Would you like to ask Prof Wolff a question? Each week we answer 1-2 questions from our wonderful Patreon community. Learn more at: www.patreon.com/economicupdate
It might surprise you, but Karl Marx and all the original socialists were all Supply Siders. Their policies were explicit and focused ONLY on the Supply Side: The means of PRODUCTION (Supply) should be in the hands of the workers, not the capitalist owner. They mention nothing about consumers (Demand) because stimulation of demanders is never necessary. Just as Demand Side has conservative and liberal wings, so does Supply Side. Supply Side Economics is exclusively about how to stimulate more production. Karl Marx, and Art Laffer, are both trying to do that. It is a wing of economics which has room for every ideological viewpoint, just like Demand Siders. While each viewpoint differs on how the fruits of that production should be distributed, they COMPLETELY agree production must be increased to improve the state of all mankind. You also err completely by saying workers are on the Demand Side. Workers are Producers. They are Suppliers. Full Stop.
I have a question. How many millions of people died due to socialist/communist systems that failed? Under Mao? Under Pol Pot? Under USSR? Second question. Can you name any socialist economy of any size that lasted any significant amount of time that is a success? Would you consider a career change to cartoon voice guy?
The other trick with talking about either supply side or demand side economics is that it skips over the actual real question of "why do either?" With so many bullshit and useless jobs and in the face of impending ecological collapse, we should be talking about reducing the amount of work and consumption and give people more free time. Also should be talking about why we let people greedily accumulate useless hoards of wealth they will never use
Your talking about resource allocation based on need. The way I see it the only thing necessary is food, shelter and clothing and the technology to manage it's consumption and extraction as to no negatively impact the planet on a global, regional (country, state/province, city/town) and individual scale. On the individual scale it requires discipline with most of the west do not have. Also advertisement would be eliminated.
Wasn't "demand-side" "Economics" as for a very long time taught, universally considered cuz university taught back then, before Reagan in the 1980's changed the view on & reality the reality of, to the point of economics becoming uneconomical?
@@reforest4fertility sort of, yet awareness of ones activity needs to be made explicit before the situation can be exploited. For instance, supply-side is acutely different from laissez-faire liberalism in that Marxian terms are accepted for the sake of the privileged class alone all others are subjected to the free market.
@@0MVR_0 Well true, like multinationals can work the economies of other nations, but we peops often gotta get a visa -- & good luck getting a work visa, which prolly will only let you become an employee. Supply-side is poxmarked by monumental waste & serves the cause of hoarding.
yes, criticising the market structure for enabling capitalism is just as unhelpful as criticising the government for enabling capitalism. all structures enable capitalism because they all currently run on it. we need to subvert the cultural libertarian free market notion to work against monopoly. As history shows, this doesn't work in government, where no one could be held accountable and regulators are bought and paid for. Companies at least have to be profitable in the short term and actively consider or eliminate competing companies. Destroy capitalism the way it destroys itself every 4-7 years, by engaging critically in the perception of competition and leveraging capital against itself.
You see it right in front of you. The "supply siders" decided to produce and force the people to buy EVs, (electric vehicles). They are NOT selling. The people do not want these EVs, yet. They are NOT selling.... Even with substantial Tax Payer subsidies. It's 10 below zero outside right now. I'm not buying one. What a waste of borrowed money......
so economists called it "supply side" ,reagan called it "trickle down,"Veblen would have called it "the slaughter of the innocents".When i was in school at a conservative southern univ a lifetime ago,Prof Laffler's model or "curve" used to justify the Reagan /O'neil taxcuts was considered to be a self-serving,academic gimmick.Had I attended Umass back in the day,Iwould have understood the illusions promulgated by Neo-Classical and Keynesian economists-that "supply" and "demand" are two wings of the same plane-.the same model,the same damned dog and pony show.I didn't attend Umass and I didn't take Prof Wolff's classes,but these videos are helping me catch up.
competitive non centralized markets are necessary to mitigate capitalist accumulation. The fact that large corporations co-opted the frame only means they are afraid of its proper implementation. It is true that the same could be said of governments, though I don't believe a centralized truly democratic government could be acheived in a non equitable economy because of the built in incentive structure, as opposed to the marxist belief.
And speaking od demand & supply... It's funny how the Libertarians, the defender & warriors of supply & demand have completely disappeared since the onset of the pandemic.
There is also the important term "bargaining power". The supplier does not care much, there will be people buying his goods, the demander has the problem he might starve or become homeless if he does not buy. Everyone of us is forced to buy about 1500kcal worth of food per day, no choice whatsoever there. Same for jobs and wages, housing and rent and all the other things. The demand-side is always in a weaker position as they are individually forced by daily, weekly or monthly deadlines that *have to be met or we suffer dire consequences* . This diminishes the bargaining power which expresses itself in a pricing policy that openly takes into account that not everyone will be able to afford my product even if it is the most basic of things, because enough people can afford it, my stockpile will be sold as a supplier if i want to. Most people don't think about the actual purpose of markets and what supply and demand should do for pricing. The basic function is to supply the population with the stuff they need to get by. Many less liberal forms of pricing policies have led to famines in the past, either because the supply was to low or rotted in the granaries because of the bad pricing. A well functioning market shoudl supply *everyone* with housing, food and all the other basic stuff. Our current balance in pricing and market policies does not do that, it does not even pretend to try. It openly accepts that it should be an effort to be able to exist, to afford everything that is necessary, because this focus increases profits tremendously. Markets today serve the single purpose of maximizing profits, although their original function was meant to be an efficient distribution system with demanders and suppliers getting by as good as possible. Ressources, food and all the other things were scarce and wasteful management had to be minimized somehow. Markets should provide this self-regulating micromanagement to get stuff from one side to the other at a reasonable price that covers production and some income for the supplier and also provides the supply for *every single* demander on the other side. Ressources aren't scarce anymore, but markets are so distorted already, that we produce enough food to feed well over 10 billion people, but more then 30% goes to waste even before it reaches retailers. The profit is the governing motive that allows this to happen, we suffer from this mass psychosis that you cannot argue with maximized profits, as if they were a force of nature or a human right. No, they aren't, suppliers should not go bancrupt, sure, they shall have a fair share. So, how can a fair share involve wasting so much food globally that we fail to feed every person on earth although we are perfectly able to do it ? i think it does not, so we have to make changes and rebalance the markets and focus on strengthening those who come with less bargaining power right from the start. That is what a state should do, balance the interests and give a voice to the weaker ones in the system. Ultimately the quality and morality of a state, government or economic system is determined by the way it treats its weakest participants. Measured by this standard we are doing a terrible and absolutely inhumane job with our current system.
The best economy is when the government stays out of the way and keeps taxes low. When people are free to choose and have money to spend the economy grows.
Yeah until all the money goes all the way to the top and then stays there and then the money stops circulating in the middle and it stalls the economy.
And how do you get the demand higher? Give out money then saving money becomes a losing game. And the national debt goes higher causing more inflation hurting those you are helping!
It happens with agricultural prices. If production is up, usually it happens to all farmers at once, then market prices will fall. But in this case is more of a race to the bottom, because prices fall as a result of competition between suppliers.
Ask a dairy man or listen to President Roosevelt give a speech on overproduction, underproduction and speculation. Pass the government cheese, please. Franklin Roosevelt speaks on problems of overproduction, underproduction and speculation ua-cam.com/video/xRlyu71H2CE/v-deo.html The Worst Job in New York: Immigrant America ua-cam.com/video/QXUdozfL7iM/v-deo.html (Employment of illegal aliens by Dairy Farms to milk cows)
God, this one is particularly sad. After three minutes in, the whole supply and demand relationship ended up being a "them versus us" tantrum. Businesses are just as much of a demand entity as any private person. They need supplies to manufacturer their output and bring it to the market. This whole argumentation is pointless and aimed at dividing people even more by providing economic misinformation. You should be ashamed, a Professor shouldn't be this biased.
