Good morning Professor Wolff...our go to guru of all things economics and what not...xx

The prize for winning the game of monopoly should be nationalization.

doing away with government interventions returns us to competitive capitalism that then destroys itself 7:10 thanks for the solution prof

I understood the power of advertising after reading "From Those Wonderful People Who Brought You Pearl Harbor" back when.....

Free markets result in unfree markets. There are winners and losers in the competition. Markets keep scarce resources in short supply. A centrally planned economy doesn't have these problems.

Sadness at the Edge of Town. Great Springsteen album

Wolff said it best, the system is the problem. ✅

I wonder what Professor Wolff thinks of an economic philosophy like distributism? It focuses on keeping economic activity as family-based and community-based as possible. Distributism envisions economic life as being primarily a local and regional system that also recovers artisanship and craftsmanship as much as possible. I would love to hear Professor Wolff's thoughts on an economic philosophy like distributism...

Third volume of Marx"s Kapital Monopol Kapitalism is a must !

A good explanation of why free markets & completion are fiction in the US today.

A diverse market of buyers and sellers is a kindred of democracy but the nature private ownership by a few concentrates economic power.

In every country it is always and everywhere in the interest of the great body of people to buy whatever they want from those who sell it cheapest. The Proposition is so very manifest that it seems ridiculous to take any pains to prove it. Nor could it ever have been called into question hadn't the self history of merchants and sellers confounded the common sense of mankind. There interest is in this respect directly opposite to the great body of people.

What is Wolff's opinion on the inefficiency and corruption in government? I am not against the government, I love roads, education, and health care. Just thinking critically

Thank you Professor Wolff. I have been listening to you for years. You teach us so much about how Capitalism works. It is not working. New ideas now. 💡

A Human Fist With The Middle Finger Extended…oh, wait! That’s THE INVISIBLE HAND! P.S. Markets were Never "Free". Even Adam bozo Smith analyzing the behavior of Capitalists will tell you that [from **The Wealth of Nations**, end part of Book I]: "The interest of the dealers, however, in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public. To widen the market, and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers. To widen the market may frequently be agreeable enough to the interest of the public; but to narrow the competition must always be against it, and can only serve to enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy, for their own benefit, an absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow-citizens. The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it." >>>AND LIKE ALL GOOD BRITISH IMPERIALISTS Smith spoke out of BOTH SIDES OF HIS MOUTH and went on to spend many *many* more words defending or overlooking that "dealers interest".

another assumption when I was taught economics here in the US (for our analysis of the perfect functioning of capitalism), is that all these multitude of buyers and sellers have "perfect information", i.e. everyone knows what everyone else does ... hmmm, I don't know.

The terms winners/losers is grotesque...says all one needs to know about capitalism as pure evil.

As our industrial output Plunges it is bad. redistribute the wealth, worth less dollars

Comment.

1) Wolff should be careful about definition of a market. The limit where a market extends is illusive. Also information about prices is important. 2) Mr. Wolff surprised that perfect competition does not exist. 3) Inefficient producer loses to the more efficient one, no problem. Maybe it’s because there was excess capacity in the starting point. 4) Efficient firms must keep reinvesting and deploying capital to bring about more efficient and better forms of production and technology. Great, that’s a plus for society. Unless a) it does not really happen (how to improve upon barbershops or arcade halls) b) companies earn excess profits c) subsidies preventing competition from weeding out inefficient firms. 5) Auto market not limited to US. 4 US producers, but they don’t dominate the GLOBAL auto market. Plus no auto has excess profits in terms of returns on capital. Their profits are average in terms of returns on capital.

👍💐

Profesor Wolfe is correct but his solution is not. A centrally planned economy also does not work because it cannot react fast enough to keep up with the market. What is needed is a stronger set of basic rules to govern the market such as: 1. No company can but another company in its same market if the resulting company will have more than 10% of the market share. 2. All regulations must apply to companies in accordance to their size. Small companies should not have to comply with all the regulations that big companies do. Big companies use these regulations to snuff out the small competitors since they have the ability to comply while the small companies do not. 3. Under no circumstances should the government itself compete in the market. 4.And finally the business taxes should be graduated so that the larger the company becomes the larger the tax bill becomes until the top tax bracket exceeds 100%. To sum up: BIG is bad. A proper solution prevents companies from getting so big that they can manipulate the market.

If you can help financially is the oxymoron in light of our servitude to inanimate objects other people control being the problem in the first place. I know huh ?, but, yes I do know.

The problem with the so called free market is that the few own the money printer. When you have a golden goose laying endless golden eggs(aka fiat currency) it's not a free market or pure capitalism....

To begin with, you can not have a free market simultaneously in servitude to inanimate objects other people govern with. Everyone is on one side, and servitude to inanimate objects other people control on the other side. If our time and skills are enslaved to the present form of servitude, we can't be free to choose our destination, the servitude becoming the god of our future existence. If our time and skills are of equal value based on time they're used, then everything is Free, the world, but we simply trade our time and skills using time banks of which everyone becomes the private banks of themselves operating in public service with the other banks. We're the value the Time and skills, the products and services are the benefits. We're valuing the wrong things.

