2014 "Noam Chomsky": Why you can not have a Capitalist Democracy! 

Great speech but his brother's wedding was no place to give it.

Corporations should never have been given the legal status of "persons".

It saddens me to know that there will come a time when Chomsky will no longer be with us. His insight is admirable, he’s truly one of the greatest figures of the 20th and 21st century.

As someone of Scottish descent, I am heartened that someone in the public eye really understands Adam Smith's humanitarian leanings. He is one of the most misrepresented of economists. A bit like Nietzsche in philosophy, people think that they understand the ideas without having read the text.

His take on Adam Smith deserves to be studied in depth. Specially by neo-liberals...

Libertarianism vs Classic Liberalism 2:30 Capitalism in the US 8:07 Failures of British capitalism 10:20 Laissez Faire in US 1945 11:30 A Word on Democracy 15:10 Correlation between income, Voter abstinence, who shapes public policy 16:12

Pretty much relatable to what freedom is as stated by Žižek: We feel free because we lack the very language to articulate our unfreedom.

As a conservative, Noam Chomsky is one of the few leftist that I not only respect, but stand in awe of his wealth of knowledge and the ease with which he can recall it and tie all together. What a brilliant mind!

Amazing individual. I find myself mesmerized by the depth of his insight and factual argumentation in such a broad and complex field. His courage to speak out so directly and unapologetically seems heroic to me - society is better off because of it. I'm grateful for Noam Chomsky.

"I'm afraid I gotta leave" is the Chomskyist version of a mic drop.

The guy who said “woo!” at the :54 mark - that was me. That’s my union 1199.

I put this on as I was going to bed. It’s like having Noam read you a socialist bedtime story. Ahhhh

I hate how conservatives distort Adam Smith. Adam Smith was pretty progressive. It would do the conservatives some good to actually read what he wrote!

The US is a democracy? Hmm. Today, it seems more like an oligarchy.

i was in vietnam in 1970....shortly afterwards i heard of and started reading stuff by chomsky.....this man has been spot on to the reality of america for over 50 years.....

"The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects are perhaps always the same, or very nearly the same, has no occasion to exert his understanding or to exercise his invention in finding out expedients for removing difficulties which never occur. He naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become. The torpor of his mind renders him not only incapable of relishing or bearing a part in any rational conversation, but of conceiving any generous, noble, or tender sentiment, and consequently of forming any just judgement concerning many even of the ordinary duties of private life... But in every improved and civilized society, this is the state into which the labouring poor, that is, the great body of the people, must necessarily fall unless the government takes some pains to prevent it." Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, 1776

Workplace Democracy = Real Freedom

His comment on libertarianism was flawless. When he followed up saying maybe they just don't understand it, he is not being disingenuous - "I'm not saying that you don't believe what you're saying; I'm saying that if you didn't believe what you were saying you wouldn't be sitting here"

That's not Democracy, that's Plutocracy. First time I've ever heard somebody else say that, and by the God that doesn't exist, was it refreshing to do so. I've been disillusioned for years, but I've only just begun to truly wake up in the last 2-3. I wish I'd have known of people like Noam Chomski 20 years ago. What a true gem.

Really glad to hear that corporations are looking out for my needs. I can tell because of all the free apps out there. All I have to do is give them my personal information and they use it only for good things and only send me ads for things I really need.

freedom to exploit

Chomsky is one of the last real intellectuals.

This man can say something you’ve always thought about. He articulates it in such a way , any sensible being would understand.

Glad Noam redistributes his wealth of knowledge!

haha, Libertarianism fights for freedom of one to submit oneself as slave to the other.

Thank you for uploading this intelligent, serene and well-balanced talk by Noam Chomsky - as always packed with important and most relevant historical data. He is a hero to me.

Chomsky makes me happy

Capitalist democracy is an oxymoron.

At last a rational view of what today's so called 'libertarian' really is. Shame on the sheep so easily led and enslaved.

Does anyone other than me sadly realise that, for all his great thinking and writing and lecturing, NC has had no influence on a single politician or piece of legislation anywhere on the world. Despite all his agitation to the contrary "The System" has just continued along screwing us up the same as it always has. My core belief, at age 63, is that by adulthood, 99% of people are already well entrenched in their worldviews and partisan political standpoints such that Noam, and other truly progressive thinkers like him, spend their lives doing nothing but preeching to the converted, ie their own crowd. The pollies who get elected (right across the political spectrum) care nought about any of the facts or ideas he espouses. He ain't a congressman, (nor a financial lobbyist) so therefore he can be ignored by them. Unfortunately he's not a PLAYER, has no real power, and therefore, sadly, no change can ever come through all his words. He's just like a spectator on the sidelines, shouting out his frustrations about the way the players are behaving. Yes, he makes all of us fans feel good in our agreement with him, but NOTHING EVER CHANGES on Capital Hill because of Noam Chomsky. Yes, we will miss him terribly when he dies; he will be called things like the greatest intellectual of the 20th and 21st centuries; people will say he was so prescient; but his life's work will have been in vain. Sad but true, I feel.

Leigha, could you activate captions/community contributions? I'd like to translate this in italian, in my spare time :D

are these thoughts in written in some books or paper... ?? recommendation will be appreciated...thanks!

If you're interested in this particular topic then I suggest another talk by Chomsky entitled the Year 501. He goes into more detail in his description.

I think the takeaway here, in 2019, is we live in a plutocracy and do we want to continue to do so.

"think it through, its obvious" - noam chomsky

Can you make this captionable .. this is a great talk and I want to show it to my students and have a few who need to read subtitles. Thx

Minute 1:42 when he says "is the kind that would permit" he clearly meant "is the kind that would prevent."

Noam, you are truly an inspiration for anyone who seeks to transcend the boundaries and gaps that are laid in front of our eyes everyday in order to reach some sense of truth and hopefully be able to survive our own constrains laid upon ourselves throughout history.

@LeighaCohen why the automatic translation is off? can you enable it in settings, so the deaf people can understand it, too? Please

I have tried to locate the Chicago University scholarly edition of Wealth fo Nations he references. Anyone have a link?

As they say "vote with your dollar". Of course that is dependent on how many dollars you have...

Freedom comes with resposibility. This is where freedom fails.

College students don't often read the classics, they read sections of the classics printed out and distributed by their professors. Classics that, taken out of context, often seem to support the professor's ideological, philosophical, and political views. I think most mean well and are trying to cut student costs, but the consequences of skating the mere surface of many great works is the easy manipulation and misunderstanding of those works.

Anyone who has ever said that the government should be run like a business/corporation does not believe in democracy

unaccountable corporate tyrannies - google apple Amazon patreon Twitter....... he was right!

Chomsky is like a real life hero to myself and many others around the world

Here's an excerpt from pages 349 and 350 of the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith that Chomsky refers to when talking about the invisible hand: "As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor he knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectual than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those affected to trade for the public good. It is an affection, indeed, not very common among the merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it."

Can anyone answer this question . If Adam Smith was against the division of labour , why have the Unions of which I was apart of , are against cross training And demarcation . I’ve always thought it is a good thing to protect your trade ?

Wow..ive just began checking out noam chomskys ideas and I find it amazing that he says the same things I do about a lot of things..nice to know im not alone..lol

I love that Chomsky reinforces that theme of the "vile maxim of our time" almost every time he speaks. That is the basic point and problem with the world - we are all taught that being psychopathic selfish SOBs is the way to live, but only the very few at the top benefit from that ... . it is pure insanity.

RU-vid provided, and automated Subtitle is VERY »BAD to translate. Due to many factors like: Pronunciation, mumbling, fast-talk, Audio/Sound etc. »»» a SOLID, manually added TRANSCRIPTION/SUBTITLE would even give this great Video more depth. That way, MORE international viewers would/could join in - since they would/could translate to their native mother-tongue »the CORRECT way. ---- Subsequence (later) modifications (adjustments) can still be made, right!? --- Any chance of doing so?

What's going on in the audio at 4:19 eh?

thank you for this .... don,t dought your say...

Still active at 90, incredible!

I searched two copies of 'Wealth of Nations' and found more then one reference to 'Invisible Hand' but in this video Prof. Chomsky says there is only one. I am confused.

"Mr. Chosmky, could you give us a few words for Lil' Jimmy's birthday?" Chomsky: 0:08

Perhaps wealth of nations should be read by first year econ students. After all, reinforcing the ideas that are fundamental to models of economics seems like a reasonable idea. I'd also think it's available for free to download somewhere...

Show this video to a libertarian and their head will implode

I learnt about Noam Chomsky in the Seventies of the past century, when his Transformational Grammar became popular among linguists. I like linguists dealing with political issues because they are not bribable for ideological reasons but show a pragmatical attitude. They are hardly biased but always credible.

I wonder if Chomsky could benefit from a RU-vidr with great editing skills and the ability to inflect for dramatic emphasis repeating the exact content of his speeches and bolstering the signal with those skills and abilities.

@8:30 Being from India, have to agree to the two key points made by Chomsky: a) India was the already the commercial hub of the world prior to British colonization and b) In the 100 years as a British colony, it underwent forcible 'de-development'.

At one point Dr Chomsky thinks faster than he speaks; there should have been a "not" in there: "the kind of interference in the market they wanna block, is the kind that would (not) permit unconstrained tyranny on the part of totally unaccountable private tyrannies, which is what corporations are."

Excellent video..thank you for sharing

in this pandemic the ones still profiting are retailers and pharma go figure

I wish Thomas Sowell and Noam could have 1 debate before they die, much respect to both

"... fraid I gotta leave" - the ever humble Noam Chomsky

open the subtitles please

When the US government was begun formally, after the revolution, capitalism was young but to many economic elites, it was clear that it was only just getting started, had massive wealth potential, and that feudalism was over, that was in Europe, and the anti UK revolution in the US was a revolution against being used as a colony to supply raw materials to British manufacturing, for growth of capitalist ruling interests there. The US interests wanted to realize this wealth expansion potential in their own new country, a country they saw themselves as the owners of, i mean, their class, the property owners. They didn't see it as belonging to all the people, except in the abstract symbolic ideological sense. They had no intention of having a democracy in the US. The guy who wrote the constitution, by himself in his house, not together with other elites, they gave him the job because of his abilities an because he represented their interests and shared them, was James Madison. The constitution of the US was overtly designed to prevent democracy. Madison and his people were very afraid of a majority of people coming together to legislate redistribution of wealth. This information isn't something hidden that you need to read between lines to find out, back in those days, most elites were not for democracy and any conflict was over how much symbolism of democracy there would be and how much there wouldn't be. Madison and John Jay and Alexander Hamilton, who in those days called themselves Federalists, wrote a large number of papers called The Federalist Papers, in which each of them were explaining the new constitution they were proposing and in those papers they were defending it and advocating for it and giving their reasons for that. Probably the most famous one is called The Federalist Paper No.10, written by Madison. It's a few pages long (It's on line, in PDFs and also excerpts). It's famous because in it, he gives the reasons for changing the government from the original government, Articles of Confederation ,to the Constitution that he wrote and it's considered to be the authoritative explanation of the purposes of the constitution and the means it uses to achieve its purposes. The reason they were making all these arguments was because the Constitution had to be voted into power, and these were their publications to try to persuade people to vote for it. In those days a majority of people were not eligible to vote, there were property requirements. So the voters that Madison was appealing to were the propertied people. His main argument is that societies are mainly divided into two factions, the majority which has no property and the minority which has property. There are other factions, he says, but these are the main ones in all societies. These factions compete with each other because of the differences in property. Madison says, echoing the political thought of John Locke, that some people are born into wealth and this is just the way it is, some people work hard and build wealth, some people are born with a lot of it and they are entitled to what they have, no one else has a just claim on it. The propertyless people want more than what they have . This is only natural. Both sides want what they can get. As it turns out, only a minority have very much property Human nature, he says, is ruled by passion. When people fight over property, they are fueled by passion, passion overcomes reason, this is just human nature, he says. Bot the majority and minority factions are motivated by their passions and less by reason. In fact he says the majority of people who don't have property are not motivated by reason at all, while the minority who have property are not as overwhelmed by their passions because having property is something that makes people more reasonable, more able to see bigger picture and think things through. This is why he argues that democracy is a bad form of government and that's why he created the constitution to prevent this bad kind of government from happening. Near the beginning the essay he says 'the greatest threat to the union' is the threat of the majority influence. By definition, the procedural form of democracy is majority rule. Madison says this is disastrous because the majority is not enlightened, they are ruled totally by passion, he gives the only historical example, the ancient Athenian democracy, and he relates that it lasted for a while, but people were all fighting and disagreeing all the time, and finally it fell apart and an oligarchy took over. He said even if you're for democracy, if you are realistic about it, you will want to prevent it because it will just end up in oligarchy in the end anyway. The biggest problem of democracy is that it would give the majority the power to legislate redistribution of wealth. Madison said this would be unjust and would be a form of theft. These ideas are so deep in American thinking. For this reason, theft by majority using legislation, Madison did not want a parliamentary form of government like the British had. Parliamentary means legislative rule, the majority of people (those who are allowed to vote) elect representatives to go to the parliament and in the parliament they pass laws by majority rule. Madison thought this would be harmful to the interests of the properties minority, and therefore, harmful to everybody's interests, as he says. The propertied minority was the faction most capable of running the country in its own best interests. He says the the propertied people know the majority's interest better than the majority itself. i won't go into the parts about how the constitution was designed to prevent democracy, other than to say it prevented legislative rule by creating a very different form of government with "separation of powers", legislative, executive, judicial branches each with different powers. in a parliamentary system , the prime minister in the legislature is the chief executive of the country, so there isn't a separation of legislative (majority) and executive powers. Another thing about parliamentary systems is that if the government is not satisfying the public with its running of the country, a vote of no confidence can be held, at any time, it's not necessary to wait 4 years or 8 years to vote again, and this gives the majority of the public a lot more power to influence their governnent how it is in the US. The parliamentary system in the UK predated the sort of birth of capitalism and was not create with capitalist interest in mind Madison and his allies were smart and could see that the capitalist system was capable of doing all kinds of great things economically, especially for his class but also in general, it was kind of visionary, and his thinking was, the less restriction and regulation of capitalists the better for the country because of how wealth would grow compared to the land based wealth and production system that it was steadily replacing, political change was bourgeois, it was for the capitalist class, and especially the industrialist capitalist class. The US revolution was a capitalist revolution, the replacement of the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution completed the capitalist revolution and created the country that would be the most successful dynamic capitalist country in the world. It worked. The US can never be a democracy as long as the US constitution is its government, there is no way, unless the elite wanted to get rid of capitalism, which is not what has been happening through out US history and there's no sign of that now. Without going into the argument here that Madison makes about how the Constitution will prevent democracy, i will just say that in Federalist No 10, he makes a 'divide and rule' argument for the constitution. In many ways he says, it divides up the majority so that not only can they not act as a majority. They can't even think as a majority, there is no consciousness of a common majority interest (such as universal publicly funded health care and other policies Madison considered unjust wealth redistribution, even though it turns out it would use money the public has paid in taxes to finance the government , but people aren not able to think very clearly in this way, the constitution, which as Madison argues, enlarges the power of the federal government, and the expansion of the country which he advocated, brings diverse interests under the same political system in which they have to compete with each other for government resources and this keeps them from looking at common interests they share, in the US people, if the constitution is passed, will be loyal to their more local or specialized interests and will not trust each other to join on what they share -- this keeps the propertied minority safe and these are the people who will best "represent" the chopped divided majority, people who have property which frees them to have time to be representatives in the government. They were never intended to have the same interests as the people they represent. He wanted them to rule precisely because they didn't have the unwise interests of the majority You can agree or disagree with him, he had some good points, about instability in a democracy, and also mainly, i would say he and his faction created the absolute best possible government for capitalism to grow rapidly and to realizes and maximize its wealth creating potential, and it's been a good thing for the world, over all. But no system lasts for ever because things evolve, capitalism has changed things and public needs and goals change. I just want to point out what almost no one in the US knows, the impossibility of democracy under the US constitution and that this was deliberate on the part of the people who created this government.

His most important annotation “It is changeable, it is not run by force” is exactly the Unique quality of Capitalism, under any other system it will be run by force

I always love finding out that I've been saying the same things as Noam. Though I have no doubt he was first. This video beautifully explains my grievance with many supposed people. Take Cenk Uygur of the young turks for example, here is two quotes from him "I love democracy" "I love capitalism" He see's absolutely no hypocrisy in holding those positions simultaneously, and this is the failure of many good people across the world both left and right.

The quotation marks in the title should be over the statement, not the name

There was a man by the name of Limantour, who was the financial secretary for Porfirio Diaz. He once said something to the effect "The proof of Americas greatness is its poor style of governance." Getting at the idea that America had proven some form of greatness because it had managed to generate a capitalist system with some form of democracy. I am not a fan of Limantour at all, but it's quite interesting actually. Because for those who look at it from an ideological standpoint, democracy and capitalism do not exactly see eye to eye--I am not saying I dislike democracy, I'm saying capitalism is flawed and our society is in need of restructuring; I am not even saying we need to ban free markets, but that they need to be heavily regulated--It may seem as though America has democracy, but look at how many countries America has aided specifically because they didn't have democracy. American businessmen, for example, loved Diaz because he maintained stability and order. His people may not have been free, and the working class may have been suffering, but it was the cost for increased capital for American companies. In other words, America might preach local democracy, but it thrives on exterior positivism and non-free people.

None of the conventional "isms" address the fundamental imbalance between human and property rights associated with access to and control over nature. In terms of labor and capital goods, nature has a zero cost of production. Nature is provided to humans for our use and survival. Almost alone among the great political and economic thinkers, the American Henry George presented a cogent argument for a labor and capital goods basis for property. Nature is, George argued, the commons from which all wealth is produced. Nature is the source of private wealth but is not legitimate private wealth. The ideal structure for accessing any part of nature is under a competitive bidding system for a leasehold interest issued by the community or society. Note that government is, then, the agent of the community and society for administrating such as system. As deeds to nature had already become a widespread norm, George argued that a second-best approach was for government to collect from every "owner" of land (broadly defined to include such natural assets with an inelastic supply as frequencies on the broadcast spectrum) the full potential annual rental value. This would serve as the fund with which to pay for democratically agreed upon public goods and services, which the potential for an annual citizen's dividend to be distributed. The term that best described the principles embraced by Henry George is "cooperative individualism". Edward J. Dodson, Director School of Cooperative Individualism www.cooperative-individualism.org

Adam Smith said that the wants and needs of the producers should not be allowed to outweigh that of the consumers/workers. Paraphrasing

The context of Adam Smith's quote matters: "But what all the violence of the feudal institutions could never have effected, the silent and insensible operation of foreign commerce and manufactures gradually brought about. These gradually furnished with great proprietors with something for which they could exchange the whole surplus produce of their lands, and which they could consume themselves without sharing it either with tenants or retainers. ALL FOR OURSELVES AND NOTHING FOR OTHER PEOPLE, SEEMS, IN EVERY AGE OF THE WORLD, TO HAVE BEEN THE VILE MAXIM OF THE MASTERS OF MANKIND." - Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, Book III, Chapter IV.

Got a typo in the title

" Free market capitalism is the only system invented that makes even its critics rich, as Mr Chomsky and others have found out" - Dougals Murray.

Very interesting. The phrase that dawned on me as I was listening was "compared to what?". Every governmental system has deep flaws, and can't deliver what it claims to be able to deliver, but one has to look at the outcomes of living conditions, and compare the options that we have so far tried. Also remember that virtually every idea that is tried in industry, business, science, and government is a failure before it succeeds - it's very difficult or impossible to know what the outcome will be of trying to affect a complex and chaotic system. We are continually refining and improving the system so that it serves more and more people - 70% disenfranchisement is better than the 90% it might have been 100 years ago and the 99% it was 100 years before that. "Pure" democracy is not some panacea either - the tyranny of the majority is a very real issue to contend with - the idea that if its just based on a popular vote, then a popular vote could legitimately vote to destroy a minority ethnic group or an individual or the intellectuals, or whatever minority you care to mention.

Noam Chomsky is a very intelligent man, and he is right by saying that Adam Smiths arguments for free markets are rather balanced and nuanced, but unfortunately his assertions regarding how Adam Smith used the term “Invisible Hand” in “Wealth of Nations”, and how that relates to the modern use of the expression, are misleading at best, and plain wrong at worst. Since there seems to be a lot of confusion on the topic, I decided to write a short explanation on how Adam Smith used the metaphor of the “Invisible Hand” in “Wealth of Nations”, and why I think Chomsky’s claims are misleading. I have posted some version of this text on multiple RU-vid videos in which Chomsky talks about this subject. Since this specific video is a little bit longer and covers many other things as well, I want to point out that I do not argue against other points that Chomsky is making here. My argument is only concerned with his interpretation of the "Invisible Hand". In “Wealth of Nations”, the “Invisible Hand” is mentioned once in book IV, chapter 2. That chapter is concerned with restraints upon importation of goods that can be produced at home. Among many other things that are discussed in this chapter, Adam Smith mentions the phrase “Invisible Hand” somewhat offhandedly, in a discussion about investment behavior. Now let’s look at the full quote: “By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain; and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest, he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it.” With this sentence Adam Smith summarizes 2-3 previous pages in which he outlines his arguments. The quote has roughly four parts. We now look at each of them individually, and add in the context of the previous pages. 1. “By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; […]” This is the part that Chomsky mostly talks about. Adam Smith argues that upon equal or close to equal profits, merchants generally prefer to invest their capital in domestic rather than foreign industry. The reason for this is that the merchants like to have direct oversight over their business, and they are more accustomed to the people and the laws of their home country, which reduces the risk of doing business. Now, Chomsky is largely correct when he says that the “Invisible Hand” refers to this sort of “Home Bias”, but he fails to mention that according to Adam Smith, this is due to investors acting in their own self-interest. More importantly, he also fails to mention that this “Home Bias” is not the only thing to which the “Invisible Hand” is referring to. 2. “[…] and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain […]” This is a totally separate argument and has absolutely nothing to do with the “Home Bias” that was the subject of the first part. Smith argues, that when people invest their money, they look for the most profitable industry to do so. The most profitable industry in turn, is the industry which creates the most value. Since the annual revenue of a society is equal to the value added in production, the self-interest of investors, according to Smith, leads to the most beneficial investment of capital. This very much resembles how the expression “Invisible Hand” is used today, but Chomsky does not acknowledge or even mention this part at all. 3. ”[…] and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.” Finally, we come to the part, where Adam Smith describes these mechanisms with the metaphor of the “Invisible Hand”. It generally refers to the fact that the self-interested actions of individuals can lead to outcomes which were not intended by the individuals. The important part here is “AS IN MANY OTHER CASES”, meaning that the metaphor is not limited to the aforementioned instances, but can be applied to many other cases as well. 4. “Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest, he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it.” This last part concludes by saying, that this mechanism of the “Invisible Hand” frequently leads to outcomes which are beneficial to society as a whole, which again is very much in line with the modern use of the expression. Arguments for other cases where the “Invisible Hand” leads to better societal outcomes, can be found all over the book. In summary, the “Invisible Hand” as it is used by Adam Smith in “Wealth of Nations”, refers to the fact, that individual self-interested actions can lead to unintended outcomes. Smith also states, that the unintended results of individual self-interested actions, frequently improve national welfare better, than actions which are consciously designed to do so. Smith mentions the metaphor while explaining two mechanisms (1. Self-interested investors prefer to invest at home compared to abroad; 2. Self-interested investors invest in industries, which are most beneficial to society), but he also clearly states, that this holds in many other cases as well. So, Chomsky is right in saying that Adam Smith uses the “Invisible Hand” in “Wealth of Nations” to explain some sort of “Home Bias”, but he is wrong in reducing the expression to this very specific instance. He acknowledges only the first part of the sentence, but ignores the second part, and even more importantly, he ignores the third part in which Adam Smith explicitly says that the two mentioned cases are just specific examples of a more general concept, which applies to many other cases as well. Chomsky seems to imply that the way the expression of the “Invisible Hand” is used and understood today, is somehow in contrast to what Adam Smith wrote, but this assertion is simply not correct. The modern use of the expression “Invisible Hand” is a completely legitimate interpretation, and exactly in line with how Adam Smith used it in “Wealth of Nations”. Chomsky’s reductive interpretation, which he has repeated many times over the years in many different places, is indicative of him being either disingenuous or misinformed. If we give him the benefit of the doubt by assuming that he is being genuine, then his line of argumentation reveals a very superficial reading on his part, and he would have been well-advised to read the passage a little bit more carefully.

Who brings a child to a Noam Chomsky lecture?

Corporations are "people" in the same sense as governments are "people": large organizations of people under which power is concentrated, but accountability is diffused until totally abstracted. When a large bank, for example, undergoes policy that tanks a world economy, defenders point to the unnavigable bureaucratic structure, and say, "nobody is responsible, the bank is not an individual!" This is the catch-22 of corporate power: corporations are composed of people, but that does not mean that they are accountable as people, nor should they enjoy rights as individuals. Could you imagine someone saying "governments are people, my friend"? Such a statement is absurd.

hope Chomsky words will never be lost/forgotten/forsaken! Long live, Noam Chomsky!

Who is messing with the sound levels?😲

Noam Chomsky's speaking fee was $10,000 to $20,000.

This man is my man. I live by his philosophy.

it has been noted MANY times, that there is NO SUCH THING as a purely capitalistic nor a purely socialistic economic system in any country ANYWHERE in the world.. all countries employ a mix of the two systems, yes even the united states and china which like to think of themselves as being on opposite ends of the spectrum

In the west, many people regularly rummage through spattered bins and trash cans, with restaurants on every corner in the background. In the USSR, restaurants were clearly more modest, but it was difficult to imagine that a Soviet person would want to climb into the trash can, despite the more modest average salary of the population.

Who’s a g and knows where to find the full video??

This was me, a naive "libertarian" who had never actually read Smith. Of course, I hardly ever really read any books in college, I just skimmed what I could to keep up with the syllabus and take the exam

His misreading of Adam Smith is astounding. I'm sure Chomsky means well, but he quoted Adam Smith's ' _The_ _Theory_ _of_ _Moral_ _Sentiments_ ' and said Smith's example argument for wealth distribution hinged on the landlords "natural sympathy for other people" when in reality the premise of this example was that the Landlord was uncaring and unfeeling, with no sympathy at all. Smith was really saying that the ways in which he paid his laborers would inevitably create a fair income distribution. The quote for anyone interested: "The proud and unfeeling landlord views his extensive fields, and without a thought for the wants of his brethren, in imagination consumes himself the whole harvest ... [Yet] the capacity of his stomach bears no proportion to the immensity of his desires ... the rest he will be obliged to distribute among those, who prepare, in the nicest manner, that little which he himself makes use of, among those who fit up the palace in which this little is to be consumed, among those who provide and keep in order all the different baubles and trinkets which are employed in the economy of greatness; all of whom thus derive from his luxury and caprice, that share of the necessaries of life, which they would in vain have expected from his humanity or his justice...The rich...are led by an invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life, which would have been made, had the earth been divided into equal portions among all its inhabitants, and thus without intending it, without knowing it, advance the interest of the society, and afford means to the multiplication of the species. When Providence divided the earth among a few lordly masters, it neither forgot nor abandoned those who seemed to have been left out in the partition." This is another example of Chomsky's complete overconfidence in areas not in his specialty- he really shouldn't think he knows Adam Smith better than Friedman.

Thank you Professor.

Make this VIDEO WITH SUBTITLES ALSO IN SPANISH in order for many to watch it and learn from it will be appreciated if not much to ask THANKS YOU

Just remember you may not share the same opinion as him, but he has a lot more evidence and research backing his opinion than you do

Well fuck, Noam. What would you put in place of the existing paradigm? Utopia isn't a possibility. Sure, I'll call myself an anti-capitalist, just as I would call myself anti-suffering, but I don't make the mistake of thinking suffering is going to cease to exist.

I agree with Plato. I’d rather have a philosopher king. An enlightened king.

I am unclear as to what he means by "sound economics." Does anyone know?

The greatest shame is that America, and the world never got to experience this great man as a legislator.

i don't understand where he is getting at. what's the alternative? i don't think anyone with a reasonable understanding of socioeconomics isn't aware of our current societies' flaws. that doesn't mean better alternatives are available.

add subtitles please ^^

If one defines Capitalism as a system for the allocation of resources according to need as expressed by customers/people which is Adam Smith`s idea, then one can have a capitalist democracy. This is found in NW Spain and is part of the larger system.