Why capitalism fails | Richard Wolff and Lex Fridman

Please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors:

GUEST BIO:
Richard Wolff is a Marxist philosopher and economist.

PODCAST INFO:

SOCIAL:

[liberty]

"Thousands of workers using shovels were building a canal. Friedman was puzzled. Why weren’t there any excavators or any mechanized earth-moving equipment? A government official explained that using shovels created more jobs. Friedman’s response: “Then why not use spoons instead of shovels?”

[bengsynthmusic]

12:58 That's all fine and dandy if those workers started their own worker-owned company, but pretty revolting if those said workers seek to take over an established private business and inject their made-up control over the business. Yikes what a garbage proposition. Under his land, workers would be seen as potential colonizers making them less desirable. The incentive to start businesses would be less as it'd just be taken over by some unions eventually. There's no happy medium between state-fueled collective dictatorship and a true free market with meritocracy. He explained the pros and cons of capitalism but doesn't see any downside to his own. Thinks businesses owners would be okay with some takeover.

[firstprinciplesinvestor]

If his hypothetical capitalist had competition who could produce his widget for the same cost then his revenue would go down because the business who sold for a lower margin would attract more customers. This means the consumer (everyday people) benefit from lower prices. if we were communist or Marxist we would have tons of inefficiencies which is why when these systems are implemented we see mass poverty and mass starvation i.e. soviet union and communist China

[rkalla]

His counter to capitalism not bringing incredible innovation is all about how capitalism treats people. These are two very different topics.

[theultimatereductionist]

Dr Wolff is awesome. He educates everyone about real history.

[philipkung]

His analogy is BS because in the real world, the competitors will get ahold of the same machine, optimize their workforce, and reinvest profits into R&D. While your busy paying your workers for doing half the work, your competitors will create a better product at a lower price and run your company out of business.

[graceann]

This is just brilliant. These perspectives need to be available to as many people as possible ASAP

[cameronrobinson]

This is the first guest on Lex I've ever disagreed with whole heartedly. This guy is a basket case

[CookingwithYarda]

The solution to this problem is cooperative companies where the workers share equally the profits. 👍

[nojuan]

This all sounds great! It’s sounds awesome! Sounds perfect! I’d like to know who creates the work for the workers? If a person/group creates a “business” how are they supposed to be compensated for their initial investment?

[MrMicronano]

He’s totally going back and forth between the economic system and political system.

[bengsynthmusic]

3:14 If that's the goal, then why add to the cost of business via more regulations and taxes and push said capitalist to relocate? What's the assumption behind those policies? That the capitalist will just sit there and take it? The assumption is that the pusher gets votes while overlooking the consequences of a more intrusive gov.

[TG-rxkd]

The real question is which societies fail harder?

[skytech]

capitalism has a terrible name in the public but excellent track record. at the core, In the Capitalist system, A person has to make useful things for fellow human beings to thrive whereas socialism takes things with false virtue.

[damienfallon]

The best system is a hybrid capitalist & socialist system. Schools, prisons, public works of all kinds including healthcare should be socialized. Everything else Capitalist.

[Crispa]

Lex, i appreciate you stay so tempered and with a listening attitude with ideas that make you deeply unconfortable.

[SeleckPlays]

The nerve of a person to blame capitalism for the corruption of our government.

[klosnj]

The worst moral condemnation is that capitalism is capable of ending all hunger but doesn't? Thus it would be far preferable to switch to a system incapable of ending all hunger?

To tie the comfort of the working class only to wages is to ignore the other side of the equation; costs. If a workers wage stagnates, but those things the worker most desires become less expensive by means of market efficiency, does the worker not experience higher standard of living?

[lokiholland]

That logic seems a bit flawed to me. Less humans focused on one complete task, means more human resource to potentially focus on other tasks, or more variation (competition) of task. Maybe i didnt understand what he said

[gwills]

Everyone is this comment section needs to humble themselves and reflect deeply on their own lack of expertise and literacy about economics. Richard has spent his entire life thinking deeply about this and is recognized by our Ivy league institutions and the world at large.

You're watching YouTube videos and probably have more Ideology in you than economics/geopolitical/human behavior expertise. If you feel challenged there's probably a good reason for it.