Finance houses knowingly sold unsecured debt. Pension funds were used by front companies to raise capital which then then disappeared leaving pensioners destitute. It was a criminal exercise. Finance capitalism is semi-criminal.
Socialism has never been unopposed. When I say never unopposed, I mean it has been opposed to the hilt and with every extreme of violence. It has only ever been a project at all because capitalism throughout its history becomes unbearable. Now it is becoming biologically unsustainable.
Dr. Loury, I'm wondering if you missed an opportunity to argue against wage freezes later in the debate when the topic of housing came up.
When your opponent described the lawyer shortage, my first thought was 'why has supply not kept up with demand?' I imagine the wages of these lawyers are set by some government body rather than the market. That body is not increasing those wages rapidly enough to attract more lawyers into the area, leading to shortages...
Correct me if I'm wrong. Loved the show as always!
A socialist society would ultimately rest on the consensus of working people not the ideological demands of a capitalist class. It is outrageous to say to hungry children “there is no such thing as a free lunch”. No worker in his heart of hearts thinks this is just or reasonable or inevitable.
I understand Wolff’s point about the marginalisation of socialist ideas. I can barely find any curiosity about them in these comments. And frankly Loury held to his free market assumptions as though they were da fide truths. Free market capitalism is an American religion, and Chicago school economics its dogmatic pseudo-science. Americans are like Midwich Cuckoos, utterly terrifying.
The ideal society is one that provides for the human development of all without creating unbearable resentment among particular individuals. Private property and private dividends should continue as a kind of allowance the majority of workers pay capitalists but the demands of capital should never be allowed to destabilise the social rights of the people. It is usually this that is the sticking point since the capitalist class regards itself as a ruling class and socialism as a kind of retirement, immediate or long term, of its rule.
For an interesting take on Socialism vs Capitalism in African countries, check out the interview of Jordan Peterson with Magatte Wade, and African woman entreprenuer.
That was a GREAT debate and discussion. I really appreciate this. The great LaJuan is truly a prize.
I don't know much about economics, but I'm curious if Marxism ceased being taught in economy classes as competition with Capitalism because Marxism has historically proven to be bad economics. In other words, in the medical field they may teach what was once thought to be good medicine but they don't treat it as an alternative to what we know today works better.
I'm interested in the thoughts of other people on the substack.
Glenn - Thanks for your thoughtful exchange with Mr. Wolff. One thing I found hard to understand was Mr. Wolff's repeated assertion that "elite" universities conspired to suppress Marxist studies. Perhaps NYU is not elite enough for Mr. Wolff, who seemed to need to repeat his association with several institutions as some sort of validation, but I took a class with Prof Ollman in the early 80s as part of a Masters program in International Politics. He was "out" as anyone could be about his sincerely held belief in Marxist / social policy preferences. He never persuaded me, but it was a good class and he was sincere in his conviction and certainly not afraid to teach his subject.
I paused at time 4:00 to comment on “winner take all.” I am pro-capitalist and view “competition” as Glenn does, (minus the PhD in economics). Self-interest and competition are powerful motivators for benevolence. I know this from experience.
I’d say that Austrian economics suffers from some of the same reasons for a lack of interest -- it doesn’t produce numbers in response to questions. It doesn’t matter it the numbers are basically made up and never checked retrospectively. Modern economics thrives because it can supply a credentialed expert to provide a number supporting virtually any political proposition.
Late 80’s at Berkeley, all the social sciences undergrad courses were *highly* aware of Marxism. The professors were a mix. Some were literal marxists in the political sense, more were Marxist-influenced (especially in methodology), and all were Marxist-aware, in the sense that they at least alluded to a Marxist (either politically or methodologically) analysis of what they were teaching. It was very stimulating for a then-libertarian.