Some people love to be p!ssed on. Which wouldn't be a problem if they wouldn't walk around soaking wet, dripping and shaking their p!ss-bodies on the people who don't want to be p!ssed on. Some people like to eat sh!t. Which wouldn't be a problem if they wouldn't walk around with their fisting-hands full of sh!t, forcing it down the throats of people who don't want to eat sh!t. F*kc trickle-down peeconomics and the stank-constipation of crapitalism.
5:11 let's be clear, more than 476 million payments totaling $814 billion in financial relief went to households impacted by the pandemic. Exactly what you said should happen under "demand-side economics". All of that economic stimulus lead to an explosion in demand, whiched forced prices higher. Higher demand paired with less supply = higher prices (aka inflation) because you have more dollars chasing fewer goods. Look at real estate prices for example. Fewer homes + higher demand = higher prices. Personally, I'm thankful to have a job and an employer. Earning an income is how I put food on my table, it's how I've purchased a home to live, and it's allowed me to save money for the future. If there were no employers there would be no income. No income means no taxes. No taxes means no funding for social programs and welfare.
Many people chasing few goods available was one of the factors, but not the factor. Labor shortages, supply chain disruptions, and geopolitics also contributed to inflation. Tax breaks may spark economic growth in the beginning but in the long run the country has higher deficits. As a result, the federal government has to finance its debt through bonds, leading to more government spending servicing it's debt and leaving less resources available to invest in infrastructure, education, R&D, and so on. It seems to me that tax breaks is just a race to the bottom while others have to foot the bill.
Yes that’s true of advertising. But it’s also in the culture. Especially in the United States. Do you want to have certain status brands or labels to show off. If we are really truly educated in anything we are educated to be king consumers and exhibitors of our status - signaling possessions. And yes… Certain industries or basically criminal at their core. Snack food industry I’m looking at you. Coca-Cola and Pepsi I’m looking at you.
Thank you for that insightful talk Prof Wolff. I had never thought about how supply and demand are just tools of capitalism. If true, then I have a few questions about what we should do about it and how. I assume that's where we would talk about co-ops and democratic reformation of the workplace, but how does that help with the need for supply and demand and someone exploiting that for profit?
You were never taught that because its not. Wolff is a marxist, and failed economic system that has been responsible of millions of people dying and countries collapsing. He over simplifies the system and makes extreme points. Don't listen to this guy, he's a fool for thinking marx wasn't an extremists.
Here's an example of controlling both sides of the economic situation. There is one company that controls the production (Debeers) of diamonds. Even though they are Not as rare as people seem to believe, but they control the release of the diamonds so they can demand a premium price.
Prof. Wolff's distinction between suppliers and demanders is bogus. I do a blue collar job. I work and thus sell supply of my work to a buyer (my employer. It would be the same if I were an independent contractor, but I am an employee). I then use the proceeds of those sales to demand goods and services. Also the employer supplies (money, work) but also demands (buildings, trucks, insurance, etc.). We all are both. There is also no demand without supply. If I stopped working I would not be able to demand goods.
So, it is your Employer [that's why Prof. Wolff said they control both sides, supply of goods/services and demand for labor], the main different they get all the government subsidies and tax incentives while you ass starves and can't pay rent, when you don't supply your labor. Big corporate can afford to layoff people as productivity and innovation increases, while you cannot afford to not work. The demand for labor is always there as it is subsidized by the government, if you don't want to work that's fine, there will be other labor participants [immigrants or people overseas] willing to take your job for less pay.
You often talk about wage/price freezes to handle inflation. But when I hear this, wage portion of the idea rankles me a little. Wages are already way too low. I think the price freeze is a good idea, but the wages should be allowed to go up until they are at a level where they would have been if not suppressed for all those years. Would that work if it was only a price freeze? If not, why not?
He's not advocating, just explaining mechanisms. Personally, I favor limiting profit margins rather than fixing prices, as with a windfall profit tax. This allows markets to continue to function, preserving their ability to allocate resources somewhat more efficiently than a command economy. At the same time such an approach reduces pressure on consumers at the point of sale and by allowing us to redirect any excessive profit taking to social relief.
@@NotAPacifist825 Except the taxes go to the government coffers where they get distributed to the rich in a different way. If a business can't make the profit it needs or thinks it needs, then the business goes bankrupt. The only parties hurt when a business goes bankrupt are the employees.
Wage controls are the first used tool in communism. Job controls are next. Instead of the market demand driving work and wages the government controls it. This is why there is always limited resources, supply and choices in these countries. State planned economies always fail for this reason. Only idiots like Wolff and Bernie Sanders thinks that this works. Both have gotten rich off of people who will listen to them as long as they never have to live under this system.
@@robertprice9052 thanks for the useless, unsupported rhetoric. It's good to see folks like you trying to spread lies about people and economic systems to fan the flames of hysteria among the ignorant.
NLPers use vague language intentionally like economists. I think this show Prof Wolff is your best to date because popularizing Marx has a value in itself :)
Very important know that ECONOMICS as equivalent to Economic Science is not Equivalent to, and shouldn't be unserstood mistakingly, Capitalism or Markets Economy where the economic activity/behaviour is only limited to transactions oriented to sell in exchange of money. And this is why, in capitalist economies GDP only measures the products that exchanged for money. Excluding all products (goods and services) elaborated at home for the selfconsumption, voluntary works, good will services between people, example doctor help without money one frien or other person, etc., etc., of infinite examples of non profitable activities which carryout everyday but in capitalist economics neither study as economic activity, nor consider their real value which are more than their comparable that pass through markets. Example, people as a whole prepare more food, than what they eat in resaurants per unit time. They sleep more at home than in hotels, etc. So, only the study of house production for selfconsumption alone will create wider Economics than capitalist/markets economics. Besides, it is more serious than Capitalist economics, where included any activity, no matter how absurd could be or how bad/ damaging/useless it is.
Great question and very topical given the current circumstances in Ukraine. There are supply issues because of the war, but also self inflicted because of sanctions. Which ironically has exacerbated shortages but nor necessarily profits to both producers and final suppliers. Regulatory authorities are required to combat monopoly scenarios like the oil shortages. Government's Could help with reducing duty, price cap. In a recession demand side assistance with tax cuts for low income earners. During an upcycle increases in tax to curb demand and corporation taxes to curb overproduction.
There are many reasons why people study economics. Some seek careers and some just love the science. Since business schools serve the demands of the business community business curriculum's are almost exclusively teaching supply side economics. Which works for the career seekers. However, if you love the science not so much. I changed my major when I became disillusioned by the one sided nature of the discussions and curriculum's. To me it amounted to an indoctrination to the supply side religion. The religion of industry or as you put it the employer. The supply side preachers then go out into the world teaching a half science to the business community and the public. Though this process the business community gets what they want, but the public ends up misinformed. By ignoring the demand side of the equation supply side predictions are wrong or mis-attributed at least half the time and the science of economics is bastardized to the level of weather prognostication. Only worse, business propaganda. I feel that this discussion fell way short of its potential. No debate of the subject of supply-side vs demand-side is complete without a criticism of higher educations role.
@@chuckleaf8027 I wonder how much of that 40% found its way into stock buybacks and other asset price increases. That would be money not chasing goods and services in the consumer demand vs supply universe, no?
