak.
I agree ! the term Marxist economist is a total misnomer . Capitalism means I can market my labor and or I don't have to work for anyone I can start and run my own business and make money and even invest it is stuff like medical progress.
@@dmoneytron LOL well aren't you the informative one ?
If a monopoly jacks up prices, won't it go out of business due to competition? From what I read, Rockefeller's Standard Oil prices were the cheapest on the market, until the government stepped in to fix it.
My point is, and I think Prof Wolff alludes to this - Had Rockefeller succeeded, he would have no reason to raise prices, because he would own the market, and why risk this position? Government stepped in to gain new powers at the pretense of protecting consumers. In the end, consumers paid for everything, government grew, and Rockefeller was put out of business. Maybe Rockefeller didn't agree to pay off some officials to be left alone... We're always taught that Monopolies raise prices after they form, but I did not find a single good example of this. In school I was taught Rockefeller did this, until I went out of my way to find Standard Oil price charts, and saw for myself, he was just doing great economy of scale and his oil was just the cheapest available at the time.
The day Walmart hikes prices, is the day they'll lose their business to competition. Sure, maybe they'll get away with it for a few days, but as long as there's not too much regulation to start a supermarket, they'll get new competitors real quick.
@@marksight7833 You actually have to have money to "vote with your wallet." The bigger companies can sell things at a lower price until the competition dies or buy them out. Since the competition is too weak, the big companies can easily get away with paying the workers less, thus making people poorer and making it much harder for people to support small businesses even if they wanted to. The big business chains will also reach far more people. This also leads to more unemployment as businesses can't grow and the big ones outsource their labor which further allows them to suppress wages. The big competitors can make deals with manufacturers and collude with each other to further suppress smaller business. They'll even make a bunch of other businesses they own that trick consumers into thinking they're not supporting the mega corporations. And on top of that, even if you don't think that's enough to have a company gain too much power, once a company gains too much capital they will always buy out the government to support them. And getting rid of regulations is fine if you don't mind eating rat feces at the burger joint or dying in a fire at your factory.
This is beyond asinine. Competition DESTROYS monopolies, or more commonly, prevents them from ever forming.
It still allows oligopolies to form, that inevitably form a cartel
You don't need literally one company for businesses to gain too much power.
yall played socialist monopoly
LOL it's way to obvious for wolff in hisdideological maelstrom he is caught in .
There is no such thing as an endless competition, like the capitalistic propagandists say. Like at every other contest, sometime there must be a winner left (= monopolist).
Wrong
@@ExPwner capitalistic propagandists... I guess communist and socialist don't have propagandists in the same way socialism doesn't have bosses .
or just the same the state owning the means of production is NOT a monopoly ???
Capitalism...in a nutshell.
☼ you are just upset bc i bought one of every street, & then refused a rematch.
Name a monopoly Richard? Medicare would be one good example, assuming it was implemented à la Sanders.
Monopoly is not exclusive to capitalism. Also, you forgot to mention that other flip-side of 'capitalism'; the ability of anyone to start their own business, disrupt the 'monopoly' through innovation (Amazon, Uber, etc) and create an entirely new market. There's never any balance in your unhinged commentary. Why not do a video talking about all the failings of Marxism?
The thing about Richards videos is that he never really offers a nuanced alternative; he just points out flaws in capitalism, and then says the word socialism.
It's possible he's done a video in the past where he articulates his brand of socialism and the path we would use to achieve it; but that seems unlikely given his weekly content.
@mxt mxt I do run my own business and it is very successful - disruption isn't the be-all and end-all of a business and its not an overnight process. Businesses go bankrupt when they offer no value. Why are you so defeatist and pessimistic - you are clearly in a very negative place, but chin up; the best way to improve your circumstances is never give up (Its one of the qualities needed to run a successful business). Believing Marxism is still relevant in the 21 is doing you no favours - notice how the Marxists only ever cite manual labour jobs. However, this only makes up a small proportion of the working population, plus these jobs are largely being rejected by the labour market (low paid, mundane, etc) and are being replaced through automation.
Why do the Marxists never talk about how rewarding a career can be, something which transcends how much you get paid (maybe because they've never had a real job before, and are reduced to a blinkered view of the world emanating out of their university faculty)? I work in construction, and I can tell you the job satisfaction of creating environmentally friendly buildings which bring delight to the lives of those who live in or interact with these spaces far outweigh how much those involved got paid.
I find that the positive case for a rewarding career, and the flaws in Marxism, especially in the 21 century, are never presented by the Marxists, and that includes Richard. There is this unnerving bitterness, and envy which I believe only arises when you've spent your entire life believing in something which is no longer relevant to the world we live in, after all, why do current examples of 'capitalists exploiting workers' presented by the likes of Richard always refer to manual, unskilled workers? Probably because its the only loosely similar example which aligns with Marx's observations of the Feudal system back in the 18th century.
Marx's never lived through the industrial revolution, and now we're going through the digital revolution. Individuals are now capable of starting a business out of their bedroom and turning it into a multi-billion pound business which creates new jobs and new markets (Amazon is a good example). Marx on the other hand was talking about land owners and colonialists at a time when there was very limited social and economic mobility. He even worked in the private sector himself!
@@johnbuckner2828 I just question the merits of Richards opinion (or any other opinion) when its unbalanced and never self-critiques ones own beliefs. He criticised Jordan Peterson for having a 1 dimensional view of Marxism, comparing it to the Soviet Union for example (reasonable point), then claimed that Marxism is far more complex and is multifaceted, yet presents Capitalism as 1 dimensional himself and is guilty of the same limited/biased viewpoint going the oppose way.
@mxt mxt I just want to know what Richards brand of socialism entails. Critiquing a system is fine, but unhelpful if you don't propose a detailed alternative and a path to the final goal
One issue i see is you keep saying Marxism as if it is the only alternative when capitalism becomes a race to the bottom and the wealthy come out of each bust further ahead while the majority suffers. There are non marxist forms of socialism that have good points when balanced with carefully regulated capitalism. The key to determining which parts of an economy use which is incentives. The profit incentive does not work for healthcare.
And my Macroeconomics teacher in college a beautiful young Pakistani lady who studied in United States and I respected her a lot used to say: "Communist countries create monopolies and Cartels" 🤦♀️ mind you she respected me too and she loved my good grades but I always opposed her capitalistic ideologies of econony at least in my heart. SHE HATED COMMUNIST/MARXIST ECONOMY.
It's the same tactic employed by the Nazis, and the industrial tycoons, blame the crash of 1929 on the communist jews, instead of the capitalistic system itself.
Both systems create the same bad outcomes for consumers. What is needed is a balanced system that seeks to remain balanced. Unfortunately, humans can dance or balance for very long.
@@valkyriefrost5301
You're take seems nuanced, check my comments & tell me what you think.
@@rafaelmelo2576 the crash of 29 was caused by a freezing of the money supply. workers were still available and materials were still in inventory. just no capital available to incite construction and manufacture.
Yeah the history is absolutely clear She is correct. Look here socialism is the means by which a capitalist society is turned to communism that is achieved buy turning over the means of production to the state. Once tha is achives in every case black markets becaome normal .... but Wolff doesn't like that so he has to spin spin spin.....