The Nobel Committee in Sweden issued the
Nobel Prize in Economics to three economists who are specialists in having
come up with interesting little ways (they call them incremental solutions) to
poverty, particularly in Kenya in East Africa and in India. I take nothing away
from these economists. They’re working on this problem. They’re finding little ways
that they can help the horrific poverty that besets most of the world. But my
attention is caught by another statistic that might have been even more
impressive to the Nobel Committee. The 25 richest families in the world today
together own 1.4 trillion dollars of wealth. On the 11th of October the
Bloomberg News Service carried a story about that where you can get the details.
Over the last year these 25 richest families increased their wealth on an
average of 24%. So to all of you listening, and watching if your wealth
and your income didn’t go up by 24% tsk tsk. You are falling behind. Turns out
then that the rich must be getting richer and you’re not doing that, at
least not at that pace. Let’s look closely at these numbers. The average
amount of wealth of these 25 richest families is 56 billion dollars. Hmm. If
they went up by 24% last year that means the average increase of wealth
of these families, each, was 10 billion dollars. The capitalist system we
live in makes the richest people on earth grow their wealth faster than
everybody else. The gap between rich and poor, in this economic system, is getting
worse in case you weren’t paying attention. You want to do something about
poverty? Why don’t you deal with that? Not little
incremental programs in Kenya and India, valuable as they may well be, and
important for the children involved no doubt. But a serious approach to the
problem of poverty requires facing a system that is producing ever greater
extremes of wealth and poverty and the Nobel Committee might look in that
direction, although if you’re expecting that my advice is do not hold your
breath.

Tagged : # # # # # # # # # # #

48 thoughts on “Richard Wolff on recent Nobel Winners in Economics”

  1. Nobel prize is, like most things bestowed from the established order of elites, a political game that celebrates mediocrity and delay, and especially virtue-signaling of tokenism crumbs nibbling on the periphery of major and minor problems rather than reward decisive action to counter existential threats. If you do the latter, you're more likely to be assassinated, criminalized, imprisoned, ignored and/or smeared publicly, but you will be extremely unlikely to win any fancy prizes or titles.

  2. I don't quite understand the point of belittling the economists or Nobel committee in this case. The inadequate income and wealth distribution is a problem for our governments to solve and it doesn't require any Nobel-worthy economic breakthroughs.

  3. Yeah wolf you're right, hmmm hopefully those bad rich families investing in future of humanity and equality of our specie of humanity,

    What i found out is that the richer you get the more wiser you becomes, Hmmm after all three meals a day a warm bed and a beautiful woman beside me is
    All i need. 😉

  4. The Nobel Prizes for economics should only be given to true Marxists who advocate for overthrow of capitalism and for mass starvation.

  5. Capitalizim is not going to withstand troubling times ahead when robotic machines take over 30% of labor around 2030 by 2040 it'll be 50%. I know for sure that in 2020 when self driving autonomous car's hit the market that will be the beginning of the end for pizza delivery drivers,cab drivers ,trailer truck drivers and any thing that deals with operating vehicles for work.Just like karl Marx predicted in his Communist manifesto that the poltariet would rebel against the bourgeois I can see small signs of it now in a way coded in all the labor union protests and all the new socialist politicians trying to get people to rebel against the wealthy elites.My philosophy is that the monetary system is a impediment to technological advancements,think how far one could go with no budget in a space program like NASA or any other program for that matter.To me the best economic system is no economic system man should put away all differences between each other and share common ground and be patriotic to the planet and it's advancing of technology .

  6. 1. The West has failed in the Third World. But now is CHINESE NATIONAL SOCIALISM (WITH A HEALTHY ELEMENT OF AUTHORITARIANISM) investing in underdeveloped nations. (look what they are doing in Uzbekistan) 2. The rich US-elites which have dominated this world after WW2 must be eliminated, before they start a new WW with socialist China. Can the world be liberated with the death of 100.000 old rich guys??????

  7. With Friedman and Kissinger being laureates, anyone actually deserving a Nobel prize would have to fight against the deeds that won Nobel prizes before.

  8. Lets be honest, Nobel organization is 90% show. They gave prize to Obama before doing anything yet he ended up being a war criminal. They also discriminated against women and picked the wrong people instead of the real person that deserved it more. But poverty is simple, no resources, too many births, too many mouths to feed, and too many greedy and lazy people taking stuff without regard to the future or others.

  9. Nobel Memorial Prize in economics. There is no Nobel Prize in economics. The Economists basically invented their own prize and gave it a similar name because they felt left out

  10. they choose keneya is only because they don't say any good to china. For the past 30 years,china make 800000000 people out of poverty.
    It's ridiculous to ignore china but give highlights to such a tiny research.

