It sounds like you may actually agree with what Prof. Wolff is saying (I don’t think I’ve ever heard him utter a nice word about “liberals”). These talks are about economics, the superficial party names don’t matter; what matters is their owners. The “liberal” v. “conservative”/ “red state” v. “blue state”’ thing is a hoax and always has been. The parties are just two branches of the Property Party, and believe essentially the same thing: policy should serve the interests of the rich.

You can see this whenever they confront a real progressive challenger. For instance, when Bernie Sanders ran for Mayor of Burlington, the Republicans and Democrats joined forces and ran a “fusion” candidate against him. So much for partisanship! It happened in my city too, which is solidly Democratic and controlled by the same real-estate interests, banks, foreign investors, etc. that control every city. Sometimes they call themselves Democrats, sometimes Republicans, sometimes they switch, but to understand what Prof. Wolff is saying, you’ve got to get beyond the rhetoric about parties and “liberals” or “conservatives”. The US is the only democracy that still has this argument. For most democracies, when the vote was granted to non-propertied men over 100 years ago, workers didn’t vote for the Tory (read: Conservative), which was their landlord’s party, or the Whig (read: Liberal), which was their employer’s party: they voted for their own Labor (or Labour) Party. The US can’t do this because of the structural ban against third parties and the first-past-the-post system, so we get stuck debating what is the best way to funnel even more of our money to the rich.

You said that Hudson Yards got public subsidization. Then you demonized “capitalism” in a thinly veiled attempt to implicate President Trump, for catering to the already well-off affluent at the expense of the disadvantaged. I found that humorous, like most of your theories and opinions. Only one who takes you seriously could be dense enough not to realize that Hudson Yards had to be conceived of, approved, and funded, under New York City’s liberal democrat “leaders”.