My guess is that Wolff's views about the vocational unpopularity of Marxist economists arose from Paul Sweezy's personal history. Glenn's view about Marxism and contemporary "Marxist" economists is probably accurate. The influence of Marx, Gramsci, Fanon, and the whole phalanx of socialists has grown out of campus Left from the late 60's -- New Left Review; SDS; Mother Jones; Telos; Radical America; and, Studies on the Left.
While Wolff claims his educational experience transpired in a 'liberal' desert, unpopulated from Marxists, I experienced the exact opposite at a Big 8 and a B10 school which I attended for 9 years. Almost every historian under whom I studied embraced Marxist constructs, actively or passively. The ideological and methodological influences arose from work of EP Thompson, WA Williams, Harvey Goldberg, H.Marcuse, Eric Hobsbawm, Robert Heilbroner, Jesse Lemish, Eric Williams, Eldridge Cleaver, Gabriel Kolko and Eugene Genovese. None were formal “economists,” but their influences are felt today through CRT.
Now, related to the discussion between Glenn and Wolff, I think Glenn should have made his case more forcefully by referring to Jordan Peterson’s explication of “Socialist Terror” as applied by Stalin. Wolff and other leftists always discount the number of humans who Mao, Stalin, and Castro murdered as they experimented with bastardized forms of socialist organization.
I would have challenged Wolff’s fuzzy defense of socialist misallocation of resources. How can anyone assume there is an inherent, ineluctable desire for a socialist to use scare resources and capital in a conscientious manner? With no personal stake in the outcome for any decision, socialist managers do not endure consequential penalties for errors or corruption. The case of Lysenko is tragically constructive.
By contrast, at least, capitalists do suffer directly from their poor decisions. Examples abound. My favorite How many pension fund managers will bail and save YOUR retirement fund’s capital if a recession looms? How many of the managers will even experience a decline in their personal income for losing billions of fund assets? Socialist accountability? No more jokes. Your retirement account has no value for virtue signaling.
Finance houses knowingly sold unsecured debt. Pension funds were used by front companies to raise capital which then then disappeared leaving pensioners destitute. It was a criminal exercise. Finance capitalism is semi-criminal.
Vulgar pride evinced herein of a blinkered intelligentsia, cosseted in their blood soaked echo chamber
Socialism has never been unopposed. When I say never unopposed, I mean it has been opposed to the hilt and with every extreme of violence. It has only ever been a project at all because capitalism throughout its history becomes unbearable. Now it is becoming biologically unsustainable.
Dr. Loury, I'm wondering if you missed an opportunity to argue against wage freezes later in the debate when the topic of housing came up.
When your opponent described the lawyer shortage, my first thought was 'why has supply not kept up with demand?' I imagine the wages of these lawyers are set by some government body rather than the market. That body is not increasing those wages rapidly enough to attract more lawyers into the area, leading to shortages...
Correct me if I'm wrong. Loved the show as always!
A socialist society would ultimately rest on the consensus of working people not the ideological demands of a capitalist class. It is outrageous to say to hungry children “there is no such thing as a free lunch”. No worker in his heart of hearts thinks this is just or reasonable or inevitable.
I understand Wolff’s point about the marginalisation of socialist ideas. I can barely find any curiosity about them in these comments. And frankly Loury held to his free market assumptions as though they were da fide truths. Free market capitalism is an American religion, and Chicago school economics its dogmatic pseudo-science. Americans are like Midwich Cuckoos, utterly terrifying.
The Civil List in Britain performs this function for the aristocracy.
The ideal society is one that provides for the human development of all without creating unbearable resentment among particular individuals. Private property and private dividends should continue as a kind of allowance the majority of workers pay capitalists but the demands of capital should never be allowed to destabilise the social rights of the people. It is usually this that is the sticking point since the capitalist class regards itself as a ruling class and socialism as a kind of retirement, immediate or long term, of its rule.
For an interesting take on Socialism vs Capitalism in African countries, check out the interview of Jordan Peterson with Magatte Wade, and African woman entreprenuer.
