“We can either have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.” -Louis Brandeis, U.S. Supreme Court Justice (1856-1941)
I think ironically, while we were in the Cold War with the nominally leftist Soviets, wealthy American interests needed an American middle class. And I think structures like the Presidential Electorate stretch the definition of "democracy" quite a bit.
That's only if you classify the current system as a democracy; that word has been stretched and abused for decades, if not centuries... A plutocracy is much closer to the truth and thus the Justice's quote stands true.
Right now we have neither democracy nor capitalism. Superdelegates are a prime example of the destruction of democracy. Our current economic policies foster and protect monopolies which is antithetical to capitalism.
@@BlueisNotaWarmColour right. cause he's an anarchist. he was actually pushing vote blue no matter who all over tv cause orange man is bad. the ones kept out public discourse are proper communists like michael parenti.
@@chagoriver7159 bro us have not left of communists not even social democracy Usa political spectrum is limited to right wing only Bernie is center left to moderate left wing otherwise both the parties of Usa work for their corporate overlords not for people , Americans are the biggest propaganda consumer on this planet.
Me too, but unfortunately it's much easier to indulge in the useless act of watching a few people kick, throw or carry an object towards the objective of the game, rather than the useful act of broadening your insight on how to move the human race forwards. It also doesn't help that sports appeal to the tribal nature of humans and unrightfully claim part of the achievements of their tribe (club). I've always found it rather funny that it's always 'we won' and 'they lost'.
Best answer to this subject (why this inequality keeps growing while people prefer to consume than do something about their condition) has been made by Noam Chomsky also, just read his "Manufacturing Consent" analysis.
A more primal form of entertainment for sure. I wish I knew of a reliable and systematic way to make humans more empathetic and appreciative of well thought out plans and arguments. Then there would be no need for any political party.... in my imagined world of highly functioning humans.... an item would come up for debate, weighed for pros and cons, then some sort of reasonable compromise would be taken. No nonsense ideologies necessary. How do you get to that world? I wish I knew...
Andrew That sounds a lot like a Technocracy; which is a system I used to ponder and debate about with a friend (To give a sense of his character: he is a lot like Sheldon from the Big Bang Theory), but we ended up discarding it because the technocrats would yield too much power and there's possibility of some very cold calculated decisions (for example: kill a million to save a billion). And some decisions would take a lot of time (that we might not have) because the science isn't quite there yet.
This doesn't sound all that different from the current system in terms of potential negatives, ha. 62 people own half the wealth, we're collectively destroying the planet primarily for the benefit of a select few, and in the wealthiest country on the planet life spans are declining. Let's give it a try, ha.
The Oxfam report doesn't actually say that 62 people own 50% of wealth, but that 62 people own as much wealth as the bottom 50% of people: an important distinction, but nonetheless an alarming result.
Jacob Allen Both figures are so alarming that there would be no real need to obscure the facts. Think it's an honest mistake. And btw, having gained access to more information, Oxfam reduced the 62 to 9 indivduals because the bottom 50% had even less wealth than previously thought.
"The United States is a business run society...". Very true. The US is now no more a country than JP Morgan Chase or McDonalds...When I was younger, I used to believe in Memorial Day and the Fourth of July. Now that I'm older and have seen how poorly we treat our veterans, I'm ashamed at my own country. But it's not just our veterans. It's the elderly as well as our children. I live in the Bay Area which is a weird place. There is extreme opulence alongside a large and growing homeless population. And you don't have to go far to see poverty that looks like a 'third world' country. Many of the people in poverty are children.
teddy toto I’ve stayed comfortably in SF’s Financial District, and been chased frantically in the Tenderloin. The difference between the neighborhoods couldn’t be more jarring. San Francisco serves as living proof of the USA’s horrible income inequality
Don’t be ashamed of the country in exchange eliminate the sense of nationality in your head it’s useless anyway. If a nation were to crumble to the sea like Atlantis where would nationality go? It’s something superficial anyway
Income inequality is an issue that is very rarely ever addressed in mainstream news media. They have their grossly overpaid pundits disseminating the propaganda so they can't be bothered having truth tellers on like Noam Chomsky or Chris Hedges.
This world is crazy. We have the knowledge. We have the technology. We have the resources... Yet we are dying. we are poisoning the world. we are depressed. we are ugly.
@@raimonestanol8234 I'm not sure what @Bulldog's source was but this is a source I found from 2017 about the how many of the rich own 50% of the world's wealth: www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/just-8-men-own-same-wealth-half-world
He misspoke. 60 individuals don't hold half the world's wealth, the hold more wealth than the bottom 50%, which is only a small percentage of total world wealth.
noam, who are your most trusted advisors, analysts, contemporaries etc that those of us who highly value your perspective should consider as your successor/s??
In short, what we refer to as economics needs to evolve. Pain both physically and emotionally will and is experienced by many in the traditional temporal transition.
10:00 It's interesting to me when Norm was talking about the fact that the people who would normally vote Social Democratic "just don't vote because there is no party to represent them." I think it's been proven over and over again that when the masses don't vote, Republicans win and when the masses DO vote, Democrats win. That's what's so baffling about the DNC: they know they will continue to lose as long as they don't have a democratic socialist platform, but they literally don't care. I've seen recent interviews with several of the "leading" Democrats and when they say "there's nothing wrong with the Democratic party!" I'm pretty sure that they are just flat out lying. There is no way that Nancy Pelosi can get a report that the Democrats have lost 1000 seats and think everything is okay. No one is that obtuse, especially someone that has been in that position for that long. The ONLY explanation is that her job focus has shifted from having a strong, successful party that represents the people to raising as much money as possible and splitting it with as few people as possible. We need to primary and replace ALL the right-wing, sell-out, corporatist Democrats and replace them all with Progressive politicians that will do the job they are hired to do, instead of selling out to the competition.
The 2 party system is a farce put up to provide the illusion of choice. Issues that are important to individuals, but are inconsequential to the elites ability to maintain their hold on power, take up the majority of attention: abortion rights, race issues, LGBTQ rights ect.. outside of this sector, no real change occurs. Trump was in office, we fought in the middle east. Biden is in office, we are still bombing Syria. The 2 parties have a set of issues they are permitted to control, but anything that involves the economic system is left untouched by design. That will not change under our current political system.
Can't have the rich without the poor. Can't have unbelievable concentrated wealth (62 individuals) without enormous amounts of the poor (4,000,000,000+ individuals). If only the poor would organise... imagine a union 4 billion strong.
bademoxy economic power begets political power which legislates additional economic power and vice versa. Then you buy the social spheres of life and you have America
We are too divided to unite. Some of us still have the idea that maybe we could become one of those 62 and that microscopic chance keeps us buying into a system that doesn't work for us. Tell the middle class that their problems come from the lower class....we buy it and that keeps us from looking up to where the problems really are...have always been...and will always be.
I wonder what is a tipping point for such system to collapse? Main cause of Roman Empire collapse could be argued was large inequality which lead to weakening of empire and loss of support of its poor population. In recent times, ww1 could be argued happened because of mass working class movement which created low support for governments and support for changes and then manipulated to support war and nationalism so trouble makers would kill each other in trenches. Recently I recall an article, where USA military officials points out that bad economic environment could increase conscription rates, so higher inequality means bigger profits and larger army for new world economical elite? I guess people back then did not have iphones, TV screens and other distractions which we have today, but only bread and games so tipping point could be much higher. About Chomsky: I enjoy listening to Chomsky, i just fell that he was more radical in his young days and became more careful with his words later on. There may be reasons...
A question to anyone with some insight; between 4 and 5 minutes he mentions neoliberal policies of deregulation: what has been deregulated in the last 20-30 years in the US? In Canada where many of our political institutions follow a similar vein nothing has been deregulated. Any pretense at such is replaced with new government agencies, ombudspersons or some other manner of government control with the net result being increased regulation in all areas (looking up beer in grocery stores in Ontario is a perfect example of this process). Any thoughts?
You are confusing deregularion with privatisation. Both have been implemented rigorously under neo-liberal policies. An example of deregulation is the removal of tariffs, which prevents local businesses from being able to compete with imports from countries with extremely cheap labour. Private prisons, private/charter schools and mercenary armies are examples of government institutions that have been privatised.
Chomsky cites an oxfam study that says 62 people own more wealth than the bottom 50%. The most recent publication of this study shows that the number is actually 8 billionaires who own more than the bottom 50%.
This is why capitalism is evil, it concentrates iniquity whilst willfully excluding others from the benefits of the world's resources, like food, water and housing.
A CITY COMPLETLY ENCHANTED BY THE PRESENCE OF "NOAM CHOMSKY" THE PEARL IF MIT ". IN PUE. PUE. MEX (WE LIVE IN LAKE CHAPALA) AND DEDICATE OUR SCIENCES FEST SWAM UNIVERSITY OF GUADALAJARA PROFESSOR NOAM AVRAHAM CHOMSKY OUR MODEL OF HUMANITY AND HEARTED SCIENTST. HAPPY BIRTHDAY. MERRY CRISTMAS BELOVED PROFESSOR CHOMSKY! 2017.12.7.
'Policies that has led to the concentration of wealth, to the concentration of political power, to the concentration of poverty'. I started wondering during the Clinton administration as I was seeing these things begin if it was being purposely done. It was either purposely done or done so by people without any foresight to where their actions would lead.
Just waiting for someone to comment and turn this into a Liberal vs Conservative argument and talk about how their side of the political spectrum is better than the other.
@@seanwhitehall4652 I don't mind that, but when people act like a bunch of close-minded idiots that see the world in black and white when it comes to politics it gets annoying.
Bottom 50% of the population (about 7 billion at the time of the making of the video) lives in absolute abject poverty in countries in Africa, LatAm, Asia, and fringe minorities in developed nations.
Would you be so kind as to spell out the names of people he is saying performed these studies so we may look them up? Having difficulty finding some of them.
like in monopoly money begets more money.at one point the top 1% will own all the wealth.what then?i assume this mount of greed w ill not go well for them.
No 90 individuals do not own half of world wealth, that would equate to a trillionaire class. 90 individuals are said to own as much collectively as the poorest half of the world population; still incredible, but Chomsky misquoted the report.
Wo unto you rich men, that will not give your substance to the poor, for your riches will canker your souls; and this shall be your lamentation in the day of visitation, and of judgment, and of indignation: The harvest is past, the summer is ended, and my soul is not saved Wo unto you poor men, whose hearts are not broken, whose spirits are not contrite, and whose bellies are not satisfied, and whose hands are not stayed from laying hold upon other men’s goods, whose eyes are full of greediness, and who will not labor with your own hands! 18 But blessed are the poor who are pure in heart, whose hearts are broken, and whose spirits are contrite, for they shall see the kingdom of God coming in power and great glory unto their deliverance; for the fatness of the earth shall be theirs.
He is right inequality is a big problem, but he is wrong about his solution and also dishonest with some of his facts. For example, effective tax rate in 1950s is about where it is today for the rich. Government/welfare spending & regulations have MASSIVELY increased since 1950s so you would think if they were the solution then inequality would be lower today, but it is not. His proposals would just exasperate the problem
It’s ironic that the early 20th century Italian economist Gini, who’s celebrated index of the sort economic inequality discussed here is still widely used, was a fascist, a eugenist racist, and a darling in the 1920’s and 30’s of exactly the group of US as well as European industrialists, financiers, and statist/authoritarian politicians that Chomsky decries in this video.
mhm the market offers me no choice in transportation b/c in my small village I can "only" choose combustion engine cars, electro cars, bikes, motorbikes, buses, can privately share my car with others, etc. etc. etc. ... while in socialistic/communistic societies I can hunt dogs to have something to eat, if I am not put into the Gulag for wrong think ... sounds like a difficult choice to me.
Chomsky ranks Portugal with USA when he calculates his wealth factor. Everyone knows this is bullshit. Compare living spaces, for example, between the "poor" in Portugal and the "poor" in the USA. Americans live in mansions by comparison to the world at large, even if their living space is a 900 square foot one bedroom apartment. Yes, that's a mansion in countless nations. I'm middle class, and the house I live in has 4 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms, and is a bit over 2,400 square feet. It's also 50 years old. And in the surrounding are similar houses, lesser houses, and mansions which make my dwelling appear like a one bedroom apartment. Where? Utah. Is it a paradise? In some ways it surely is, but most assuredly it is NOT in many other ways.
Make the rich more connected with communities, rather to segregate them into their own little worlds. Those children have abdolutely no connection to these rich people, you might even count me responsible for those children, but I only care about communities that are worth it rather to throw away money at some shit people.
Notice how he never argues based on practicality, and he forgets to mention that world hunger has gone down since the economy of the entire world grows. What does this mean? Less people will starve if we have a bigger economy. How do we get a bigger economy? Less regulations
This is so simple-minded it's insane. There are better options but you don't care because you're a trickle-down moron. Imagine you live with 1 other person in a basement. There's a pipe that occasionally drips water when the folks above use it. Trickle-down=good? Depends on how much is trickling down compared to how much is available. I can tell you right now, as Noam pointed out, that very little of that bounty is trickling down. If there's only 1 drop, you and your roommate will fight over it. But does it bother the people who live upstairs? Not at all. And a moron like you would advocate for there to be more rain for those who live above, so that those below could get more drips out of the larger supply of water. Sad!
That's what happens when you don't give good life quality and access to considerable levels of education to the majority of population, they vote for Trump..
Gov. steals our $$$ in Edu. and Capitalist produce free media, w/ data mining. Its all about power. You got to risk your health to become rich. Or be a poor slave. Maybe we should go back to nature. # AMERICA GREED
Bretton Woods "Bretton Woods United News," here we are at mount Washington Bretton Woods ,730 delegates from 44 allied nations come here to discuss the creation of WORLD PEACE in a post WAR world through economic prosperity.....on the first day of the conference the stability of currencies is to be discussed..........all agreements to be agreed by allied and associate nations in their respective parliaments.Video on u tube. The gross domestic product of the world=$70,000,000,000,000. THE world stock market $40,000,000,000,000. One dealer made,$850,000,000,000. in one day 2016 according to the financial times. So in one day he snaffled...[.took quickly].....more than what the whole world productive economy was making.........that day.......every few hours........and this is the tip of a titanic iceberg of self deception that is making every one in the world poorer including the man who controlled the $850,000,000,000.profit ? Gambling is a sickness,the worst case scenario,prognosis, is when the gambler believes himself to be winning,but he is not. Any large movements of currency detrimental to the world economy should be outlawed ...Bretton Woods..? Bretton Woods has not failed...we have failed Bretton Woods....? ERRRRR BIG MISTAKE.... not saying SOME when related to the super rich......always good to say some when referring to groups...unless you have absolute proof that all are involved???????
the united States also has higher standards for poverty than the rest of these nations also we count still Borns in or infant mortality rates 3rd my generations life expectancy is projected to go down but that's because of the crap we eat. and how much we eat in effect a result of our opulence you would think the great Noam Chomsky could do a modicum of research
Why the hell I suppose to share with someone? My money will be earned for my family and spent on my family. Someone couldn't earn? I don't give a sh...
people don't seem to understand that as sad as it is, you can't just give food and water to poor, starving people, it makes the problem worse. Take for example, people living in sub-saharan africa. Why are they currently starving? because they are living on the edge of a desert, they can't currently grow enough food and raise enough animals for food and because it is a semi-desert there is little to no water. Then there is a charity organisation that sends them water and gives them food. So what happens? the population increases because less of them are dying due to food and medical care. But now you have a larger population, which needs more food and water. Furthermore, they now occupy more land and try to farm more intensively to get more food, this depletes the soil, which means not only can they no longer grow food, but the local wildlife dies (if they haven't already killed it all for food). if you keep on giving them food and water, you are just making their lives worse. So what can you do to stop this? there are two options that I can see: option 1: leave them alone, don't give them anything. A lot of them will die, but then there will be more land, food and water for those that are left and they will go back to subsistence living like they used to, before we interfered in an attempt to 'help' them. that is the way they have lived for 10,000 years since the start of agriculture and they were doing okay. Option 2: educate them. Not so much in things like science and music, but in things that will help them help themselves. How to farm sustainable, how to build water wells. How to stop destroying the environment and therefore destroying themselves. Give them contraception and explain to them that more children means more mouths to feed and more hardship. Their population should stabilize and they should have enough food and water for everyone. Charity organisations put adverts everywhere trying to guilt trip you into basically throwing money at people and making their lives miserable. Stop it!
"A lot of them will die, but then there will be more land, food and water for those that are left" -this is a recipe for international terrorism. If we don't help, they will resort to violence, as is happening right now. You're model doesn't work when groups get armed. You're right in the sense charity isn't working in places like Haiti, but there is a repressive government there that keeps the status quo in place. If charitable orgs didn't give, the U.S. gov't would bring food aid to be distributed by the Haitian government. In places like Somalia and even Saudi Arabia, they will export armed resistance, as they did from and in Afghanistan. Option 2 is the only option. Note the problem there is the same armed groups. Rebels/terrorists will turn the advantage for themselves, until they become a government, who might continue to use scarcity and charity to their own political advantage. It is not just soil depletion and environmental degradation, it is governments and armed groups who use scarcity to political and strategic advantage.
