Comments by "Michael Mappin" (@michaelmappin1830) on "David Lin " channel.

You didn't listen to what Richard Wolff was saying? He's talking about workers owning their own means of production. That means workers have sovereignty. He's talking about a bottom up, democratic non-hierarchical system of organization. He's talking about the complete opposite of top-down hierarchies. He had an agenda regarding a specific group of people controlling everything, then he wouldn't be advocating for the complete opposite. How can you not know this? Go to your Public Library and read his book, democracy at work. Bottom up systems of organization are not prone to corruption the way that top down systems such as capitalism are. You're going to have to work on your reading and listening comprehension. Before you can properly critique something and weigh in constructively, you're going to have to be able to accurately interpret what the other person is saying.
1
@ExPwner , of course things didn't improve just for the 1%. But they benefited the most. The vast majority of people did not. Look at how the number of minimum wage jobs have increased over the last 50 years. Then look at the rate of inflation and compare it to the increase of income for the lower half of the population over the last 50 years.
1
@ExPwner , yeah, that's right. The cost of living for the vast majority of people keeps getting lower and the vast majority of people keep getting richer. 😃 thanks for proving once again that you're stupid and uneducated.
1
 @ExPwner , yeah, that's why the average American can no longer afford a family on a single income.
1
Yeah, one of the reasons why capitalism sucks
1
Why are you talkin about North Korea? What relevance does North Korea have? Do the workers in North Korea own the product of their labour? No. Do they own their own factories and businesses? No. So what the hell are you talkin about? Are you sure that they were talking about Marxism at the University's you went to? Maybe they were talking about Chinese food and you just thought it was Marxism😂
1
@carbonfibercrypto2919 , what does Albania have to do with worker-owned companies? Dude, statistically speaking, macaron companies are more productive, more durable, more Innovative, workers are happier, there's less incidence of mental illness, substance abuse, workers take fewer sick days, there's less illness, Etc. Yeah, when workers get the wealth produced by their labour they spend that money into the economy which creates more demand. People can afford to buy more stuff. People can afford to buy more beer, pizza, coffee, Etc. But when profits are maximized by capitalist companies, workers can afford less. We're talking basic economics here.
1
@sten260 , no. He's not wrong. He's absolutely correct. How could you possibly judge you don't even know what he's talking about? This is what democracy looks like in the workplace. https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ the workers actually own the product of their labour. If the company produces a billion dollars after expenses, that money goes to the workers who can then spend that into the economy creating more demand. If most of our GDP were coming from work or owned companies, then most of the wealth would flow to the workers and most things will be made it home rather than China. The goal of capitalist companies is to maximize profit. Profit is maximized by getting workers to produce as much as possible while paying them as little as possible. That means the more successful a capital company is, the less purchasing power workers actually have. One of the central goals of Economics is to achieve equilibrium. The goal of a capitalist company actually is in direct opposition to that basic principle.
1
@sten260 , the capitalist Market drives value of Labor downward. There are more workers than jobs. Workers have to compete for those jobs. Whoever has the most education and is willing to do the most work for the least amount of money, that's the person that gets the job. The goal of capital is companies is to maximize profit. profits are maximize by keeping wages as low as possible while getting workers to Bruce as much as possible. Thanks to the capitalist Market, wages are extremely low. That's why profits are so huge. That's why the riches 1% now has almost as much wealth is of course ninety-one percent of the American population. However, when workers own their own means of production, then they get to keep all of the wealth that their labour produces. That's the point that Richard Wolff is making. Also, because worker-owned companies are tied to the community, if most of the GDP were coming from those types of companies, then most things we made it home rather than China. And with most of the wealth going to the worker instead of a small Rich minority, workers would have greater purchasing power. That's money they would spend into the economy creating more demand, making it easier for people to start their own businesses. With every passing day we can produce more and more with less and less labour. For a very long time now we've had the ability to produce far more than we're capable of consuming. People shouldn't need to work 40 hours a week. But under capitalism everything produced by workers belongs to someone else. That's why labor-saving technology led to the Advent of the billionaire class rather than reducing working hours and increasing prosperity for everyone.
1
Karlee, you have no idea what you're talking about. My god, you don't even understand that markets and capitalism are two different things. Capitalism is not the only economic system that utilizes markets for distribution. Also, you do not need capitalism in order to have businesses, production, people selling and trading things with each other, etc. None of those things are unique to capitalism. There are millions of non-capitalist companies all over the world. I've owned my own company for years. It's not a capitalist company. I don't even think you know what capitalism is. 😃
1
@ExPwner , yeah, what a landlord increases rent it doesn't increase costs. Already showed you an article where capitals corporations were given a fine in Canada because they got together and decided to increase the price of bread. Just recently there was a grocery store chain decided to increase the price of their olive oil from $10 a bottle to $20 a bottle. Just to see how many they could sell at that price. But no, capitalism doesn't increase prices at all. Absolutely not. Bill Gates didn't buy a big chunk of the Canadian Railway system because he wants to increases profit. He didn't become the largest owner of Farmland in the United States in order to increase the amount of wealth that he's getting. Eventually you're going to have to learn basic economics. Stop lying, telling people that you have a master's degree in accounting. How could you possibly have a master's degree in accounting if you don't even understand economics 101?
1
Honest capitalists will admit that fact. https://youtu.be/35epDjB_7WE
1
That's what happens when rich people own most of the capital. The richest members of society are the ones that get to decide what is produced, how things are produced, where things are produced, how much workers get paid, excetera. That's why most things are made in China and why the richest 1% now has almost as much wealth as the poorest to 91% of the American population. Richard Wolff points out that if most of the American GDP were to be coming from worker-owned companies, then the wealth would be flowing to the workers who would spend that money into the economy and most things will be made at home because worker-owned companies are tied to the community. Trickle-up instead of trickle down.
1
Under the capitalist system it's the rich people that control the government.
1
Capitalism made it necessary to start printing money. Capitalism is a pyramid scheme. It requires borrowing more and more money. But of course there's a natural ceiling limit. There's only so much hard currency. It's like when you play the Monopoly board game. As a few people are successful in accumulating most of the capital, the other players start to go bankrupt. In order to prevent that bankruptcy and keep the game going, you could increase the amount of money that people get when they pass go. But eventually you run out of money. Eventually there is no alternative but to print more. Either that or the game's over. This is not my opinion, we're talkin basic math. Capitalism simply isn't viable. And capitalism is only depended upon fractional Reserve banking, it's also depended upon planned obsolescence and invidious / conspicuous consumption. If we found a way to cure cancer and keep people relatively healthy, the economy would collapse.
1
The thing is that under socialism greed has very little power because it's a democratic, non-hierarchical system of organization. Capitalism gives massive power to greedy and corrupt individuals. Capitalist have massive power over the economy, the government and workers. They get to decide what is produced, how things are produced, where things are produced, how much workers get paid, Etc. That's why most things are made in China and why the riches 1% now has almost as much wealth as the poorest 91% of the American population. The capitalist gets to decide when you work, how hard you have to work, what you can wear, when you get to eat, when or if you get a coffee break, they can even tell you when and how long you get to go to the washroom.
1