@@chuckleaf8027 Chuck, if you want to understand the weight of money supply in producing an economic outcome ie inflation. It is important to understand the difference between monetary inflation and price inflation. The current inflation is primarily price inflation as prof Wolff so eloquently points out. Most of the evidence points to corporate profits as the primary culprit. Not wages. Not supply chain. Not money printing. You have to understand that printing money is less of a concern when the dollar is the world currency. This makes most of the commonly used national inflation examples inappropriate. Propaganda of empire if you like. As the world currency, the excess money simply flows out of the US bucket into the much bigger world bucket. Not necessarily creating inflation in the US. Through a system of carry traders and the like the FED can quantitative ease beyond the US economy's optimal money supply without triggering inflation. The world bucket is the inflation upper limit for a world currency. This is why the QE's didn't create inflation in the US. A good example of some economists being totally wrong with their predictions. They practice a half science leading to piss poor analysis. Defining the problem correctly is the first step to finding appropriate solutions to real world problems. Money supply is not primarily causing this inflation and raising interest rates to slow the economy is therefore not the optimal solution. It will trigger a deep recession without addressing the core problem. At least not directly. The CEO will get the message a year or more from now when their corporate bonds have to be rolled over. The behavior will have a economic punishment, but the brunt of it will be paid primarily by the workers and it does't necessarily need to be that way. Pushing a windfall tax thru congress even without passing it will accomplish the same punishment/results without hammering the American workers into the ground. Unfortunately, supply side economists will disagree because a windfall tax hurts the supply side more then the demand side. As it should. It is all a failure of higher education's conflicts of interests with the business community relationships. This is an important topic.
@@donklee3514 So why wasn't there price inflation BEFORE the huge "monetary" inflation? You and Wolff are all wet. Certainly greed and gouging is happening, but without the Fed setting the stage, ie... pumping trillions into the system, there would not be high inflation. There'd be no increased demand.
@@chuckleaf8027 This is one of the problems a lot of people have with the term price inflation and the term price increases. Prof Wolff may be able to explain it better, but I'll give it a try the way I understand it. At a micro level of a single good or service the term should be price increase. Not price inflation. That is pretty strait forward. Prices go up and down, but at a micro level they are not by themselves causing inflation or deflation. At a macro level, it gets a little complicated. You are adding a bunch of micros together to get sum total. If one micro goes up it can be inflationary, but not inflation. If all the micro components go up at the same time it is a good case for calling it a price inflation, but not necessarily. Obviously, there is some switch over point in between the two ex-streams. When commodities like oil that are a key component of almost everything increase than prices increase across the board. It is certainly inflationary, but inflation? When CEO class raises prices across the board It is certainly inflationary, but inflation? Prof Wolff may be able to explain it better, but I gave it a try the way I understand it.
I have never studied economics but want so badly to understand it! I listen to many UA-camrs and understand a small fraction of what I hear. It’s like a huge jigsaw puzzle. Any suggestions for good resources that define common terms and explain how it all fits together?
Not sure why anyone wants government to control prices. Its the same nutty idea that was done in the early 70's during the oil embargo. Yes, SHORTAGES ensued and gas could be bought only on certain days depending if your vehicle license plate had an odd or even number.
supply-side economy would have teh proletariat gather in artificial abundance [historically by means of enclosure] thus cheapening the value of their supply [labor] Hopefully this comment is understood as a means to reflect on the subject rather than observed as antagonism.
Slogans like "supply and demand" are childish notions in the real world where criminally minded people exist with great deals of money, influence, and control of media. Imagine playing a game called "ethics" with an unethical person who cheats... who do you think will win, and what is the point of the rules/principles (or slogans) if the game can be played not as "ethics" but as chess by the unethical player who's goal is to win any way they can? These slogans are not how economics actually work and why would anyone choose to support a government or policies that only serves to protect the "might makes right" result? The very idea of government is communal and yet people accept governments that are the literal opposite.
Concerning the game theory, the result depends on whether cheaters go to jail as in a mechanism of benefiting the ethical. The terms supply and demand are more than slogans, there are reference points of economic priority
Free Market Economy machinery needs steady demand to run efficiently. So both suppliers and government will do all they can to nudge people to keep consuming. The government and supply economy don't want to see or hear deflation. But consumers must get wiser about spending their money everywhere. The more consumers fall for promotions and sales, the harder it is to climb up the sinkhole.
@@chuckleaf8027 In my opinion, Gov and Capitalism is very much depended on people spending their money all the time most of the time. If many people backed out of spending less, traveling less and working less then the whole structure might collapse.
People rarely buy what they don't need, or want because of advertising. People tend to turn wants into needs to justify spending. I'm sure you have a cell phone, but you could do without it. Maybe you need a cell phone because you got rid of your landline. Do you need an iPhone13? All of this is the consumers decision. However, no amount of advertising will get me to buy tampons. I don't need them no matter how good the commercial make them out to be. You are talking about saving and investing. I started investing at 17 when I joined the Army, because I was taught to invest in my future. Most waite until they begin a career level job, and don't invest in earnest until their late 40s and early 50s. Again its a choice. Not many twenty year olds see the use in setting aside $50 a month. Most think they can't live without spending it, and most blow their tax refund as soon as it hits their hand, but cannot tell you what they spent it on six months later. All of that is personal behavior.
@@BBBarua well your humble opinion is wrong. Actually the economy does best when people save and invest. Spending less and traveling less are life style choices. Staying at home will not crash the system, but it might help your budget. It you invest the difference it would help your retirement life.
@@BBBarua That's a full on Keynesian view. Keynes hated thrift, and hated morality essentially. Keynesianism is rife with post modernism and moral relativism.. it's nihilism... just spend whatever the fuck you got in the short run, and like Maynard Keynes said in the end we're all dead.
Those with gold, makes the rules. That is what happens eventually to almost all economies. Demand side advocates eventually turn to supply side because power/wealth when concentrated, becomes the ring of the Lord of the Ring, irresistible. USSR is the prime example of this rule recently. Robert Michelle told us about the Iron Law of Oligarchy: all societies are controlled be organizations which are almost always controlled by a minority who are at the top. These people perpetuate their positions. We almost lost our country to an oligarch super maniac on Jan 6th.
Oh lord! Start a business and run for a few years. Then go to school and spend thousands of hours and who knows how much money, then go back into the same field. Things will look so much different when you’ve had the complete finance, legal, HR, accounting, statistics, management etc etc experience.
So the best way to help both supply and demand side economics is to cut taxes? That way both the workers and the businesses have more money in their pockets to spend. Thinking specifically about trump tax cuts with the lowest inflation, interest rates, unemployment, and prices that we’ve seen in a long time. Cut taxes and everyone wins?
Supply side means if you reduce taxes economic growth happens and yes, employers benefit, but they then hire more workers. Everyone benefits (workers are also suppliers of labor and investors, if they have retirement accounts, i.e. capitalists). A major problem with Prof. Wolff's analysis is that he has these fake and incorrect distinctions as if we were all either suppliers or demanders, when in reality we are all both.
You mentioned a thought so profound skipped right over the top of everyone's head... "Since FDR". Maybe with a biblical collapse we can enjoy another FDR?
Historically speaking Supply Side Economics has always worked better for everyone. I have a master in Economics, and Minor in Government, and I can tell you are heavily biased by your political affiliation… but remember, the unions, Corporations, and other large businesses, have favored and been large donors to the democratic party for many many years now which would actually contradict your view, where as the right side you also forgot to mention benefits the working class due to lowering their taxes which puts more money in there pockets and more money in companies pockets and less money in the governments pockets… that is learned in actual economics.
Huawei supply, better, cheaper, demand for better cheaper Huawei everywhere. Than sanctions on Huawei, no more demand for better cheaper. The market is sanctioned. Market non existiting.
The mass of Americans want price controls? They want inflation to stop, but Im not sure most would want price controls. In a normal econ discussion, somebody would for sure mention that price controls lead to scarcity....
Using the toilet paper shortage at the start of the pandemic as an example. I saw that as a demand issue, mainly hording. A price freeze does nothing to prevent hording. Rationing, how would you keep a single person from getting as much as a large family? Raising prices deters those with a closet full of TP, leaving some for those that need it.
@@stevesedio1656 Backing up for just a minute, I'm not sure the TP hoarding should be seen as a demand vs supply problem at all. Maybe it should be seen as simply a temporary problem that needs no official "fix". In rationing, wouldn't it suffice to base supply on a household count of individuals, where in some cases children might be counted as some fraction of an adult?
@@RussCR5187 Where does the initial household count come from? How is it maintained? How do we adjust for dietary issues, or daily calorie requirements due to size or activity level? You don't like TP, pick another shortage, baby formula, hot sauce, ammunition, cars, homes, jobs, employees?
I hope people don’t take Wolfe seriously. Yes he bashes capitalism and praises socialism and until your brain is fully formed and you gain any wisdom at all, he seems sort of pseudo smart. I believe he missed his true calling. He could have done a lot more good in the world as a cartoon voice. Play some whacky old crazy guy in the toons. That would be a good use of his skill set.
I hope others join an org here. Join the Communist Party USA (since I'll mention that first), but also join PSL or FRSO or other orgs. Join a labor union or org as well!
Price controls lead to shortages. A focus on supply side economics would be more helpful for commoners than demand-side economics right now to slow inflation, because we want to increase supply, not demand right now. The inflation we have today is the working through the system of demand-side "trickle up" economics. It's giving people free money without any increase in productivity. As we have seen, this trickle up model hasn't led to an increase in supply, because simply wanting something doesn't necessarily make you work more productively to get it.
For competent people having this discussion, the supply-siders are normally designated as 'Producers' rather than as "Employers". Naturally, many producers are employers, but some are sole proprietors, some are partnerships, some are co-ops, etc., but Wolff profers "Employers", because he loves to demonize them as being "undemocratic".
They hardly need demonizing, if you spend one minute recalling the history of their actions. "Producers" is a lie - the workers produce. Employers own and appropriate wage surplus they didn't earn or work for
@@5508Vanderdekken Workers like to pretend they are the source of all the production, but thats a big lie. Entrepreneurian/managerial skill and capital are bothe FAR more productive than unskilled labor.
@@clarestucki5151 lol have fun making it all by yourself. What managerial skill laid the tracks and dug the tunnels for the railroads? Plowed and sowed the Midwest? No matter how many libertarian rags or ayn rand novels you read businesses don't function without workers
Yes it is It is purely capitalist because it is production for profit ONLY it is not communist because it is not production for use ONLY GOT IT NO OW? Professor Wolff has destroyed your Heroes like Jordan Peterson, Milton Friedman all of them
@@kevintewey1157 you managed to be wrong in three different ways. Capitalism is not defined as system that only is concerned with profit. You also said that I think that we are in a communist system. Lastly you stated that my heroes are Milton Friedman and Jordan Peterson. All three of these statements are completely incorrect. If you think they are correct, why don't you provide some evidence.
@@user-wp8yx you're not coming out and telling us what you believe capitalism is only concerned with profit and that's a fact you have no proof otherwise you can make statements but you can't back up your claim no research no right to speak
@@user-wp8yx if you think that capitalists provide a free-market or that their interest are a free market why do 65% of the us know that the stock market is rigged why did only 10% of the US own 80% of the stocks?
The government has largely been captured by moneyed interests the federal institutions could stop themselves from being a problem if private banking firms ceased lobbying the treasury.
Yeah. Seems to me they had a tea party in Boston too, many years ago. The Ambassadors don't need $20M worth of cheese for whine and cheese parties. ua-cam.com/video/TPtScI_O_fc/v-deo.html The Worst Job In New York: Immigrant America ( 7 years ago) How big government helps big dairy sell milk (6 years ago) America Has Too Much Milk ( 6 years ago) The U.S. cheese surplus is freaking people out (6 years ago) ua-cam.com/video/JuTh9dJJFuc/v-deo.html How the Government Works with Fast Food to Push Cheese (5 years ago) End The Massive US Dairy Industry Welfare Scam (May 10, 2017) Canadian Dairy Farmers in Trump's Crosshairs (5 years ago) Canada's ambassador to the U.S. 'happy to defend' dairy supply management ( 5 years ago) Iowa Dairy Farms Depend on the Immigrant Labor Force (5 years ago) US dairy farmers caught in middle of trade fight with Canada ( 5 years ago) Farmers Dumping Millions of Gallons of Milk Amid Glut (5 years ago) US government buys $20M worth of cheese (5 years ago) US milk prices fall to lowest level in years | Money Talks ( 4 years ago) Why milk from the US is banned around the world ( 4 years ago) Once-Booming New York Dairy Industry Now Struggling To Survive ( 4 years ago) US Dairy Exports Decline Due to International Trade Dispute (3 years ago) Got Milk? Canada and the US Clash Over Dairy ( 3 years ago) How Government Cheese Became Welfare For Farmers (3 years ago) Why American Farmers Are Dumping Milk (2 years ago) Milk surplus leads to hundreds of thousands of gallons of milk dumped (2 years ago) Wisconsin dairy farmers are struggling to stay afloat ( 2 years ago) New trade deals are good for dairy industry: U.S. Dairy Export Council CEO ( 2 years ago) Farmers say local cheese is the solution to dairy crisis ( 2 years ago) This is how the dairy industry lied to the world ( 1 year ago) The Rise And Fall Of Milk | Rise And Fall ( 7 months ago) RFDTV - Canada and the US claim victory in USMCA dispute panel decision on Dairy TRQ allocations ( 5 months ago) Franklin Roosevelt speaks on problems of overproduction, underproduction and spec...HD Stock Footage (posted 8 years ago) "US President Franklin Roosevelt delivers his Annual Message to Congress in Washington DC, USA. In his speech he makes the following remarks, 'Loss to society comes from reckless overproduction and monopolistic underproduction of natural and manufactured commodities. Overproduction, underproduction and speculation are three evil problems that result in unsound inflation and disastrous deflation. Government should help private enterprise to gain sound general price levels and to prevent perilous fluctuations in the prices'. Location: Washington DC. Date: January 6, 1937."
Would you like to ask Prof Wolff a question?
Each week we answer 1-2 questions from our wonderful Patreon community.
Learn more at: www.patreon.com/economicupdate
It might surprise you, but Karl Marx and all the original socialists were all Supply Siders. Their policies were explicit and focused ONLY on the Supply Side: The means of PRODUCTION (Supply) should be in the hands of the workers, not the capitalist owner. They mention nothing about consumers (Demand) because stimulation of demanders is never necessary.
Just as Demand Side has conservative and liberal wings, so does Supply Side. Supply Side Economics is exclusively about how to stimulate more production. Karl Marx, and Art Laffer, are both trying to do that. It is a wing of economics which has room for every ideological viewpoint, just like Demand Siders. While each viewpoint differs on how the fruits of that production should be distributed, they COMPLETELY agree production must be increased to improve the state of all mankind.
You also err completely by saying workers are on the Demand Side. Workers are Producers. They are Suppliers. Full Stop.
I have a question. How many millions of people died due to socialist/communist systems that failed? Under Mao? Under Pol Pot? Under USSR?
Second question. Can you name any socialist economy of any size that lasted any significant amount of time that is a success?
Would you consider a career change to cartoon voice guy?
Came in only needing to know what supply side was, came out knowing and having a even greater grasp on demand side. thanks.
The other trick with talking about either supply side or demand side economics is that it skips over the actual real question of "why do either?" With so many bullshit and useless jobs and in the face of impending ecological collapse, we should be talking about reducing the amount of work and consumption and give people more free time. Also should be talking about why we let people greedily accumulate useless hoards of wealth they will never use
Indeed! Fidget spinners are an amazing example of this! Can you imagine the productive use that all those bearing sets could have been used for? ! 🤬
100% Truth!
Your talking about resource allocation based on need. The way I see it the only thing necessary is food, shelter and clothing and the technology to manage it's consumption and extraction as to no negatively impact the planet on a global, regional (country, state/province, city/town) and individual scale. On the individual scale it requires discipline with most of the west do not have. Also advertisement would be eliminated.
I agree we need a "revolution of the minds"
Question is - who makes the decision?
*Demand-side is best implemented by a democratic workplace.*
Wasn't "demand-side" "Economics" as for a very long time taught, universally considered cuz university taught back then, before Reagan in the 1980's changed the view on & reality the reality of, to the point of economics becoming uneconomical?
@@reforest4fertility sort of,
yet awareness of ones activity needs to be made explicit before the situation can be exploited.
For instance, supply-side is acutely different from laissez-faire liberalism in that Marxian terms are accepted for the sake of the privileged class alone
all others are subjected to the free market.
@@0MVR_0 Well true, like multinationals can work the economies of other nations, but we peops often gotta get a visa -- & good luck getting a work visa, which prolly will only let you become an employee. Supply-side is poxmarked by monumental waste & serves the cause of hoarding.
yes, criticising the market structure for enabling capitalism is just as unhelpful as criticising the government for enabling capitalism. all structures enable capitalism because they all currently run on it. we need to subvert the cultural libertarian free market notion to work against monopoly. As history shows, this doesn't work in government, where no one could be held accountable and regulators are bought and paid for. Companies at least have to be profitable in the short term and actively consider or eliminate competing companies. Destroy capitalism the way it destroys itself every 4-7 years, by engaging critically in the perception of competition and leveraging capital against itself.
You see it right in front of you. The "supply siders" decided to produce and force the people to buy EVs, (electric vehicles). They are NOT selling. The people do not want these EVs, yet. They are NOT selling.... Even with substantial Tax Payer subsidies.
It's 10 below zero outside right now. I'm not buying one.
What a waste of borrowed money......
so economists called it "supply side" ,reagan called it "trickle down,"Veblen would have called it "the slaughter of the innocents".When i was in school at a conservative southern univ a lifetime ago,Prof Laffler's model or "curve" used to justify the Reagan /O'neil taxcuts was considered to be a self-serving,academic gimmick.Had I attended Umass back in the day,Iwould have understood the illusions promulgated by Neo-Classical and Keynesian economists-that "supply" and "demand" are two wings of the same plane-.the same model,the same damned dog and pony show.I didn't attend Umass and I didn't take Prof Wolff's classes,but these videos are helping me catch up.
If it's just greedy employers, why weren't they raising prices thru the roof before covid?
competitive non centralized markets are necessary to mitigate capitalist accumulation. The fact that large corporations co-opted the frame only means they are afraid of its proper implementation. It is true that the same could be said of governments, though I don't believe a centralized truly democratic government could be acheived in a non equitable economy because of the built in incentive structure, as opposed to the marxist belief.
And speaking od demand & supply... It's funny how the Libertarians, the defender & warriors of supply & demand have completely disappeared since the onset of the pandemic.
There is also the important term "bargaining power". The supplier does not care much, there will be people buying his goods, the demander has the problem he might starve or become homeless if he does not buy. Everyone of us is forced to buy about 1500kcal worth of food per day, no choice whatsoever there. Same for jobs and wages, housing and rent and all the other things. The demand-side is always in a weaker position as they are individually forced by daily, weekly or monthly deadlines that *have to be met or we suffer dire consequences* . This diminishes the bargaining power which expresses itself in a pricing policy that openly takes into account that not everyone will be able to afford my product even if it is the most basic of things, because enough people can afford it, my stockpile will be sold as a supplier if i want to.
Most people don't think about the actual purpose of markets and what supply and demand should do for pricing. The basic function is to supply the population with the stuff they need to get by. Many less liberal forms of pricing policies have led to famines in the past, either because the supply was to low or rotted in the granaries because of the bad pricing. A well functioning market shoudl supply *everyone* with housing, food and all the other basic stuff. Our current balance in pricing and market policies does not do that, it does not even pretend to try. It openly accepts that it should be an effort to be able to exist, to afford everything that is necessary, because this focus increases profits tremendously.
Markets today serve the single purpose of maximizing profits, although their original function was meant to be an efficient distribution system with demanders and suppliers getting by as good as possible. Ressources, food and all the other things were scarce and wasteful management had to be minimized somehow. Markets should provide this self-regulating micromanagement to get stuff from one side to the other at a reasonable price that covers production and some income for the supplier and also provides the supply for *every single* demander on the other side.
Ressources aren't scarce anymore, but markets are so distorted already, that we produce enough food to feed well over 10 billion people, but more then 30% goes to waste even before it reaches retailers. The profit is the governing motive that allows this to happen, we suffer from this mass psychosis that you cannot argue with maximized profits, as if they were a force of nature or a human right. No, they aren't, suppliers should not go bancrupt, sure, they shall have a fair share. So, how can a fair share involve wasting so much food globally that we fail to feed every person on earth although we are perfectly able to do it ? i think it does not, so we have to make changes and rebalance the markets and focus on strengthening those who come with less bargaining power right from the start. That is what a state should do, balance the interests and give a voice to the weaker ones in the system. Ultimately the quality and morality of a state, government or economic system is determined by the way it treats its weakest participants.
Measured by this standard we are doing a terrible and absolutely inhumane job with our current system.
The word “efficient” in economics is the most nefarious
Why do these boom bust cycles happen? Rothbard and Mesis claim they occur from government credit expansion, not the free market.
Very informative. Great job
I would love to see him actually debate art laffer. LOL
The best economy is when the government stays out of the way and keeps taxes low. When people are free to choose and have money to spend the economy grows.
Yeah until all the money goes all the way to the top and then stays there and then the money stops circulating in the middle and it stalls the economy.
And how do you get the demand higher? Give out money then saving money becomes a losing game. And the national debt goes higher causing more inflation hurting those you are helping!
Thanks for the question, Jack H. And for answering in your clear and concise way, Prof. Wolff, for me to share easily! ✊to the D@W Patreon Community!
Reminder that Wolff is not an actual economist.
What about the much bandied idea that when supply outstrips demand, prices fall? I believe this does not happen at all. Am I wrong?
It happens with agricultural prices. If production is up, usually it happens to all farmers at once, then market prices will fall. But in this case is more of a race to the bottom, because prices fall as a result of competition between suppliers.
Ask a dairy man or listen to President Roosevelt give a speech on overproduction, underproduction and speculation. Pass the government cheese, please.
Franklin Roosevelt speaks on problems of overproduction, underproduction and speculation
ua-cam.com/video/xRlyu71H2CE/v-deo.html
The Worst Job in New York: Immigrant America ua-cam.com/video/QXUdozfL7iM/v-deo.html
(Employment of illegal aliens by Dairy Farms to milk cows)
Very interesting, thanks!
4:02 😂 love the delivery there
God, this one is particularly sad. After three minutes in, the whole supply and demand relationship ended up being a "them versus us" tantrum.
Businesses are just as much of a demand entity as any private person. They need supplies to manufacturer their output and bring it to the market. This whole argumentation is pointless and aimed at dividing people even more by providing economic misinformation. You should be ashamed, a Professor shouldn't be this biased.
I wish trickle down economics didn't pass it through their kidneys first
Thanks! I very much needed a laugh this morning.
There is no such economic model, its a political buzz phrase. Only idiots use it or believe it
Some people love to be p!ssed on. Which wouldn't be a problem if they wouldn't walk around soaking wet, dripping and shaking their p!ss-bodies on the people who don't want to be p!ssed on.
Some people like to eat sh!t. Which wouldn't be a problem if they wouldn't walk around with their fisting-hands full of sh!t, forcing it down the throats of people who don't want to eat sh!t.
F*kc trickle-down peeconomics and the stank-constipation of crapitalism.
Some people talk but they don't believe in what they say.
5:11 let's be clear, more than 476 million payments totaling $814 billion in financial relief went to households impacted by the pandemic. Exactly what you said should happen under "demand-side economics". All of that economic stimulus lead to an explosion in demand, whiched forced prices higher. Higher demand paired with less supply = higher prices (aka inflation) because you have more dollars chasing fewer goods. Look at real estate prices for example. Fewer homes + higher demand = higher prices. Personally, I'm thankful to have a job and an employer. Earning an income is how I put food on my table, it's how I've purchased a home to live, and it's allowed me to save money for the future. If there were no employers there would be no income. No income means no taxes. No taxes means no funding for social programs and welfare.
Listen boot licker, are you certain your master allowed you to speak?
Many people chasing few goods available was one of the factors, but not the factor. Labor shortages, supply chain disruptions, and geopolitics also contributed to inflation.
Tax breaks may spark economic growth in the beginning but in the long run the country has higher deficits. As a result, the federal government has to finance its debt through bonds, leading to more government spending servicing it's debt and leaving less resources available to invest in infrastructure, education, R&D, and so on.
It seems to me that tax breaks is just a race to the bottom while others have to foot the bill.
Lies. A 1500 stimulus check didnt all of a sudden gave people enough purchasing power to buy so many things lol.
This wasn’t an informative comparison of supply side versus demand side economics, it was a biased, nonsensical, political diatribe.
“Advertising…how businesses manipulate the demand…” My new phrase. Perfect 👍
Got milk? Cheese?
Yes that’s true of advertising. But it’s also in the culture. Especially in the United States. Do you want to have certain status brands or labels to show off. If we are really truly educated in anything we are educated to be king consumers and exhibitors of our status - signaling possessions. And yes… Certain industries or basically criminal at their core. Snack food industry I’m looking at you. Coca-Cola and Pepsi I’m looking at you.
Good to know
How about Nixon's flirting with price controls?
“Supply and demand don’t tell much,they play both sides ”, 🤔 not unlike freedom and democracy.
so when reagan brought out supply side economics it was not about fairness?
Thank you for that insightful talk Prof Wolff. I had never thought about how supply and demand are just tools of capitalism. If true, then I have a few questions about what we should do about it and how. I assume that's where we would talk about co-ops and democratic reformation of the workplace, but how does that help with the need for supply and demand and someone exploiting that for profit?
You were never taught that because its not. Wolff is a marxist, and failed economic system that has been responsible of millions of people dying and countries collapsing. He over simplifies the system and makes extreme points. Don't listen to this guy, he's a fool for thinking marx wasn't an extremists.
Here's an example of controlling both sides of the economic situation. There is one company that controls the production (Debeers) of diamonds. Even though they are Not as rare as people seem to believe, but they control the release of the diamonds so they can demand a premium price.
Prof. Wolff's distinction between suppliers and demanders is bogus. I do a blue collar job. I work and thus sell supply of my work to a buyer (my employer. It would be the same if I were an independent contractor, but I am an employee). I then use the proceeds of those sales to demand goods and services. Also the employer supplies (money, work) but also demands (buildings, trucks, insurance, etc.). We all are both. There is also no demand without supply. If I stopped working I would not be able to demand goods.
💪👏👏👏🎉 Very well said.
So, it is your Employer [that's why Prof. Wolff said they control both sides, supply of goods/services and demand for labor], the main different they get all the government subsidies and tax incentives while you ass starves and can't pay rent, when you don't supply your labor.
Big corporate can afford to layoff people as productivity and innovation increases, while you cannot afford to not work. The demand for labor is always there as it is subsidized by the government, if you don't want to work that's fine, there will be other labor participants [immigrants or people overseas] willing to take your job for less pay.
I Just call supply-side economics "Bootlicker Economics" , it's easier to remember that way.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Why are almost all big corporations supporting Democrats over Republicans then, that is, supporting demand-side-economics?
Capitalism is the problem. Economic democracy or bust.
Capitalism is the only system that produces this much innovation and variety and has brought more people out of poverty than any other system by far.
You often talk about wage/price freezes to handle inflation. But when I hear this, wage portion of the idea rankles me a little. Wages are already way too low. I think the price freeze is a good idea, but the wages should be allowed to go up until they are at a level where they would have been if not suppressed for all those years. Would that work if it was only a price freeze? If not, why not?
He's not advocating, just explaining mechanisms. Personally, I favor limiting profit margins rather than fixing prices, as with a windfall profit tax. This allows markets to continue to function, preserving their ability to allocate resources somewhat more efficiently than a command economy. At the same time such an approach reduces pressure on consumers at the point of sale and by allowing us to redirect any excessive profit taking to social relief.
@@NotAPacifist825 Limiting profit IS command economy. Why does the Wolf pack believe basic economics rules don't apply anymore??? (They stupid)
@@NotAPacifist825 Except the taxes go to the government coffers where they get distributed to the rich in a different way. If a business can't make the profit it needs or thinks it needs, then the business goes bankrupt. The only parties hurt when a business goes bankrupt are the employees.
Wage controls are the first used tool in communism. Job controls are next. Instead of the market demand driving work and wages the government controls it. This is why there is always limited resources, supply and choices in these countries. State planned economies always fail for this reason. Only idiots like Wolff and Bernie Sanders thinks that this works. Both have gotten rich off of people who will listen to them as long as they never have to live under this system.
@@robertprice9052 thanks for the useless, unsupported rhetoric. It's good to see folks like you trying to spread lies about people and economic systems to fan the flames of hysteria among the ignorant.
Prof. Wolff is such a great teacher & communicator that he makes economics understandable & kind of fascinating 👏
Totally agree. He’s a master teacher.
He's an idiot. And so are you. The stupidity of his socialist babbling flew way over your head.
NLPers use vague language intentionally like economists. I think this show Prof Wolff is your best to date because popularizing Marx has a value in itself :)
Very important know that ECONOMICS as equivalent to Economic Science is not Equivalent to, and shouldn't be unserstood mistakingly, Capitalism or Markets Economy where the economic activity/behaviour is only limited to transactions oriented to sell in exchange of money. And this is why, in capitalist economies GDP only measures the products that exchanged for money. Excluding all products (goods and services) elaborated at home for the selfconsumption, voluntary works, good will services between people, example doctor help without money one frien or other person, etc., etc., of infinite examples of non profitable activities which carryout everyday but in capitalist economics neither study as economic activity, nor consider their real value which are more than their comparable that pass through markets. Example, people as a whole prepare more food, than what they eat in resaurants per unit time. They sleep more at home than in hotels, etc.
So, only the study of house production for selfconsumption alone will create wider Economics than capitalist/markets economics. Besides, it is more serious than Capitalist economics, where included any activity, no matter how absurd could be or how bad/ damaging/useless it is.
Great question and very topical given the current circumstances in Ukraine. There are supply issues because of the war, but also self inflicted because of sanctions. Which ironically has exacerbated shortages but nor necessarily profits to both producers and final suppliers. Regulatory authorities are required to combat monopoly scenarios like the oil shortages. Government's Could help with reducing duty, price cap. In a recession demand side assistance with tax cuts for low income earners. During an upcycle increases in tax to curb demand and corporation taxes to curb overproduction.
I have a prediction Richard will say 'trickle down economics', before I see the whole video.
There are many reasons why people study economics. Some seek careers and some just love the science. Since business schools serve the demands of the business community business curriculum's are almost exclusively teaching supply side economics. Which works for the career seekers. However, if you love the science not so much. I changed my major when I became disillusioned by the one sided nature of the discussions and curriculum's. To me it amounted to an indoctrination to the supply side religion. The religion of industry or as you put it the employer. The supply side preachers then go out into the world teaching a half science to the business community and the public. Though this process the business community gets what they want, but the public ends up misinformed. By ignoring the demand side of the equation supply side predictions are wrong or mis-attributed at least half the time and the science of economics is bastardized to the level of weather prognostication. Only worse, business propaganda. I feel that this discussion fell way short of its potential. No debate of the subject of supply-side vs demand-side is complete without a criticism of higher educations role.
@@chuckleaf8027 I wonder how much of that 40% found its way into stock buybacks and other asset price increases. That would be money not chasing goods and services in the consumer demand vs supply universe, no?