A great interview with an African woman entrepreneur:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o74rQmLRqtA
That was a GREAT debate and discussion. I really appreciate this. The great LaJuan is truly a prize.
I don't know much about economics, but I'm curious if Marxism ceased being taught in economy classes as competition with Capitalism because Marxism has historically proven to be bad economics. In other words, in the medical field they may teach what was once thought to be good medicine but they don't treat it as an alternative to what we know today works better.
I'm interested in the thoughts of other people on the substack.
Thank you all!
Glenn - Thanks for your thoughtful exchange with Mr. Wolff. One thing I found hard to understand was Mr. Wolff's repeated assertion that "elite" universities conspired to suppress Marxist studies. Perhaps NYU is not elite enough for Mr. Wolff, who seemed to need to repeat his association with several institutions as some sort of validation, but I took a class with Prof Ollman in the early 80s as part of a Masters program in International Politics. He was "out" as anyone could be about his sincerely held belief in Marxist / social policy preferences. He never persuaded me, but it was a good class and he was sincere in his conviction and certainly not afraid to teach his subject.
I paused at time 4:00 to comment on “winner take all.” I am pro-capitalist and view “competition” as Glenn does, (minus the PhD in economics). Self-interest and competition are powerful motivators for benevolence. I know this from experience.
I’d say that Austrian economics suffers from some of the same reasons for a lack of interest -- it doesn’t produce numbers in response to questions. It doesn’t matter it the numbers are basically made up and never checked retrospectively. Modern economics thrives because it can supply a credentialed expert to provide a number supporting virtually any political proposition.
Late 80’s at Berkeley, all the social sciences undergrad courses were *highly* aware of Marxism. The professors were a mix. Some were literal marxists in the political sense, more were Marxist-influenced (especially in methodology), and all were Marxist-aware, in the sense that they at least alluded to a Marxist (either politically or methodologically) analysis of what they were teaching. It was very stimulating for a then-libertarian.
My guess is that Wolff's views about the vocational unpopularity of Marxist economists arose from Paul Sweezy's personal history. Glenn's view about Marxism and contemporary "Marxist" economists is probably accurate. The influence of Marx, Gramsci, Fanon, and the whole phalanx of socialists has grown out of campus Left from the late 60's -- New Left Review; SDS; Mother Jones; Telos; Radical America; and, Studies on the Left.
While Wolff claims his educational experience transpired in a 'liberal' desert, unpopulated from Marxists, I experienced the exact opposite at a Big 8 and a B10 school which I attended for 9 years. Almost every historian under whom I studied embraced Marxist constructs, actively or passively. The ideological and methodological influences arose from work of EP Thompson, WA Williams, Harvey Goldberg, H.Marcuse, Eric Hobsbawm, Robert Heilbroner, Jesse Lemish, Eric Williams, Eldridge Cleaver, Gabriel Kolko and Eugene Genovese. None were formal “economists,” but their influences are felt today through CRT.
Now, related to the discussion between Glenn and Wolff, I think Glenn should have made his case more forcefully by referring to Jordan Peterson’s explication of “Socialist Terror” as applied by Stalin. Wolff and other leftists always discount the number of humans who Mao, Stalin, and Castro murdered as they experimented with bastardized forms of socialist organization.
I would have challenged Wolff’s fuzzy defense of socialist misallocation of resources. How can anyone assume there is an inherent, ineluctable desire for a socialist to use scare resources and capital in a conscientious manner? With no personal stake in the outcome for any decision, socialist managers do not endure consequential penalties for errors or corruption. The case of Lysenko is tragically constructive.
By contrast, at least, capitalists do suffer directly from their poor decisions. Examples abound. My favorite How many pension fund managers will bail and save YOUR retirement fund’s capital if a recession looms? How many of the managers will even experience a decline in their personal income for losing billions of fund assets? Socialist accountability? No more jokes. Your retirement account has no value for virtue signaling.
(part 2, later)