  11. Why did they give the Nobel Peace Prize to Dr. Mohammad Yunus instead of the Economics Prize? It would seem his work on micro-credit for women and the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh would make more sense?

  12. 我操死了那个跪在倭奴胯下吃屎喝尿和吸允精子的精日粪子-胡继光-和他的洋奴爷爷胡耀邦与贱畜全家! says:

    Those who have the power to bestow "titles" and award "prizes" to others are the true bosses behind the scenes, while those who win those titles and prizes, no matter how seemingly shiny, dazzling, elite, and impressive, are still at the level of pawns.

  13. The 20 richest corporation have more money than 150 countries of the world, how about that for disparity between rich and poor. Is a giant vacuum cleaner that for sure will suck you money out pocket leaving you hypnotized where you money went to. Just to wake you up, the richest got you money.

  14. I wonder if it is the best use of the brilliant PhD Wolff's time to do simple long division for us. Could it be that the average viewer here cannot divide 1.4 x1^12 by 25 to get 5.4^10?

    Reading posts here, it may well be. If we suppose Dr Wolff is purposeful, & his viewers can't do arithmetic, then his snarling agitation against a tiny class of 24 families (families, not even evil individuals but their kids and relatives) is particular disturbing as fomenting hate in the minds of people who are least able to control themselves – the uneducated.

    He does not for instance suggest that great wealth (though perhaps not billions) is attainable by others even though for instance Zuckerberg was a college student 15 years ago and his wealth is based on people Wolff speaks to voluntarily using the billionaire's product! How ironic, "You made him rich, AND you should hate him for that!" I am being satirical, but it is true. Same goes for Walmart family, you stampeded to get cheap goods, now you complain about how rich the family is and that things are made in China? It would seem to be another area where the individual had control, but failed themselves by not using it.

    But I'm also being serious, Dr Wolff you gotta do better than this economic class hate mongering. There are reasons people become wealthy, and reasons the society should take some of their money away for the public good. There is little reason to hate the wealthy, and training people to be jealous of them is completely counter-productive. Do a search for "Rothschilds" and see what you get when the Great Unwashed put Wolff's insinuations into action.

  15. Here's a question. My friend said the state of California is a great economy and is a crowning example of Capitalism and the dream. He said it was a model for the US other 49 States.That it is the Fifth largest economy in the world globally.That we don't need change we just need to break away from these welfare union states. I say is this true? I live in California, and the inequality gap is wider than ever. Any form of Efficient affordable clean safe public tranposrtation is non existant (takes 3 hours to get across town!) . Affordable housing non existant, except in rural or stagnant isolated migrant desert like cities . Homelessness is nearing 6 digits!
    Drug abuse now acceptable. Did I mention a housing crisis and living wage issues.
    How can this State be such a crowning achievment and yet everywhere I look homelessness and people in dispare clinging to divorced lives, to home rentals , and roomate conditions, and Uber Jobs seems to be the norm?Quality of life Is pretty (pardon the French) Fkdddd up out here as far as I can see. Fry's, Sears, Malls, and Cashier jobs all going away , One or two people at the register on a weekend?
    Do we need change? or not? what's happening.
    Thank you godbless

  16. Nobel Committee? of course the whole prize network is just the attempt of a weapons dealer to whitewash his family history, but I believe the Nobel prize in economics is awarded buy a separate conjunct thrown together by the field of Economics to give itself credibility as it's normally considered a pseudoscience。 marks correctly saw economics as a political device, not a science。

  17. As Mandragara said below:« Nobel Memorial Prize in economics. There is no Nobel Prize in economics. The Economists basically invented their own prize and gave it a similar name because they felt left out »

  18. Michael Hudson wrote a great takedown of this phony farce of a Nobel prize all the way back in 1970:
    http://michael-hudson.com/1970/12/does-economics-deserve-a-nobel-prize-and-by-the-way-does-samuelson-deserve-one/

  19. I tend to like & enjoy Dr Wolff, and I can go toe to toe on Marxism and the history of the 1917 Revolution with anyone here, that is; I know his subject well.
    However this short hate fomenting vid is very poor, and thus very aggravating. As we see here Dr Wolff is followed by boot lickers who are loath to dare to criticize him, they are therefore followers not thinkers, and Wolff would do better to realize he has as a base a lot of weak-minded, obedient to ideology outrage hobbyists. He should be INVITING criticism, if only to educate his base to think for themselves. Marxism we must recall failed because each individual is at heart out for themselves, they do their best when motivated for themselves to work. Here is the a member of the Nobel Committee explaining a bit about the award Wolff finds inadequate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=19&v=opDlEvmlx4A

    I agree that some people have too much, but if you own a home you have paid for for 35 years working at a simple job, you are richer than 2/3rds of the people on Earth. Should you have it taken away? Comparisons that disparage wealth or worse demand equal outcomes are a propagandist tactic that while useful to agitate do not teach anything useful. Every person in India & China aspires to be as wealthy as an upper middle class American and nothing is going to change that. Some level of greed is natural and unstoppable in all mammals via evolution. The idea of the new Marxism Man who is without self interest died under the experiment of the USSR. Targeting certain families is in fact rather sick, one might more usefully target classes of investors or geographical regions.

