"The internet is going to be used as a home marketing service to turn people into passive consumers, you in the tube, for which the social unity of society is constructed so you don't have to worry about interacting, thinking people doing really bad things like what the folks in the slums of Port Au Prince years ago. People will be passive and obedient, hooked on consuming for themselves and not caring about anyone else. Then you really don't have to worry about the threat of democracy." Chomsky in 1997
@@jacobcrayola9311 lmao stunning predictions?? He was part of creating this new society.. remember he is part of the intellectuals that are in the upper part of the pyramid of society. He gets paid to study human behavior in this new societal structure that turns all humans into mindless consumers .
@@elijahmendez4107 His linguistics study is distinct from his political work and his talks (those he does for free). What "new society"? What "new societal structure"? You're not making sense.
Having listened to lots of loooooooooooong Chomsky lectures on the net over the years, this is one of the best and is still as relevant as the day it was made.
How much knowledge has Sage Bias of philosophy? His dismissal Noam Chomsky as a sophist (without any critique of Chomsky's ideas) would be noted as an Argumentum ad Hominem by an ordinary undergraduate philosophy student. Noam Chomsky has studied philosophy, and I've heard and read some of his works in the area.
Chomsky said: "There are some areas of the world where the sate is being minimized... that is reducing relative to GNP...namely those areas that have been under the influence and control of the international financial institutions and the United States... Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America in those areas state expenditures relative to GNP are low and declining and are also economic disasters. In the rich countries...OECD countries...thats the place where the ratio...is the highest and it's being going up... In the Asian growth area which has been essentially out of World Bank, US domination state expenditures have been going up...they are not as high as the rich countries but going up" Why do people blindly believe this before checking the economic figures? Chomsky is a great linguist but before believing this, do some research to see if it's true. After all economics is not his area. Government spending as a percent of GNP for (rich countries) OECD countries goes from 29.4% (Ireland) to 57% (Finland). Let's check Latin America. Argentina 41% in 2014 now its 43%. Brazil 39% in 2014 now its 41.9%. Colombia 29.0% in 2014 now is 29.6%. Cuba has been in the mid 60% for a few decades (much higer than the rich countries). Honduras 26% in 2014 now its 28.0%. Paraguay 19% in 2014 now its 24.4%. Peru 19% in 2014 now its 22.6%. Venezuela 40% in 2014 now its 41%. Let's check sub-Saharan Africa. Guinea 22% in 2014 now its 28.5%.Mozambique 34% in 2014 now its 35%. Namibia 37% in 2014 now its 39.6%. (higher). Niger 20% in 2014 now its 31.1%. Let's check Asian territories. Hong Kong 19% in 2014 now its 17.6% (lower). Indonesia 19% in 2014 now its 17.4%. Japan 42% in 2014 now its 39.3 (lower). Malaysia 29.0% in 2014 now its 25.2%. Taiwan 23% in 2014 now its 18.3%. There are many more examples. His analysis on economics is substandard to say the least. His claims does not hold up to scrutiny. Source: 2014 -2017 MACRO-ECONOMIC DATA (www.heritage.org/index/explore?view=by-variables)
Ill post this here to, as you did the same. Actually, you aren't really challenging his point - what he said is correct for the period of 1970 - 1990 (roughly), since this - the tables have turned. The pink wave hit Latin America and East Asia has shifted policy to slim down it's state (we might be seeing a change in that respect). What he is saying really is that the states that were under the conditional leash of the IMF & World Bank did undergo severe slashing of public goods provisions - which was largely resisted in the places he mentioned - leading to more sustainable growth. These aren't controversial facts - they are reported by the organizations themselves, as well as the fact that shock therapy costs were largely absorbed by the poorest and created large pockets of poverty etc. I could go on forever, but the essence is this: Noam Chomsky may sound over-confident, which makes him sound like he is clairvoyant. If you look at what he says in the context of when he said it - his comments are timely and well-researched. If you want to read more about the SAPs/shock therapy, read up on the works of Joseph Stiglitz (former World Bank chief) and Susan George. I would also urge you to find sources that try to justify the SAPs - but I haven't found any credible sources that I think are worth sharing. Perhaps you could say Paul Collier has a more level-headed approach.
You are very incorrect and I can prove it. You mentioned: "what he said is correct for the period of 1970 - 1990 (roughly)" This is wrong. He never mentioned that period and you know it. He mentioned an influence from the US, World Bank and IMF to go in that direction in government spending (he said: "...are low and declining...", he said "are") and this talk was in Dec. 5, 1997. That is what he claimed. You are just being dishonest. A report from the IMF in 2007 (source below) takes into account the period from 1995 to 2006. Taking the aggregate of all Latin American countries, the govt. spending as a percentage of GNP was increasing consistently throughout the period. You can't argue with the facts, Chomsky clearly was out of his depth. Chomsky is a great linguist, that's for sure, but his political ideology and status as professor of linguistics makes him talk about things he doesn't know anything about, economics in this case. Don't be fooled by fanaticism and critically think what he is claiming before reaching conclusions. Source: Public Expenditure in Latin America: Trends and Key Policy Issues by Benedict Clements, Christopher Faircloth, and Marijn Verhoeven. February 2007.