Christopher Daniels Option 2 is a better option I agree, it just takes a longer time. I was mostly talking about places like sub-saharan africa. I was born in south africa and have been there many times. Every time I go it is getting worse, because people are not getting educated, the local majority blame the white man for everything and keep claiming land that they say is their tribal land. They claim land in the middle of nowhere and then want electricity, water etc. brought to them and expect transport to get to the cities. I know exactly how people can play on guilt and poverty to get money. I think we need to educate, i'm not sure what else. I hadn't thought of the issue of armed groups. However, it would be best if we stopped them from getting armed. If we didn't lend them aid, how would they find the money etc. to fund armies? They probably would find a way your right. hmmm There would have to be a united effort to educate, to get rid of the violent ones and to stop any weapons from entering these areas?
You have it all wrong , you tell the whole world this is a crisis , we have to help them you set up a foundation that will help , you collect all the money , give all your friends huge contracts to rebuild the country , pocket as much as you can , give less than 5% to the starving and walk away with millions . Wait a couple of years and do it again . Clinton's have this all figured out .
this 3 rd world is all over the world,because the Bretton woods treaty is bein ignored,Bretton woods united news/ of the time video on u tube 1944. As an idea of the size of the speculative currency dealing markets its about at $4,000,000,000,000.a day maybe even some of it your money,300 days a year.That is about $800 dollars for 5,000,000,000.people. I believe it ll finish us all ,as in all?
Of course income and wealth inequality increases every year. Before the industrial revolution, when we were all farmers, the smarter farmers produced a little more than the dumber/lazier farmers. Now, with high tech, robotics, and all the scientific advancements, the difference between the talented/skilled and the untalented/unskilled is multiplied and magnified a thousand times. Why would anybody want it to be otherwise? Of course, redistribution helps, but cannot eliminated economic inequality without eliminating incentive, something no rational person would wish for.
united state ranks 27th ? Please tell me where , I have lived in the US for 20 years and have seen no one starving ? where are all these poor people hiding . Tell them please come to California , free house, free food , free cell phone , its paradise for the people who dont work , unlike myself I have to work to pay taxes to support them .
Go to an area of high cost of living and high concentration of people. This will be any highly urbanized area. You will find them there. These areas also have large homelessness problems. Because unless everyone that works minimum wage in those areas are students, they will need government assistance. And much of the time, that isn't enough.
You will not find ANY starving people in the US. Chomsky once again quoted a "statistic" that is so distorted as to be a lie. He was talking about a "study" of hunger in the US which asked if any of the respondent had to wonder if they would have to skip a meal in the next day. Not that they actually did skip a meal, only if they had to wonder about it. That is not hunger.
An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich; a great equalizer. The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment." All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all). After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little. The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the third test rolled around, the average was an F. As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. To their great surprise, all failed and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. It could not be any simpler than that.
@Luke F I never said I supported Capitalism! I only faulted Socialism. Now you're turning this around into a race and gender issue which I never ever mentioned to begin with. Now you resort to profanity and making outright assumptions about me. You're acting like a Bigot. Time for you to grow up!
@Luke F I support a Libertarian (not Liberal) view. I suggest you look up the word and study a bit. Racism and other problems exists. Subject here is about Socialism. As you get older you're learn not to assume and not to call others profane names in an attempt to prove yourself. Doing that only makes you look ignorant and weak. Your future is going to come upon you and before you know it you'll be looking back wondering what the heck just happened. Don't get wrapped up into things you cannot possibly change. Control your anger and you'll live a longer and content life.
@Luke F I do not support Libertarian Capitalism. I suggested you look it up and study it. You only copied and pasted the first thing you read from the internet. You have a lot of growing up to do. You are only digging yourself in deeper with ignorance.
Inequality exists for a plethora of reasons, mostly geographic, but also political. If anyone is interested, the works of Jared Diamond and Thomas Sowell can explain this. The greatest force elevating millions of people out of poverty is Classical Liberalism and it's economic arm, capitalism. Chomsky is a fool who continues to see history as a Marxian class struggle. This is a man who has been an apologist for the Vietnamese communists, the Khmer Rouge, the Castros, Hugo Chavez and even Hezbollah. It is unbelievable that a man with this kind of record still gets any respect as a guru of wisdom. It is a testament to just how pervasive the leftist intelligentsia and media is. Manufactured consent indeed!
Inequality exists for a plethora of reasons, mostly geographic, but also political.". Lol wtf? What about the inequality in the same geographic region?
Dont forget systematic inequality. Seems a though you'll use any difference among certain groups to justify inequality. Hair color,religion, bone structure, race ect ect.... Wtf lol
beau g race, bone structure...wtf. If you want an example of inequalities among people from the same geographic location, please read about Nigeria. these people are of the same race and bone structure! "psychological projection"...lol. this projection emanates from all his writings. He doesn't hide his ideology.