I agree with the analysis, but traditional economic theory says new players would enter the market to offset those firms that went out of business. The new players would figure out how to improve the product or the manufacturing process in order to provide a better, cheaper product, and the cycle of competition continues with new firms. Can you please address why this part of the theory doesn't work -- Is it due to entry barriers in a mature global market?

Gee, Ayn Rand was wrong. Imagine that!

Hello again prof Wolff excelente subject free marketin is false it should be calles fixed market

Why would a business buy out the competitor that was unable to survive in a market? The market share will be yours anyway. The production processes will not be efficient enough, otherwise the company wouldn't have gone under. Except for some specialists the workforce is not worth it either.. but there is the other stuff that might be worth buying. IP. The imperfect competition also is no big deal.. it just means that instead of maximum efficiency it's not perfect and a couple less efficient suppliers will survive which otherwise wouldn't. Think of your mom&pop store at the corner providing products at a higher rate than the super market. If any of those can survive it mostly is based on imperfect competition. I wouldn't get my undies in a twist over that.. All this completely ignores anyway, that our reality DOES NOT resemble free markets to begin with. Patents for example are called temporary MONOPOLY for a reason. The patent holder is being protected by the market authority (Government makes and enforces those rules) from competition that does try to copy the patent holder. Other similar frameworks are copyrights, intellectual property, tariffs, licenses, picking winners, aso.. What does protection from competition do to profits? (1) Not to mention that a small business that is being protected from competition will grow - because it will optimize to maximize profits and become big and file even more patents, to get even more protection, to gather even more profit. Yay! _Anyone here who is a free market capitalist and who is willing to tell me after reading this that patents and the like are NOT ANTI COMPETITIVE? Destroying free market capitalism? I bet even most on the left side of the spectrum will vouch for patents - as they protect the little entrepreneur and are meant for him to recoup his R&D costs.. it's hilarious sitting on the sidelines and having to watch this to be honest._ And this isn't even brand new stuff. Adam Smith wrote as much 250 years ago: _"The interest of the dealers [referring to stock owners, manufacturers, and merchants.. anyone really], however, in any particular branch of trade or manufacture, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public. To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers. To widen the market may frequently be agreeable enough to the interest of the public; _*_but to narrow the competition must always be against it, and can serve only to enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy, for their own benefit, an absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow-citizens._*_ "_ & _" _*_The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention._*_ It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it."_ Or the term Robber Baron tells the same story when one looks it up on WP: _"Robber Barons.. The first such usage was against Vanderbilt, for taking money from high-priced, government-subsidized shippers, in order to not compete on their routes. _*_Political cronies had been granted special shipping routes by the state, but told legislators their costs were so high that they needed to charge high prices and still receive extra money from the taxpayers as funding._*_ Vanderbilt's private shipping company began running the same routes, charging a fraction of the price, making a large profit without taxpayer subsidy. The state-funded shippers then began paying Vanderbilt money to not ship on their route."_ (source WP) 1) Warren Buffet likes to invest in companies that have a moat, that is a company that is being protected from competition one way or the other.. and all those roads lead back to Government providing the protection and prohibiting competition. It might be interesting to note that even natural monopolies are created by Government, or who else is going to enforce private property rights that enable individuals to own otherwise common goods and control the supply of them? PS: book tip - 'The Myth of Capitalism' by Tepper and Hearn (2019)

Wrong assumption: Adam Smith based his entire argument on our natural empathy for those within their community. Which he presented in _Moral Sentiments._ In great detail. The market of Adam Smith were entirely unregulated and corporation-free. Have you read his definition of what constitutes a corporation? It includes government, businesses, trade associations, guilds and unions. Thus any service at a range of skills and guarantees was available depending on how well you managed your own affairs. The perfection of the system was based on the complete lack of private interests dominating for they will always be self-serving and counter-productive. By that definition capitalism is waste-averse which means wealth is retained. Simple. Forward-looking.

Not too bad by Wolff standards. Normally on this topic he says "Competition causes monopoly, and monopoly causes competition", the single most ridiculous sentence ever uttered by an 'Economist'.

If your claim is correct why did the price of oil drop in 1865 from $16/12/brrl to less than $1./brrl and stay there until Standard Oil was broken up in 1909. This was also true for steel, rr freight rates, etc. Don't be shy, just shout it out when you know. So it would seem that government intervention or regulation did not produce the intended result and never has, and you have more government than ever...so maybe the source of the contradiction you are alluding to is the result of an unconstitutional, illegitimate, criminal government...that did what governments always do because they have a monopoly on FORCE and "power corrupts", and such corruption is not only invited but demanded: "by all" and even though it was explicitly designed in recognition of both the danger of government and democracy. One has to marvel at the ignorance of history, economics, and human nature that is not only confused by the "cause" but wrongly assigns its effects...while proposing a solution that is a pale shadow of this reality, whose incentives are directly contrary to human nature, whose effect is mediocrity, rather than excellence where one strives to do the least because there is no point to being better.