The non partisan economy

[tallslenderguy]

Posting two videos (Warren Buffet and Richard Wolff)  that may bore some to tears, but i believe have a great deal to do with the political structure in the US (the world?), and that is the oft power behind governments: money.  Two older and very experienced guys i follow. The one pressing question i'm left with is: what kind of moisturizer does Richard Wolff use?  i think he's 83? And his skin looks amazing.  And Warren Buffet is in his 90's, him too?

But seriously, i find both of these guys extremely informative. 

Edited November 22 by tallslenderguy

[tallslenderguy]

 

[tallslenderguy]

 

[tobetrained]

@tallslenderguy those are AI videos, which is why those aging beauties look like beauties. I'm not saying the content is AI, necessarily -- just AI content-farms. Here's Wolff's direct site to see difference:

[think before following links] https://www.democracyatwork.info/economicupdate

In his latest, he talks about Capitalism as class warfare. And he points out its failure to society, which every "system" has. I wish there was more solution generation vs. problem identification in the commentary.

It gets to our prior convo in "Independent" thread, in part. When are we -- the consumer -- also responsible for buying the products with the cheaper prices as opposed to American-made higher-priced items? Or, worse yet, when are we responsible for buying foreign-made sweatshop products sold by mass retailers?

As employers chase their profits, when do we -- as individuals -- just say "no mas."

Consider what AI will do to our society. And then see this retailer, an article I read this past week -- expecting to cut two-thirds of its workforce who already imports crap made overseas (a UK example):

[think before following links] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c98n28k9nz1o

When will people "protest" by no longer buying? No mas.

We incentivize companies everyday into making these profit-based decisions which hurt us -- by chasing the cheapest prices. For myself, if we supported domestic businesses -- esp. small businesses -- at the inevitable higher prices, all those profits would be turned back to wages paid to domestic workers, and that 'de-consolidation' would also mean fewer extremely wealthy people.

That's a better solution -- not that there is only one solution -- to endless fights between a bloated government's tax system being fought with the bloated amount of super wealthy elites. And, in this last point, it's the 'average person' pocketing the wealth transfer and not either the government or super wealthy.

[tobetrained]

21 hours ago, tallslenderguy said:

Posting two videos (Warren Buffet and Richard Wolff)  that may bore some to tears

And, if I may quadruple-down on my point. Take your comment here. Why should you feel the need to rationalize what you want to talk about? 

For those that don't want to see it, they can say "no mas." They can choose to view other things. They can choose to post things they want to discuss. They can ignore what they don't want to see.

It's too easy to just complain without action. That complacency is another issue in a free society. I think, in a round-about way, I'm here getting back to your comment about participation in that other referenced thread.

[tallslenderguy]

11 hours ago, tobetrained said:

@tallslenderguy those are AI videos, which is why those aging beauties look like beauties. I'm not saying the content is AI, necessarily -- just AI content-farms. Here's Wolff's direct site to see difference:

[think before following links] [think before following links] https://www.democracyatwork.info/economicupdate

 

thanks tobetrained. i went to the link and here is a video of Richard Wolff from his site.

[think before following links] https://www.democracyatwork.info/global_capitalism_affordability_why_so_much_costs_too_much_and_what_to_do_about_it

[tobetrained]

I'm will watch the video to comment more rationally. But in the first two minutes I'm pulling my hair out! 😃

Can I ask, re: non partisan economy, Wolff is a stated Marxist... the modern translator of socialist and then communist thinking. What are your thoughts on that being not partisan? I might get there in the video, but it's my going-in concern.

But here's the specific issue: he talks about the lefty issue of incarceration. I'm not getting into here whether (or not) it's a problem. Let's stipulate it is. But he then goes on a partisan attack of DOGE.

The Federal prison and Federally-run immigration systems, at the start of 2025, were about 250k people. State and local prisons were 1.75 million.

[think before following links] https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2025.html

These are the problems that get over-simplified for a quick political score. Both sides do it for sure.

A fair question to him, but NOT you @tallslenderguy, what does DOGE have to do with our state and local prison systems? He's not an idiot... he's knows this very well, it's intentional manipulation. Like our election system, or education system, etc., we want decentralization.

[Pozzible]

On 11/23/2025 at 11:31 AM, tobetrained said:

if we supported domestic businesses -- esp. small businesses -- at the inevitable higher prices, all those profits would be turned back to wages paid to domestic workers, and that 'de-consolidation' would also mean fewer extremely wealthy people.

How can you be so sure of this? My guess is that maybe a bit of those profits would trickle down to workers. But won’t most of it go to bonuses for CEOs and dividends for stockholders?

[tobetrained]

@Pozzible I'm not really sure what you mean? If we take outsourcing of manufacturing, for instance, the whole point was it's cheaper to produce products overseas (incl shipping those products back) than paying American workers to produce here. In terms of domestic production, the same issue -- globalism -- hit every other developed national around the world, regardless of economic or political system.

But the point was companies chased profit by chasing consumers who themselves chased the lowest purchase price.

Most consumer products already have domestically-produced options -- they're just more expensive. Adding more competitors to that price-point helps to drive down price (assuming a stable supply chain). And more domestic demand will increase the domestic supply chain (e.g., cotton farming for clothing), further lowering the price for the domestic price-point category.

And the non-domestic products are still available, which set the price floor -- preventing price spikes and gouging from domestics. And as fewer people buy non-domestic, the basics of supply and demand kick in and their price goes down to become a more attractive option. This helps force domestics into lower prices too, for fear of losing customers to too great a price-gap.

This is just how markets work. It's what Apple has been trying to do, in part, with its own processor -- as one of many examples.

If the assumption is it's a problem that there is a stock market and major corporations with CEOs and bonuses and dividends, etc. Well, of course there will be. But the question is what size of company do you support now with your purchases:

• Do you go to Starbucks instead of an indie coffee shop? If so, how much do you really care?
• Do you pay with cash or do you pay with a card/digital wallet/app? If the latter set do you really care?
• Do you use Uber and the like or the local cab company? If the former set, do you really care?
• Do you use AirBnB and the like instead of hotels? If the former, do you care about the affordability problem?

Nothing is perfect and everything is complex. But right now our collective choices are crap -- then we complain about the result of those choices. 

[Pozzible]

@tobetrained, I don’t disagree with your economic analysis except what corporations will do with their windfalls. They likely will hire more workers. Unless technology can more efficiently meet their needs than human beings can. Literally, the only fault that i see in all of your analysis is this statement:

On 11/23/2025 at 11:31 AM, tobetrained said:

the inevitable higher prices, all those profits would be turned back to wages paid to domestic workers

All those profits would go to the workers? As corporations have proven over and over again, that isn’t how they’ll behave. They will pay the workers what they need to to attract the workers they need. Most of those new profits will go to stockholder dividends or to executive salary increases and bonuses. 

[tobetrained]

@Pozzible I was referring to the profit they had found by moving jobs overseas or importing cheaper alternative products to American-made.

If a company saved $1.50/unit sold by moving a job overseas/producing overseas then it's fair to say it would cost them $1.50 (+inflation over the time frame difference) to bring it back here.

[Pozzible]

Ah, OK.

[tobetrained]

On 11/23/2025 at 8:35 PM, tallslenderguy said:

i went to the link and here is a video of Richard Wolff from his site.

[think before following links] [think before following links] https://www.democracyatwork.info/global_capitalism_affordability_why_so_much_costs_too_much_and_what_to_do_about_it

OK. I gave it my best to watch all of it. I got through ~30 minutes of the video -- or, one hour in real time taking notes and ranting to myself about the lies and misrepresentations. Seriously, I did give it a try. And, to be 100% clear, if any of this sounds angry it's directed at the Marxist and not at you @tallslenderguy.

About 6 minutes in: I like how he described WWII and the aftermath highlighting the so-called American Empire. But he fails to put certain things together. Our middle class succeeded as, mainly, our manufacturing capacity was so strong as other nations has to rebuild. Clearly that ended. But he simplifies that to self-loathing. Part of the "end" was globalization -- our manufacturing being outsourced as corporations chased consumers chasing lower prices -- ans the other main part was that these troubled economies (past-WWII) began to recover. It has nothing to do with political or economic system. Any and all would have benefited.

The misrepresentations continued. For instance:

• He talks about Venezuela and the (false) narrative it's America needing a military "win." This is an outdated leftist thinking re: military industrial complex and the like. For him to say Afghanistan, Iraq, and Ukraine are failures of the American military is an absolute disgusting joke relative to rationale for what's happening in Venezuela. And making that point is offensive. If you want, we can go into each. But, let's be clear at how stupid the comment is: the American military isn't in Ukraine, for starters.
• About 16 mins in he talks about SNAP. People on the left need to make up their mind: either it's a major part of those recipients' needs or it's not. I don't care which it is, just pick.
• About 21 mins he outright lies about the travel industry. Corporate travel revenue is about 35% to 40% of US total. And, since they pay higher ticket prices, a smaller share of tickets sold. But those are estimates for a number of reasons -- it's hard to detail. but he lied to make people more angry -- to make them more likely to sympathize with his coming argument.
• At 23:30 he outright lies and says employers set wages, his 3% argument. This isn't true. They're negotiation between individual workers and/or unions with management. Workers can leave any time for better pay -- and American workers DO...something others can't, like UK nurses who have regulated salaries which start at the poverty line -- thanks to socialism. The issue comes in as the hiring organization becomes larger.
• At 26 mins is his first time making the biggest lie that American elite set the price for goods sold. No, the market does. The market is people, us, consumers. Price is set by what we are willing to spend. It's not absolute one way or the other but see Soap comment at 30:30 note.
• At 27 mins in he outright lies about share of spend, according to UN, that should be on housing. It's 30%. Of course, he says, "20% maybe 24% on housing." This is what extremists do to make their point stronger.
• At 28 mins he talk about Vienna and property ownership. The idea of any government owning land is disgusting and fails to grasp history. I'm not saying there are easy solutions. But my god, for those who don't like Trump consider a world where he would have a say in land rights and your ability in where to live where you want. A viable government is not the idealized version but one which can withstand problems. Please!
• At 30:30 he talks about a soap ad. OK, so let's take this re: price. If Unilever or P&G execs set price and people just had to deal with it...there would be others, small, local, etc, who would come in and undercut them with lower-priced options. But they can't. Price has downward pressure because they large companies chase people. And people, consumers, chase lower prices -- even when the outcome is not what they don't want: big companies making profits and paying high executive salaries and offering shareholder dividends. 
• And, at 32 mins with his misrepresentation of tariffs I just gave up. Tariffs can be considered like taxes, but on imports. But they are not taxes and American-made items do not get that hit. And, if he was being honest, he would talk about all the tariffs and VAT charged throughout European socialist countries. The biggest real problem with these tariffs is they were done through exec order and not via congress.

To be sure, I'm not a conservative. I'm a Centrist. But this guy is just a partisan extremist.