Carlos - you've made very harsh judgements, without making any good arguments (and "your" numbers don't support your point at all) but of course Chomsky is not all-knowing... all I am saying, you need to try a lot harder, to be able to come to the table with something constructive...
It's just amazing that he gave this lecture when I was only a couple of months old. Since I discovered him a year and a half ago, I've been just thirsty for the knowledge. Someone once said that a good teacher is someone who inspires you to be hungry for knowledge.
Lol all the arguments against Chomsky in the comments are super dumb. They call him an anti-Semite for criticizing the crimes of the state of Israel (even though he's Jewish), they call him anti-American for criticizing US imperialism. They obviously didn't actually listen to a word he said about free-market capitalism, because they never address a word he says... It's weak, you guys. Sigh.
@@mck1972 Don't you learn from the past? What has changed today? It's the same old crap repeated over and over again using a new envelope, which is nothing more than language manipulation fabricating consent.
@@mck1972 no-- YOU don't kno what Noam is talking about--- TYPICAL MURCAN IDIOT saying Chomsky doesn't kno what he's talking about cuz U don't kno what he's talking about!!! HOW do u get from HERE to THERE with that AVALANCHE of ignorance?
19:00 Transfer of power of the state 22:00 Development of democracy in middle and south america 25:30 Haïti 40:30 American democracy 47:50 Free flow of capital/liberalisation and virtual senate 49:30 Wage labour 1:10:00 Saddam Hussein 1:54:30 East West Europe
Sumeet Sigh Lehal, your response to Noam Chomsky is as vacuous and inane as that of Sage Bias. No critique, just an attack on the man. Which suggest that YOU are the one blowing smoke out of your ass.
As a non native english speaker I find hard to follow thru Noam's low voice tone, Ive to turn the volume up, and hear the background noise…. but anyways I always enjoy the Chomsky lectures.
+David Hernández I was also this way a couple of months ago but with a lot of listening it became increasingly easy for me to understand him and in generally English even when the volume is not high. I'd say that practice is the key.
Chomsky is a Z-ist gatekeeper. As such, he ultimately supports the Deep State because it supports Isr…, The Homeland of the …s, which is why he doesn't actively promote third parties. He has openly said that he is a Z-ist. And he tells untruths: www.gilad.co.uk/writings/chomsky-bds-and-the-jewish-left-paradigm.html
D Personal There’s a reason virtually no one has replied to this comment you’ve copied and pasted multiple times throughout this comment section. This is because it’s rubbish. To do everyone who has to read your jumbled nonsense a favour, Chomsky is not a Zionist in the sense the term is used today, he is a Zionist in the way in which the term was used in the late 1940s and was in opposition to a single state of Israel. You are an idiot.
Required viewing for anyone who wants to understand what the often-repeated phrase "free markets" really means and what it implies for the 99%, here and abroad.
If by that, you mean totalitarian socialist pigs who want to hear a discredited propagandist talk about how Stalin's USSR was a utopia that needs to be revisited.
@@michaelbrent6099 , Not as new as a Linguistics Professor, who has never served in any Political position, nor even run a burger stand, is to how anything in the real world, including, ' markets ', actually work! SMH
Love chomsky. Seeing how big he is in linguistics etc., i lapse into listening to his language. Interesting. For instance, at 1:27 , he talks about Merill Lynch and engineering department of Rio. While talking of the eng. dept. he immediately refers to 'good serious people', but when talking of Merill Lynch, he talks as if it is an object. Humanization of the positive and objectivization of the negative, to his argument. Interesting use of language. I wonder how many of us do that unconsciously how many times!!
I am in awe of Chomsky's ability to collate and correlate vast amount of information into a cohesive enlightening discourse. He is "big data" before this term came out from our use of computers. I learned mote relevant knowledge of free market and democracy than any one of my undergraduate classes. I think the Chinese must have been astute students of Chomsky because many of his thought are use in their policies to prevent domination by the beo-liberal capitalists of the west. Perhaps this is the reason for Western countries demanding China open up their capital markets.
Chomsky's ability to recite facts & figures is impressive. HOWEVER-This by itself does NOT prove that he actually understands the topic in question. -Any more than Chomsky merely reciting facts & figures about pro football, would by itself make him qualified to play or coach for an NFL team!
Like his economics colleague Richard Wolf. They are American heroes that were arrested, punched and beaten but, still speak out for the American people as well as the worlds population
The classic documentary, "Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media" is also available on RU-vid. It's a great way to introduce people to Chomsky's life and work. Glad to see it also has received tens of thousands of views over the past year or so, and is getting passed around on Facebook.
We have to keep thinking and fighting, reading this brilliant man, writing new stuff and putting them into action! I'm currently working on a book on ecology, economics and anarchy, and Chomsky's views on things such as individual "vs" collective and force vs legitimacy in law are crucial. I hope that it will be a good way to put the general ideas of Chomsky into practical action, all the while working on a more realistic economy, based on the ideas of Jane Jacobs and Fritz Schumacher.