  20. Shameful really. Shameful, Shameful, Shameful… Nobel Prize Committee? Such is our world today. Read Camus and Prof. WOLFF!

  21. I don't like the idea that you critique of capitalism negatively subtly quietly the problem with economics is not capitalism it is the politicians and the government and the church which solute the destruction of the middle class and the poor favoring the rich the politically advantaged Etc you sound like a Marxist I've heard you were a Marxist why don't you admit it capitalism and the Constitution and Jesus Christ made Western Civilization great great great but a bunch of people came into this country they knew how to conquer this country they knew how to take it over they knew how to put it in debt and kill anyone who stood in their way today you even comment on these people you are destroyed you ain't even blacklisted off of YouTube it is the corruption of the economy Fiat system destroys capitalism Marxism is why we are here Karl Marx and later Stalin Lenin Concord Russia I killed 60 million Christians seems to me that would be the Holocaust

  22. Brilliant, and no the rich will not change the current economic system, as it is to day because it works for them. But in the end change will come because of the needs of millions or billions of people who have needs to be filled as human being's. Did you notice that these small correction, by these economise prize winner was one's all former colonies, of the former Europeans at one time ! .

  23. In 1900 the title richest single person on Earth was a tossup between the Czar of all the Russians, Nicholas Romanov II, and John Rockefeller, the founder of The Standard Oil of Ohio. Nicholas technically owned all the land in Russia, (had it been 1835, he would have also owned 50,000,000 or more people). Rockfeller's wealth translates to him being a Trillionaire today. One man, (not 25 families) $1T. Meanwhile under the conversion to state capitalism in China since 1985, perhaps 600,000,000 Chinese have risen from a poverty level of not owning shoes or having ever seen a dentist, to being what an American would consider lower middle class with apartments and various goods. I don't mention this to make any other point than that: things have improved, using capitalism. It seems to me that the problem of capitalism is campaign financing (not in China obviously) that leads to advantages for the wealthy.

    If campaigns were publicly funded you would see a strong social democratic movement in places like the US, but you would not see Marxism. This is because Marxism would be unconstitutional in the US by violating various property rights, and thus it would not be popular. The improvements delivered by social democratic (yeah Sanders!) policies would be enough to take the stress off of most Americans backs. Keep in mind that laws against property have to be enforced, and that is why every Marxist state to date, USSR, Romania, East Germany, North Korea, Bulgaria, etc were all in the end police states that the people hated, with huge market driven black market economics. I suggest people read Victor Sebestyen's – "Revolution 1989" for some insight on life in Marxist hells.

  24. Minor, incremental solutions for those who need the most help and have the least wealth. Massive increases of wealth for those who already have more than anyone else.
    Maybe it wasn't conscious on behalf of the Nobel committee, but they're rewarding doing the least possible… incremental change is "Let's not actually make a noticeable difference nor have anything actually change, we want to just do barely enough to keep this source of labor alive and not openly rebelling."

    Certainly can't say anything about the motivations of those economists because I just don't know anything about them, but whether they know it or not they are tools for the wealthy to keep their empires grinding along and using up anyone they can.

  25. Ferdinand Lundberg published his book 'America's 60 Families' way back in 1937 and it's amazing how things have not changed in terms of the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few — instead it has gotten worse since then. Lundberg also has written some other excellent books, and I highly recommend seeking them out.

  26. The hipocracy of Nobel prize committee such a show of well dressed people with titles dinning wine and caviar??we do remember the time when every news was talking about Aung San Suu Kuy and how she is fighting for democracy in Myanmar what happened no one is talking now after all we know . The show is going on and the rest of us still lack the basics:(

  27. Stop calling it the Nobel prize! It's the Swedish national bank economics prize. They call it "in memory of Alfred Nobel" in spite of the wishes of the family.

  28. When you open the gate to foreign ownership and other countries have more billionaires than yours, that's it your country is theirs. North Americans will feel the pain of Latin American countries.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *