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

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

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!

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.

*Demand-side is best implemented by a democratic workplace.*

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.

The word “efficient” in economics is the most nefarious

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.

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.

Good to know

Prof. Wolff is such a great teacher & communicator that he makes economics understandable & kind of fascinating 👏

4:02 😂 love the delivery there

If it's just greedy employers, why weren't they raising prices thru the roof before covid?

I would love to see him actually debate art laffer. LOL

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?

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.

“Supply and demand don’t tell much,they play both sides ”, 🤔 not unlike freedom and democracy.

I Just call supply-side economics "Bootlicker Economics" , it's easier to remember that way.

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.

“Advertising…how businesses manipulate the demand…” My new phrase. Perfect 👍

What about the much bandied idea that when supply outstrips demand, prices fall? I believe this does not happen at all. Am I wrong?

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.

so when reagan brought out supply side economics it was not about fairness?

How about Nixon's flirting with price controls?

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.

I wish trickle down economics didn't pass it through their kidneys first

The people with the supply and the suppliers. Aka the producers, workers, etc. (proletariat)

I have a prediction Richard will say 'trickle down economics', before I see the whole video.

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....

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 :)

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?

Why do these boom bust cycles happen? Rothbard and Mesis claim they occur from government credit expansion, not the free market.

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!

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!

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.

Some people talk but they don't believe in what they say.

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.

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.

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.

This is pure sophistry by someone who does not even know what capitalism is or what monetary policy is.

Price freezes??? You must be insane. Than only leads to less production, scarcity and then more inflation.

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?

This wasn’t an informative comparison of supply side versus demand side economics, it was a biased, nonsensical, political diatribe.

Demand is 8 months waiting list for CPAP machines which people need to stay alive and there is no quicker Supply

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.

Reminder that Wolff is not an actual economist.

Inflation…

Supply and demand is taken by sanctions.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

👌👌🇨🇳supply side 🇨🇳👍👍 🤞🤞🇺🇲demand side 🇺🇲✌️✌️

Capitalism is the problem. Economic democracy or bust.

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.

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".

Just being annoying and pointing out that capitalism forbids supply and demand side economics. Good example about how this is not a capitalist system.

Sounds to me like the problem is the government help…

It seemed like everyone made money under Raganomics

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.

This is a bunch of BS!!! I'm sorry that people believe this!!!

Ridiculous bias