@ 1:07:10 - 25 years later (damn!) and I'm locked inside glued/dependent onto internet for everything (work, study, communication, food, shopping, nrg bills, banking, groceries, you name it). The man was spot on !!! I don't even remember when was the last time I ventured outside...2-3months?? tbh, idk
Does anyone know of any videos where Mr. Chomsky talks about the Mutualist free markets of Proudhon, Tucker, et all. I mostly see him criticizing capitalist markets but I have not seen him mention much about Mutualist competitive markets. When talking about anarchism he mostly refers to Rocker, Bakunin and Kropotkin from what I have seen. I’d be interested in what he thinks about Proudhon’s advocating of the principle of federation by direct democracy and the mutualist socialist free markets that Proudhon advocated.
@ Provider OR Contributors: Do you have the Subtitle for this great video (in .srt)? Maybe you could re-upload this video in a higher resolution, that way a subtitle will/might be added "automatically".
free markets cant exist without being forced to exist. the entire point of capitalist entities like corporations is the eliminate free markets and competition. the system works against free markets, and ironically drives itself into the ground. regulated capitalism, a system that forces markets to stay more or less free is the only rationale solution outside of simply abandoning capitalism altogether. the reality is, however, that free markets dont exist anywhere, ever. they never have and never will. they're entirely academic theory.
Free market can not exist in real life. Deregulation helped cause the 2008 financial collapse. The bail out is also an example of how in real life the free market is a myth.
Read: The Banking Regulation Review - 5th edition. Editor Jan Putnis (Law Business Research) Chapter 25 titled Hong Kong My reference decisively proves the existence of economic regulation in Hong Kong. I will refrain from proving that your other claims are false for obvious reasons. Good day. www.legislation.gov.hk/blis_pdf.nsf/4f0db701c6c25d4a4825755c00352e35/5A827AA51F496D08482575EE004568BC/$FILE/CAP_155_e_b5.pdf
There was substantial growth and development due to slavery, now is that a reason to go back to slavery. I think not. capitalism appeals to feelings of green and exploitation we see its manifestations every day. Think as you wish for you opinion is shaped by your environment and your environment is controlled by capitalist oligarchs. Based on your argument we should then revert to a nationalist fascist state. It took Hitler 12 years to turn a broken country into a superpower. I will not respond further and I recommend to you a book called Public Opinion by Walter Lippmann.
***** Capitalism could have not existed without the alliance of the State and, essentially, protectionism. Chomsky has pointed out repeatedly how the State was a key ally for the two historic capitalist powerhouses: the US and the UK. In both cases the State performed as a staunch defender of their private enterprises, opening up markets with military intervention, allowing the development of the manufacturing complex by protectionism, coercing or straight out conquering regions that held the necessary resources for that development (South America would've never sold the prime materials for British manufactures or food at the ridiculous prices that they did without the intervention of the Crown. I doubt that Africa would've sold a large portion of its population as slaves without the intervention of the central states).The State is not only a friend of Capitalism, but a sine qua non requirement for it to properly spawn. The ruling class and the burgeois class became one in the "Double Revolution" (French + Industrial), and there is no way that the level of concentration of wealth that we have today would've happened without this perverse alliance between capitalists and states. "Just look at North Korea - that's real slavery and that's Socialism for you." Yeah, North Korea is socialist just like it's a democratic people's republic.
***** Crony Capitalism is what Capitalism has always been. Real Capitalism is an intellectual mythology used to justify Capitalism. It has never existed in any society in human history, because it would destroy that society in about five minutes. Go discuss imaginationland with someone else. "North Korea is communist, the end goal of Socialism." North Korea is State Capitalist. By the way, the word libertarian was created by an anarchist communist specifically to refer to anarchist communism.
when you minimise the state you dont eliminate decision making, it gets transferred to the private sector. the private sector however is not 'the people' and nor does it represent the interests of the people - this point which Chomsky makes is great and exactly what the neo libertarians fail to understand - unless you are teh koch brothers, then you know exactly who gets to benefit from this, themselves namely
Absolute bunk. Governments are not "the people". Unions are not "the people". Totalitarians like Chomsky and yourself only push this fantasy of the benevolent state and demonize the private sector because you cling to deluded fantasies that you'll be part of the vanguard in the event of achieving your dream of totalitarian socialist dictatorship.
Cody Mitchell unions are far more the voice of people then corporations - and this has always been the case and i really dont understand how you fail to comprehend this basic fact of what a union is and why people band together to demand things like fair pay, protections for their health and safety etc - and it has largely been through collectives that have advanced the rights of workers - you can thank unions for weekends, and depending on where you live, penalty rates, holidays, superannuation etc - all the work to push for equitable conditions for workers and employees in the developed world have been through people power. the world is alot more intricate and complicated then your braindead mantra of "totalitarian socialist dictatorship" can at all grasp the private sector is vital and i am not against that all but it needs regulation - just like government needs regulation otherwise you get things like Enron, or Unaoil and all the hiding of money such as the Panama Papers reveals, as well as anti-competitive practices which deform the free market. Government is what we make it, if you get fixed on thinking it is some alien slave master than you just fall into letting it become exactly that for you. I impression that you know not the slightest thing about regulatory laws and if you think just this is 'demonising' then you are perhaps unbeknownst to your slumbering consciousness already a willing shill for a ruling class which does its best to disempower people and dismantle representative democracy - representative democracy and regulated capitalism these are what i am for and happily so for the most part (though capitalism may become eventually defunct on its part as technological and environmental conditions in the world change)
Cody Mitchell there are though some unions which seem to be more like lobby groups which do some horrible things to just further problems - such as the prison guard union that push for more draconian laws because of their profit motive for more people being in prison - for profit prisons are bad enough, and we have seen how they drain taxpayer money also with things like minimum occupancy laws, as well as cases where they keep prisons indefintely past their release date because they need them for work - effectively slave labor
Businessmen, without the aid of the government, have to please consumers in order to stay in business. Therefore the people (consumers) are the ultimate arbiters.
@@divinuminfernum Representative democracy is the problem as people just use it to vote themselves more things, just as the corporations you hate do. Both of these things are a form of cronyism and both are a problem. Everyone wants to use government to get something for nothing and this is what destroys a country. Can't we agree that both the people and corporations are bad instead of trying to put one above the other? Also, what you said about unions helping the people is wrong. Productivity is what helps the people as it raises the ceiling for wages. Since businesses have to compete for employees, they offer higher wages/benefits. Tangentially, something similar happens with prices. Productivity lowers the floor for prices and, since businesses have to compete for buyers, the offer lower prices.
During the discussion period he talks about the need to keep oil prices within a range and prevent a drop. To what end I must have missed. So now oil prices in early 2020 have plummeted and what has the impact been on the centers of power?
I’m glad this is one of the chomsky vids that has been seen by a wide number of people. I’m also glad it’s exposing libertarian’s/capitalism’s sham religion to the world.
+EJBrontë I wonder if he's ever addressed the Chinese under Mao in similar fashion. you know, given that more Chinese died with Mao in power than in WW2 which was not only expected by him, but desired as shown in historical documents.
Funny quote but probably true economically. He was answering a question as I couldn't quite make out but from context, was something along the lines of whether private totalitarian systems can be more efficient (economically)? He started with "but that's like saying" and gave examples of how dictators could have been beneficial (again, economically); as a devils advocate, and then in the next minute, considers if that's really true and gives other examples of how public systems which are very efficient (e.g. Sweden). Obviously from the entirety of his talk, he is against the US policy of putting dictators into power, on a leash. Even though they are certainly beneficial to the US brand of imperialism.
The essential message here is 1) We don't have capitalism in productive industry or trade, just in the speculative sectors 2) The rich and wealthy don't really have confidence in it but hail its virtues anyways 3) Free markets are imposed on the poor for manipulative purposes
It may not make his recitations of facts wrong, but it does make him someone who criticizes others in fields that he has never worked in-Which is everything outside Linguistics-And all with the great luxury of exploiting Hindsight.
@@claykline2830 I never said anybody necesarily needed a degree in anything. But when was the last time you got your car serviced by someone with ZERO training or experience in Mechanics?
So your reasoning is that Chomsky is qualified to fix your car, just because he can recite selected facts about engines-And you claim that what I am saying is a, ' fallacy'??? SMH
M CK No, the original commenter was absolutely correct in pointing out the fallacious aspect of your argument (entire thing), he merely omitted the name of the fallacy. It is the argument from authority fallacy. Just because someone holds a set of credentials that allows others to deem him qualified on a particular topic does not mean his opinion on it ought to be chosen over another seemingly unqualified person’s opinion purely on the basis of the asymmetry in credentials. Let’s take your example. To make an argument from authority would be to claim that Chomsky cannot articulate a better picture of an engine than a mechanic purely because he does not have the credentials of one. The only way to vindicate an argument against Chomsky, then, is to point out the flaw in his reasoning, not to cite his credentials, a trivial point which I thought anyone would understand but apparently not yourself. You do not show person A’s incompetence in constructing an engine by merely stating that they do not have the necessary title of mechanic, you do so by investigating their reasoning and if it is BS you call it out as such.
Free markets are where people get to buy and sell at their own discretion in a manner they both find profitable and are able to do so without coercion from government to sell or buy or to whom you sell or buy.
...and capitalists trained in neoliberal business schools see these "markets" as venues of competition. The objective of that competition is to control, dominate, and ultimately own the target market, destroying development and competition in favor of rent. In plain terms, capitalists seek to get as much as possible for nothing. On a global scale, this is their measure of success.
ujean56 And the only means "Capitalists" have to destroy competition is through government Socialist communist or the fake capitalism currently in place. Rules without Rulers is freedom go to Freedomainradio.com and learn how it can be done.
Barskor1 I have heard very right wing people say, "politics is for losers", and they are absolutely right. Nothing ever got done by theorizing only. It makes more sense to do as true an assessment of the situation as possible and then actually do something. Occupy are the true heroes of our time. They have the assessment right. The rules are being broken and we need to return to the rule of law when it comes to the economy. The rules need to be fair and politicians need to be forced to act in the interest of everyone. Full stop.
ujean56 Rules are hardly ever applied to Rulers so lets all skip the Elites and make some simple rules for ourselves like No stealing no murder and you have the right to keep what you make, develop or earn and dispose of such at your own discretion. Acknowledge the right to self defense and speak/write or any other communication whatever agreement, dissent, lunacy or enlightenment comes to mind. All this with the premise on the None Aggression Principal.
A "Free Market" will always result in coercion, does not matter, at all, if power is in private or in "Government" hands. A false argument to generalize Government when government is controlled by moneyed interests & not the people. "A government OF the people, BY the people, FOR the people, shall not perish from this Earth." ~ Lincoln. Simple really. No Government, you simply get new Kings, many new Kings.
Ty N, It is not difficult for Chomsky's critiques to be, ' spot on', when he has the great luxury of 20/20 Hindsight After the Fact-Which is exactly what Chomsky has been doing his ENTIRE career!
NO--but there are some markets that are freer than others. The costs of regulation and other forms of government interference are especially bad for medium and small businesses. Large businesses can more effectively absorb this costs and get in bed with the government more easily.TheHomoludens
Stupid libertarians and conservatives the internet has nothing to do with the free-market. Actually the internet is the government...if you don't believe me I suggest everyone of you to research the truth. Von Mises was a deluded individual.
Aside from how you feel about Von Mises, why do you think the internet is the government? The internet is the place I believe I can go to learn all points of view on an event or subject...I can listen to every bias and decide where I stand with as much relevant information as possible. Where would you have me research 'the truth'?
TheLoyalOfficer I wasn't talking about money. I was talking about liberty and the fact that no market can exist without laws to govern production and consumption.
TheLoyalOfficer Your inane ramblings don't hold up even under the most basic scrutiny. "No market can exist without laws to govern production and consumption"? Are you f'ing serious? Where'd you read that, Marx? I don't know what bizarre world you live in (other than that of liberal stupidity) but a simple examination of the dynamics at play when people are involved in a free market puts that nonsensical statement easily to rest. In fact, your every day life is not governed by these bullshit laws you're so in favor of. Tell me, what law governs your CHOICE to go down to the store and buy an iPad? Is there a law governing your consumption of these goods? There is, in fact, laws governing the consumption of all kinds of things, but do tell me how a law to govern your choice in purchasing what YOU CHOOSE to purchase is in any way helpful to you? And why should there be laws governing production? Do explain how laws governing production have EVER helped anyone. What you're talking about is protectionism for special parties. Nothing less, nothing more. The laws that you think are helping are hindering people's choices, wasting resources, and stifling the economy. The only reason to insist on idiotic laws governing production and consumption is because YOU are unable to make good choices in your own life OR you want special protection for your chosen profession/business. That is no ones problem but your own. It's also funny how there are thousands of examples of markets that exist without laws. Now, if you're talking about rules that's a different story. Laws and rules are not the same. Laws are almost always arbitrary, and forced upon people through the initiation of force. Rules are typically not arbitrary and not enforced by the use of violence. In a free market if someone doesn't abide by the rules then the consumer, or even the producer, can choose not to do business with the other party. How long do you think a business would last that does not follow the rules the people expect from it. Don't tell me, food producers would be poisoning their consumers if not for "laws", right? Because as much as the idiot liberal mind thinks that all businesses are greedy and only care about money they cannot work that through to its logical conclusion that if that IS all they care about then poisoning their clientele would lead to lower profits! Or is that too complicated a connection for you? The FACT is that any time you have freer markets you have higher standards of living than when economic freedom is stifled you have lower standard of living. Other factors come into play, of course, property rights being a major one, but all things being equal those are the results we get, and those are the results we've seen. Any argument to the contrary is a dismissal of the facts for ideological reasons.
spec24 You religion nuts are really starting to irritate me. These "thousands" of great free market examples you speak of are where? They aren't every single country that has industrialized in the modern world. That's right, because every single one of them has radically violated free markets and that is exactly how they developed. And then you scream and shout about the wonders of free trade as you force neo liberalization onto third world so wealthy elites can rape and plunder freely. Maybe in some abstract world where there is already relatively equality it could work... but there isn't and there will never be. Ranting and raving about some utopia is bullshit when people have actual lives to live and are suffering because of these practices. Just because people don't share your radical religious belief in the free market hypothesis doesn't mean they are advocating tyranny. There are other options... you just haven't opened your eyes.
+Matt Orfalea He was probably referring to the Trilateral Commision, or NAFTA, both of which have sought to isolate US geopolitical enemies by excluding them from trade blocs. The TPP is only the latest in a trend.
He's talking about the ISDS I believe - Investor-State Dispute Settlement - when he refers to corporations being able to sue governments, but his idea that "private businesses and corporations cannot be sued themselves" is some absolutely phony bullshit it makes ne not want to listen to anything he has to say
You are right, we can't deduce that 'everything' should be privatized just because some things should be. We can go case by case and have debates on each 'thing' such as fire control, I have no issue with people trying to make those cases, I'm interested in the truth. For practical reasons we need first to know what we do, what the nul-position is, when we don't know where those 'things' should exist (public/private). but I am at work..
Chomsky talks about the State/market GNP ratio varying between nations, and nations with a bigger state doing better than those with a smaller state. Chomsky appears to interpret that as larger states leading to positive outcomes, but the same data can also be interpreted differently; that _efficient institutions_ simply cause markets to be more efficient AS well as state capacity to be higher, and that market efficiency and state capacity thus simply correlate with each other.
@@miguimau why would hayek be a trickster?? he stuck to his guns, even at old age.... some of what he said makes sense to me, so does chomsky.... would be great if those with opposing views could work together a reach some sort of middle ground... one thing i know for sure, the way we are heading at the moment is into the abyss.... we have advanced technoloigcally and economically (as a species) but not psychologically - i dont want to sound airy fairy but love should be the bvasis of all that we do.
The thing with free marker supporters is that, just like people in the past living under Feudalism or other structures, they can't see outside the circle they are in. They think the temporary system that is more prominent now (just because it's more sufficient to the upper class), is the best - even if it's flaws are visible every day. That's why you can't find these supporters in poor countries, where they don't take most of things in life for granted.
I've got to correct my sentence: the question is, whether the result of the action u choose as behavioral strategy to satisfy ur need coincides with social constructive outcomes. If u dont perceive how social destructive outcomes - that u cause by ur chosen action - re-affect ur own situation negatively, then u dont act in ur best interest, even though u believe u would! These two things are the questions of importance!
Maaan, I love chomsky, but I don't think he could be more wrong when it comes to Aristotle, and it undermines his argument. Chomsky basically says (at around 48:00) that as early as 400BC Aristotle believed that equality is necessary for a sound society, but that he was sexist/elitist etc cos of the times he lived in (so implicitly: if some guy from ancient greek times can work this stuff about freedom out, then it should be obvious). However Aristotle's sexism really was not a product of the time: Plato, the guy who taught Aristotle, explicitly said that men and women are should have the exact same education. And in the Politics (which chomsky mentions, the book where aristotle said all this stuff), Aristotle said that Sparta (the leading city-state of the time) was in decline because they gave freedom to women. I don't know in detail what others at the time said about slavery, but overall I think Aristotle's views were not a product of the time- in which case Aristotle's view boils down to an egailitarian nanny state for the richest 30% of society (i.e. non-slaves), while drudgery for the rest of society- which sounds an awful lot like the description of American Capitalsim Chomsky described earlier.
Lol, you think his comments on Aristotle undermine his argument? Literally 2 hours of talking and some comments on Aristotle are what matter to you? It’s a pretty much completely irrelevant difference of opinion.
The part you are looking for is almost exactly at 48:35.... Interesting... You're saying that during Aristotle's time, sexism and slavery were not issues, and that Aristotle's views on those things were a product of his own thinking, and not the society he grew up in, just because his teacher had an opposing view? .... wow, what a horrible turn history took from there then huh? All thanks to Aristotle, slavery and sexism were born. The rest of society and the wealthy powers that controlled the state had nothing to do with using their power over slaves to build their great society. :P It was all a product of Aristotle! Chomsky is absolutely correct in saying that Aristotle can't necessarily be blamed for his views on women and slaves because that was normal in the society he grew up in, even if his teacher had tried to teach him otherwise. That was how society lived and thrived at that time, and the majority of people accepted that way of life, even some scholars. And slavery and sexism still exist today and still haven't been addressed fully.... I'm afraid you are the one who is wrong here.
Come on. Find better sources of education. You don't study philosophy by oneliners and trivia. And get a grip on historicity. Plato's work wasn't by any means the mainstream of thought in ancient Greece.
I like your style of multi-tasking, Tony. :) Chomsky's thoughts are becoming more relevant with time. If people haven't come across it, you may want to search RU-vid for the Bill Moyers interview with Chomsky. It's in two parts, I think it took place around 1988; and, like this talk, has everything to do with what we're facing today. Interestingly, there's a moment where the atheist Chomsky references Christ in a key point about freedom. peace
Someone needs to give noam a show or something where all he does is weekly or monthly shows about different things. Chomsky TV... Archive all his ideas concisely. How he destroys everyone he debates.
Boy....could he have been more wrong in his assessment of the impact of the internet and market forces on free thought? Seems way, way off the mark. I do think he's right that "news" media has demonstrated an underlying tendency to control and manipulate information to serve money and politics, and has reworked and in some specific ways even amplified it's control of information through the internet. But the internet has also served the chaos and spontaneous order of markets tremendously, which in turn has actually fostered perhaps one of the most porous and immediate methods (general internet and social media) for exchange of ideas in human history. In this sense it seems (at least) equally reasonable to argue that socialized research and development has served free markets and created powerful new tools that enhance individual liberty. I think the common misconception, even perhaps propagated by Chomsky, is that free markets and managed control of economies are diametrically opposed or mutually exclusive. It's not like by pointing out the hugely significant manner in which markets are managed and controlled we can safely dismiss non-managed dynamics as either myths or unimportant. Coexistence does not = negation. I think it's more accurate to say they are symbiotic, and the "free" in "free markets" is a conditional term and not an absolute. Arguing as if it is is a red herring. Take social media by itself: tools built largely by the private sector through largely free market dynamics on platforms created maintained and heavily regulated by government and central management. Social media in turn facilitates spontaneous order in markets and works as a tool that enhances individual liberty, which in turn feeds money back into government to spend on more research and development. I'm not forgetting that there are significant ever-present forces operating inside and out of this system to capitalize on these new communication methods, control information, propagate disinformation, etc., or that the money it generates doesn't get funneled into spying on citizens who use it. I'm simply pointing out that a non-absolute concept of free markets and enhancement of liberty is hugely significant to the "internet" story, just as government management is.