@@chuckleaf8027 Chuck, if you want to understand the weight of money supply in producing an economic outcome ie inflation. It is important to understand the difference between monetary inflation and price inflation. The current inflation is primarily price inflation as prof Wolff so eloquently points out. Most of the evidence points to corporate profits as the primary culprit. Not wages. Not supply chain. Not money printing. You have to understand that printing money is less of a concern when the dollar is the world currency. This makes most of the commonly used national inflation examples inappropriate. Propaganda of empire if you like. As the world currency, the excess money simply flows out of the US bucket into the much bigger world bucket. Not necessarily creating inflation in the US. Through a system of carry traders and the like the FED can quantitative ease beyond the US economy's optimal money supply without triggering inflation. The world bucket is the inflation upper limit for a world currency. This is why the QE's didn't create inflation in the US. A good example of some economists being totally wrong with their predictions. They practice a half science leading to piss poor analysis. Defining the problem correctly is the first step to finding appropriate solutions to real world problems. Money supply is not primarily causing this inflation and raising interest rates to slow the economy is therefore not the optimal solution. It will trigger a deep recession without addressing the core problem. At least not directly. The CEO will get the message a year or more from now when their corporate bonds have to be rolled over. The behavior will have a economic punishment, but the brunt of it will be paid primarily by the workers and it does't necessarily need to be that way. Pushing a windfall tax thru congress even without passing it will accomplish the same punishment/results without hammering the American workers into the ground. Unfortunately, supply side economists will disagree because a windfall tax hurts the supply side more then the demand side. As it should. It is all a failure of higher education's conflicts of interests with the business community relationships. This is an important topic.
@@donklee3514 So why wasn't there price inflation BEFORE the huge "monetary" inflation? You and Wolff are all wet. Certainly greed and gouging is happening, but without the Fed setting the stage, ie... pumping trillions into the system, there would not be high inflation. There'd be no increased demand.
@@chuckleaf8027 This is one of the problems a lot of people have with the term price inflation and the term price increases. Prof Wolff may be able to explain it better, but I'll give it a try the way I understand it. At a micro level of a single good or service the term should be price increase. Not price inflation. That is pretty strait forward. Prices go up and down, but at a micro level they are not by themselves causing inflation or deflation. At a macro level, it gets a little complicated.
You are adding a bunch of micros together to get sum total. If one micro goes up it can be inflationary, but not inflation. If all the micro components go up at the same time it is a good case for calling it a price inflation, but not necessarily. Obviously, there is some switch over point in between the two ex-streams. When commodities like oil that are a key component of almost everything increase than prices increase across the board. It is certainly inflationary, but inflation?
When CEO class raises prices across the board It is certainly inflationary, but inflation? Prof Wolff may be able to explain it better, but I gave it a try the way I understand it.
I have never studied economics but want so badly to understand it! I listen to many UA-camrs and understand a small fraction of what I hear. It’s like a huge jigsaw puzzle. Any suggestions for good resources that define common terms and explain how it all fits together?
Not sure why anyone wants government to control prices. Its the same nutty idea that was done in the early 70's during the oil embargo. Yes, SHORTAGES ensued and gas could be bought only on certain days depending if your vehicle license plate had an odd or even number.
👌👌🇨🇳supply side 🇨🇳👍👍
🤞🤞🇺🇲demand side 🇺🇲✌️✌️
You've got that completely backwards
The people with the supply and the suppliers.
Aka the producers, workers, etc. (proletariat)
supply-side economy would have teh proletariat gather in artificial abundance [historically by means of enclosure]
thus cheapening the value of their supply [labor]
Hopefully this comment is understood as a means to reflect on the subject
rather than observed as antagonism.
Demand is 8 months waiting list for CPAP machines which people need to stay alive and there is no quicker Supply
This is pure sophistry by someone who does not even know what capitalism is or what monetary policy is.
Slogans like "supply and demand" are childish notions in the real world where criminally minded people exist with great deals of money, influence, and control of media. Imagine playing a game called "ethics" with an unethical person who cheats... who do you think will win, and what is the point of the rules/principles (or slogans) if the game can be played not as "ethics" but as chess by the unethical player who's goal is to win any way they can?
These slogans are not how economics actually work and why would anyone choose to support a government or policies that only serves to protect the "might makes right" result? The very idea of government is communal and yet people accept governments that are the literal opposite.
Concerning the game theory,
the result depends on whether cheaters go to jail
as in a mechanism of benefiting the ethical.
The terms supply and demand are more than slogans, there are reference points of economic priority
Free Market Economy machinery needs steady demand to run efficiently. So both suppliers and government will do all they can to nudge people to keep consuming. The government and supply economy don't want to see or hear deflation. But consumers must get wiser about spending their money everywhere. The more consumers fall for promotions and sales, the harder it is to climb up the sinkhole.
If government is "nudging" people it's not a free market.
@@chuckleaf8027 In my opinion, Gov and Capitalism is very much depended on people spending their money all the time most of the time. If many people backed out of spending less, traveling less and working less then the whole structure might collapse.
People rarely buy what they don't need, or want because of advertising. People tend to turn wants into needs to justify spending. I'm sure you have a cell phone, but you could do without it. Maybe you need a cell phone because you got rid of your landline. Do you need an iPhone13? All of this is the consumers decision. However, no amount of advertising will get me to buy tampons. I don't need them no matter how good the commercial make them out to be. You are talking about saving and investing. I started investing at 17 when I joined the Army, because I was taught to invest in my future. Most waite until they begin a career level job, and don't invest in earnest until their late 40s and early 50s. Again its a choice. Not many twenty year olds see the use in setting aside $50 a month. Most think they can't live without spending it, and most blow their tax refund as soon as it hits their hand, but cannot tell you what they spent it on six months later. All of that is personal behavior.
@@BBBarua well your humble opinion is wrong. Actually the economy does best when people save and invest. Spending less and traveling less are life style choices. Staying at home will not crash the system, but it might help your budget. It you invest the difference it would help your retirement life.
@@BBBarua That's a full on Keynesian view. Keynes hated thrift, and hated morality essentially. Keynesianism is rife with post modernism and moral relativism.. it's nihilism... just spend whatever the fuck you got in the short run, and like Maynard Keynes said in the end we're all dead.
Those with gold, makes the rules. That is what happens eventually to almost all economies. Demand side advocates eventually turn to supply side because power/wealth when concentrated, becomes the ring of the Lord of the Ring, irresistible. USSR is the prime example of this rule recently.
Robert Michelle told us about the Iron Law of Oligarchy: all societies are controlled be organizations which are almost always controlled by a minority who are at the top. These people perpetuate their positions. We almost lost our country to an oligarch super maniac on Jan 6th.
fools are easily controlled - how does it feel?
@@robertprice9052 GOP fools are controlling USA. Lots of people at their service.
Oh lord! Start a business and run for a few years. Then go to school and spend thousands of hours and who knows how much money, then go back into the same field. Things will look so much different when you’ve had the complete finance, legal, HR, accounting, statistics, management etc etc experience.
So the best way to help both supply and demand side economics is to cut taxes? That way both the workers and the businesses have more money in their pockets to spend.
Thinking specifically about trump tax cuts with the lowest inflation, interest rates, unemployment, and prices that we’ve seen in a long time. Cut taxes and everyone wins?
Supply side means if you reduce taxes economic growth happens and yes, employers benefit, but they then hire more workers. Everyone benefits (workers are also suppliers of labor and investors, if they have retirement accounts, i.e. capitalists). A major problem with Prof. Wolff's analysis is that he has these fake and incorrect distinctions as if we were all either suppliers or demanders, when in reality we are all both.
You mentioned a thought so profound skipped right over the top of everyone's head... "Since FDR". Maybe with a biblical collapse we can enjoy another FDR?
FDR wrecked the economy and prolonged the depression. You would have to be insane to think we would “enjoy” that.
How dare he villainize businesses in capitalism. There is not a villain on either side both sides are good for both sides
Historically speaking Supply Side Economics has always worked better for everyone. I have a master in Economics, and Minor in Government, and I can tell you are heavily biased by your political affiliation… but remember, the unions, Corporations, and other large businesses, have favored and been large donors to the democratic party for many many years now which would actually contradict your view, where as the right side you also forgot to mention benefits the working class due to lowering their taxes which puts more money in there pockets and more money in companies pockets and less money in the governments pockets… that is learned in actual economics.
Supply side economics has never worked well ever... Where did you hear otherwise?