Capitalism VS. Crony Capitalism This is the narrative. The solution to crony capitalism is less government not more. That sounds counter intuitive, but it is the truth.
gideondavid30 I used to argue with people like you for regulated capitalism over deregulation, but now I see the problem is much deeper than that. The problem is so-called capitalism itself. Regulation of capital such as it has been is good for a while (about ’45 - ’80) but eventually the investors buy a government that will be friendlier to them and create loopholes in the regulations big enough for a Brinks truck. Next act is to eventually overturn the regulations all together as they did in ’98, with the death blow to Glass-Steagall. The greedy gamblers (in elite media they’re called investors) then pile on to whatever is the hot bet in town and create an unsustainable asset bubble. When it pops, no worries, ‘cause Uncle Sugar tits will step in and bail them out - too big to fail. The public then calls for and gets - or not - some new regulations. Rinse and repeat. Reintroducing regulation is good for a quick fix - a band aid of sorts. The real fix, however, will only come when the public finally recognizes that a ‘democratic’ political system tethered to a ‘privatized’ economy is just untenable. What history has been screaming at us, through the mufflers of rampant consumerism and spectacles’ (bread and circuses), is that by and large the people who work the mills, factories, farms etc should own them. You can’t have a truly democratic society without a democratic work place.
jones1351 So you have a problem against private property? Wow, you have definitely pushed the paradigm here. 1. I agree with you. Government is bought off by the corporations, special interests, and big business (including the military industrial complex). That isn't capitalism though that is corporatism, crony capitalism (socialism for the rich), or neo imperialism. 2. The issue is that people think growing government to police capitalism is the answer. I say do the exact opposite. You can't police the policemen with policemen. You can govern the government with government. So, it is best left to the free markets through market forces to determine winners and losers. 3. IF you want to look at the death of capitalism look no further than the Federal Reserve and the income tax. Government has consolidated power and half the income of would be entrepreneurs. Not even God in the bible asked for more that 10% of people's total wealth. Money that is taken from the private sector is going to destroy capitalism. 4. You blame the markets for bubbles, I blame faulty regulations and moral hazards created by the government. Yes, we get more regulation and that is precisely the problem. SO GET RID OF REGULATIONS and let free markets and the courts settle the matter. 5. Dude, what you are advocating is to abolish private property .. and thus freedom of the individual. Experiments like that have been tried in the past. I guess we should try again with a little tweaks right? The definition of insanity is to try something over and over and expect a different result? I have no problem with people voluntarily living under a shared system of wealth, but the moment you introduce coercion that is where the bodies pile up.
I don't give a damn how many yachts Bill or any of the other billionaire boys club members have. What I do care about is this: if all the private yachts in ports or at sea come at the expense the best health care, education and employment systems in the world as we should but scandalously don't have, then to hell with their yachts. Wealth can and does look after itself. The people should do the same. And they certainly should not subordinate their needs and concerns to wealth, which is what is going on right now. The notion of a thriving private market without the state is a fairy tale. No state, no computers, no Apple or Microsoft. No state no internet and all the businesses that depend on that. No state no modernized transportation of goods, etc. Hell for that matter no state no Royal Society or Pentagon or NSF and the like which gave/give birth to the modern technologies without which there would be no modern market. Currently and traditionally the state has primarily served the interests of private wealth and enterprise now it's time to take care of the concerns and interests of the people, which I might add capitalism doesn't give a damn about. The interests of the common folk such as decent health, environment, education and the rest are considered by the 'Free Market' as externalities. Well, I for one have had enough of that, but I'm not alone.
It's so easy for brilliant men to think they'd be competent at things outside their area of expertise, and much easier for those of low cunning to flock to such basic error.
1) Apparently self education isn't possible in your reality. That speaks volumes. 2) He always cites, he almost never gives opinion. Criticize the claims of the experts he quotes if you disagree.
Jakob Virgil Sam Harris, unlike This boring fuck we are watching now, doesn't insult people he argues with with condescension. Fuck Noam Chomsky. Read the Harris/Chomsky email exchange and form your own opinion.
Sam Harris thinks he can understand everything just by doing thought experiments in his own mind. Pretty much the only real data he ever cites is those Pew polls on Islam. Chomsky, OTOH, has spent his life studying how the world really works and has encyclopedic knowledge of history and politics. I will go with Chomsky's analysis rather then Harris's purely theoretical rhetoric.
Its probably frustrating when someone attacks you in their book by cutting a claim you make in half, then email you alleging you insulted them somehow, b/c a youtube video some guy posted, about other athiests, has his name in the title. While asking your opinion of an issue that a simple google or youtube search would show has been discussed in detail (or multiple books). I mean thats just the start. I've never seen such a lack of research and due diligence. "I thought that book was a complete text on the issue." Dude has 100 books.... sorry he didnt adress your philo101, Crim Law 1 argument in his text on 9/11 lol. Whole thing was a publicity stunt.
+Johsko no... Have you ever heard about anarchism? They were socialists even before Marx was born. Hahahah Anarchism is basically libertarian socialism(left-lib, social anarchism). As Bakunin said... "Ultimately, from whatever point of view we look at this question, we come always to the same sad conclusion, the rule of the great masses of the people by a privileged minority. The Marxists say that this minority will consist of workers. Yes, possibly of former workers, who, as soon as they become the rulers of the representatives of the people, will cease to be workers and will look down at the plain working masses from the governing heights of the State; they will no longer represent the people, but only themselves and their claims to rulership over the people. Those who doubt this know very little about human nature." (pathtothepossible.wordpress.com/2012/12/10/more-from-bakunin-against-marx/) We are convinced that freedom without socialism is privilege, injustice; and that socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality.
+Johsko You need coercion to enforce private property. In fact far more is required to enforce capitalist property norms than socialist. Besides, there have been several historical examples of social anarchist societies, but zero examples of "anarcho-capitalism"
+Johsko A farmer's own produce is personal property. Not private property. The problem with the NAP is that it's based on equivocation. They call it "non-aggression" because that sounds nice. But then they base it on a definition of "aggression" that doesn't at all match what most people mean by the word.In common parlance, it's perfectly possible to aggressively defend one's property. But to libertarians, the previous sentence is incoherent. Aggression is bad, but defending one's property can't be bad, so it can't be aggressive.The right-libertarian ideology is about hiding behind an aggressive definition of private property with the agreeable-sounding "non-aggression principle." They pretend to defend private property as a consequence of non-aggression while obscuring the fact that the defense of private property is necessary to the understanding of what they mean by "non-aggression." And in the end it's hard for outsiders to tell who's in on this ruse and who's been fooled by it.
+olli tuovinen That''s what you call:" Negative feedback loop." Asking for more of what caused inequality in opportunity and support. The question is not if government is bad, the question is which kind is bad. If you listened to him at all you should have caught that in a functional democracy you are the government. Democracy means "the rule of the people", not "the rule of some people".
+saginata It's very easy to rebuff your assumption. Power vaccums do not survive unless someone acts as the "Steward of Freedom". Now, if the general public is neither allowed to fill that vaccum with equal support and opportunity nor to prevent any private power from overtaking that open space, an unaccountable, tyrannical monopoly is bound to emerge at the end of the power struggle that will ensue just because of the vaccum. Thus, your statement is just plain wrong.
Still can't see why people look to this guy for economic or philosophical advice. He's a linguist and a foreign policy analyst. It's like asking Stephen Hawking what he thinks about subprime mortgages.
+Peer Huggins Chomsky has a far deeper understanding of the phenomena economists purport to study than any economist, and he is profoundly well versed in philosophy and has taught philosophy courses for many years at MIT. The last person you should ask about large scale human behavior is an economist. Economics is fucking farcical fluff. There's simply nothing there.
polymath7 My point was, he shouldn't be teaching philosophy or economics. He is not as well versed as you think in either. He rose to fame in the intellectual circles via his linguistic skills and expertise. Not because he has some mysterious insight into human behavior or economic practices.
+Peer Huggins I disagree entirely. You're expounding the idea that he's unfit to criticize because he doesn't have a degree in it, when you yourself don't have a degree in criticism. Why should I take your advice over his? Protip: I shouldn't. In fact, I shouldn't take his advice either. I should look it up myself. Sadly for you, Noam is a brilliant man who has many interests. His most prolific may be linguistics, but that does not exclude his capacity for intellectual pursuit in other fields. To that end, he is as I have said, brilliant and understand the fundamental aspects of economics and philosophy to a far greater degree than most who are economists and philosophers. He doesn't need a piece of paper to prove it if his knowledge base can. This is akin to saying that a president can't be a good president without a degree in political science. At best, erroneous.
Venezuela! The government spends mucho mucho... Noam? Noam? Okay. How about DPRK, the government spends everything...Noam? can you comment? Noam? To the watchers here...go watch Milton Friedman, right here on youtube...now, who makes more sense?
+red pill you nailed it. Pinochet was a man who gloated about his lack of intellectual pretension. As a result, he had 1-on-1 phone conversations w/ Friedman in his office at the Uni of Chicago, and the policy dictated to Pinochet resulted in what Nobel Prize winning economist Andre Gunder Frank called "economic genocide." Friedman IS a hack.
vkorchnoifan Ha! The reality slaps those who have a degree though... He knew what he is talking about and what he is entering whilst those fucktard economists who even finished at Harvard always causes large problems to the society itself for considering asshole investors...
"doesn't lie so much" ?? This guy is like the devil, mixing lies with truth. So when he attacks the USA his point is powerful. He is very much like Robert Hanssen.
Chomsky, like most scholars, frames his ideas through a very narrow world view. He is undoubtedly well read, but his rhetoric relies on the audience being not so well read on the topics of which he is speaking. Take, for instance, his insistence on calling the third world governments "small" as if they represented the outcome of utopian minimalist government. Then he turns around and says that those very same nations operate under the economic controls of the IMF. If one can't put two and two together on this one, allow me to assist you. Small government relies on the idea that individuals are enabled to make decisions that govern their own lives. Whether a domestic or foreign government intervenes, that is the antithesis of small government. These same countries also have very little in the way of civil and economic liberties and are at the mercy of the local tyrants. Just because a government does not have regulatory systems, welfare, or direction over production, does not mean that it exemplifies small government. if you are a shop keeper and the local warlord can walk in and take all of your goods without compensation at any time, it will set your country up for economic stagnation.
+M Joseph Know that I don't know much about economics. I want to learn. Could it be argued that third world governments would need to take a protectionist approach in order to free their national economy from the yoke of foreign dictate? Would that be called "big government"?
Can anyone please explain to me what did Chomsky meant about the internet (around 1:06:00) ? did he say that corporations want to takeover the internet?