If this guy is correct, then being a supply sider is morally indefensible. But he's wrong!
Price freezes??? You must be insane. Than only leads to less production, scarcity and then more inflation.
Supply and demand is taken by sanctions.
That makes no sense at all.
@@robertprice9052 sanctions All over so it makes Sense. Supply Demand is now Political sanctions. The market non existng, taken over by politics.
Huawei supply, better, cheaper, demand for better cheaper Huawei everywhere. Than sanctions on Huawei, no more demand for better cheaper. The market is sanctioned. Market non existiting.
The mass of Americans want price controls? They want inflation to stop, but Im not sure most would want price controls. In a normal econ discussion, somebody would for sure mention that price controls lead to scarcity....
Did thus guy just claim FDR was a conservative? How much does this guy get paid to “teach economics”?!
Too much.
Using the toilet paper shortage at the start of the pandemic as an example. I saw that as a demand issue, mainly hording. A price freeze does nothing to prevent hording. Rationing, how would you keep a single person from getting as much as a large family? Raising prices deters those with a closet full of TP, leaving some for those that need it.
Raising prices leaves some for those who need it, but can minimum wage workers afford it? TP, maybe yes. Other stuff, likely no.
@@RussCR5187 What is your solution?
@@stevesedio1656 Backing up for just a minute, I'm not sure the TP hoarding should be seen as a demand vs supply problem at all. Maybe it should be seen as simply a temporary problem that needs no official "fix".
In rationing, wouldn't it suffice to base supply on a household count of individuals, where in some cases children might be counted as some fraction of an adult?
@@RussCR5187 Where does the initial household count come from? How is it maintained? How do we adjust for dietary issues, or daily calorie requirements due to size or activity level?
You don't like TP, pick another shortage, baby formula, hot sauce, ammunition, cars, homes, jobs, employees?
@@stevesedio1656 All of these details were worked out during WW2. However they did it then seems to have worked.
I hope people don’t take Wolfe seriously. Yes he bashes capitalism and praises socialism and until your brain is fully formed and you gain any wisdom at all, he seems sort of pseudo smart.
I believe he missed his true calling. He could have done a lot more good in the world as a cartoon voice. Play some whacky old crazy guy in the toons. That would be a good use of his skill set.
Inflation…
I hope others join an org here.
Join the Communist Party USA (since I'll mention that first), but also join PSL or FRSO or other orgs.
Join a labor union or org as well!
This is a bunch of BS!!! I'm sorry that people believe this!!!
Price controls lead to shortages. A focus on supply side economics would be more helpful for commoners than demand-side economics right now to slow inflation, because we want to increase supply, not demand right now. The inflation we have today is the working through the system of demand-side "trickle up" economics. It's giving people free money without any increase in productivity. As we have seen, this trickle up model hasn't led to an increase in supply, because simply wanting something doesn't necessarily make you work more productively to get it.
Lol I came to better understand the definition of these terms and got this dope ranting and grifting instead 😂
For competent people having this discussion, the supply-siders are normally designated as 'Producers' rather than as "Employers". Naturally, many producers are employers, but some are sole proprietors, some are partnerships, some are co-ops, etc., but Wolff profers "Employers", because he loves to demonize them as being "undemocratic".
They hardly need demonizing, if you spend one minute recalling the history of their actions. "Producers" is a lie - the workers produce. Employers own and appropriate wage surplus they didn't earn or work for
"Well, that's just like your opinion, man."
Owners are not producers. They are rulers. Workers are producers.
@@5508Vanderdekken Workers like to pretend they are the source of all the production, but thats a big lie. Entrepreneurian/managerial skill and capital are bothe FAR more productive than unskilled labor.
@@clarestucki5151 lol have fun making it all by yourself. What managerial skill laid the tracks and dug the tunnels for the railroads? Plowed and sowed the Midwest? No matter how many libertarian rags or ayn rand novels you read businesses don't function without workers
It seemed like everyone made money under Raganomics
Just being annoying and pointing out that capitalism forbids supply and demand side economics. Good example about how this is not a capitalist system.
Yes it is
It is purely capitalist because it is production for profit ONLY
it is not communist because it is not production for use ONLY
GOT IT NO OW?
Professor Wolff has destroyed your Heroes like Jordan Peterson,
Milton Friedman all of them
@@kevintewey1157 you managed to be wrong in three different ways. Capitalism is not defined as system that only is concerned with profit. You also said that I think that we are in a communist system. Lastly you stated that my heroes are Milton Friedman and Jordan Peterson. All three of these statements are completely incorrect. If you think they are correct, why don't you provide some evidence.
@@user-wp8yx liar you are gaslighting show me where I said I thought you believe that we are in a communist system
@@user-wp8yx you're not coming out and telling us what you believe capitalism is only concerned with profit and that's a fact you have no proof otherwise you can make statements but you can't back up your claim no research no right to speak
@@user-wp8yx if you think that capitalists provide a free-market or that their interest are a free market why do 65% of the us know that the stock market is rigged
why did only 10% of the US own 80% of the stocks?
Sounds to me like the problem is the government help…
The government has largely been captured by moneyed interests
the federal institutions could stop themselves from being a problem
if private banking firms ceased lobbying the treasury.
Yeah. Seems to me they had a tea party in Boston too, many years ago. The Ambassadors don't need $20M worth of cheese for whine and cheese parties.
ua-cam.com/video/TPtScI_O_fc/v-deo.html
The Worst Job In New York: Immigrant America ( 7 years ago)
How big government helps big dairy sell milk (6 years ago)
America Has Too Much Milk ( 6 years ago)
The U.S. cheese surplus is freaking people out (6 years ago)
ua-cam.com/video/JuTh9dJJFuc/v-deo.html
How the Government Works with Fast Food to Push Cheese (5 years ago)
End The Massive US Dairy Industry Welfare Scam (May 10, 2017)
Canadian Dairy Farmers in Trump's Crosshairs (5 years ago)
Canada's ambassador to the U.S. 'happy to defend' dairy supply management ( 5 years ago)
Iowa Dairy Farms Depend on the Immigrant Labor Force (5 years ago)
US dairy farmers caught in middle of trade fight with Canada ( 5 years ago)
Farmers Dumping Millions of Gallons of Milk Amid Glut (5 years ago)
US government buys $20M worth of cheese (5 years ago)
US milk prices fall to lowest level in years | Money Talks ( 4 years ago)
Why milk from the US is banned around the world ( 4 years ago)
Once-Booming New York Dairy Industry Now Struggling To Survive ( 4 years ago)
US Dairy Exports Decline Due to International Trade Dispute (3 years ago)
Got Milk? Canada and the US Clash Over Dairy ( 3 years ago)
How Government Cheese Became Welfare For Farmers (3 years ago)
Why American Farmers Are Dumping Milk (2 years ago)
Milk surplus leads to hundreds of thousands of gallons of milk dumped (2 years ago)
Wisconsin dairy farmers are struggling to stay afloat ( 2 years ago)
New trade deals are good for dairy industry: U.S. Dairy Export Council CEO ( 2 years ago)
Farmers say local cheese is the solution to dairy crisis ( 2 years ago)
This is how the dairy industry lied to the world ( 1 year ago)
The Rise And Fall Of Milk | Rise And Fall ( 7 months ago)
RFDTV - Canada and the US claim victory in USMCA dispute panel decision on Dairy TRQ allocations ( 5 months ago)
Franklin Roosevelt speaks on problems of overproduction, underproduction and spec...HD Stock Footage (posted 8 years ago)
"US President Franklin Roosevelt delivers his Annual Message to Congress in Washington DC, USA. In his speech he makes the following remarks, 'Loss to society comes from reckless overproduction and monopolistic underproduction of natural and manufactured commodities. Overproduction, underproduction and speculation are three evil problems that result in unsound inflation and disastrous deflation. Government should help private enterprise to gain sound general price levels and to prevent perilous fluctuations in the prices'. Location: Washington DC. Date: January 6, 1937."
Ridiculous bias