Modi is the new Pinochet. Facilitating for the capitalist class while keeping the commons occupied in reactionary nonsense. Super tax cuts for corporates while exorbitantly taxing essentials like fuel.
Bro u like it or not Don't forget how privatisation saved India from privatisation in 1991. So we need it. Public sector don't do anything, they are corrupted af and waste resources.
@@lukethomeret-duran5273 sad that u don't know how under him chile was best economically performing country in South America. And it's because of that ideology only why they are doing so good unlike other south american countries
@@yydd4954 ahahhahaha Pinochet destroyed Chile's economy. Left millions in poverty while giant corperations benefited. He literally ran away with millions of dollars of Chile's money and hid it in Swiss banks.
The US will swoop in after Brexit and make a "free trade" deal with the UK that will strongly favor the US and its army of evil capitalists. Trump has mentioned that the NHS should be "on the table". US healthcare corporations will dismantle the NHS. The people of the UK will then be beholden to their employers for healthcare as we are in the US. After the UK loses the NHS, it will not come back for many generations, if it ever does. Scotland and N Ireland should try to get out of the UK and stay in the EU while they can. Brexit will allow US-style capitalism to destroy what Thatcher and her "conservative" offspring weren't able to destroy. Leaving the EU will be the end of the middle class in the UK. Brexit was a terrible idea, conceived by evil Tories and promoted by Russian trolls.
"All Governments steal from their Citizens." Lord Byron 1805 The largest CORPORATION IN THE WORLD IS THE USA Federal Government Incorporated in 1870, in Washington, DC In order to Borrow from Rothschild's Banks in Europe. According to the UCC and 2000 years of International Trade and Business Laws And Courts !!!
2019 so many years after this interview and the privatisation of every public service or asset is clearly the dog eat dog, more is never enough society
Profit is the only motive of privatization. All arguments for it take a part, such as possible inefficiency, and falsely or narrowly conclude privatization is not only a solution, but the only solution. In other words, the more someone, not a government, can own something, whether water, patents, labor, etc., then the more the owner can skim some profit for themselves and no one else.
@@changenoways9555 first of all, innovation is neutral. it can be good or bad. second, there are many ways to encourage innovation. this way you encourage making profits. people arent innovative for any other reason than to create profit. and with that goal a innovation that is very useful for other things to is rather an accident or side effect
I grew up in England and remember when we had numerous public services that worked. But then Thatcher came to power and since then the British govt has been attempting to make us into little America, selling off and privatising everything they can get they filthy hands on. The Britain I grew up in was one of the best countries in the world. Not perfect by any means but in many ways of measuring, a truly "great" Britain. But since privatisation according to the American model this country has been going downhill, fast. And now, helped along by the gross stupidity of Brexit, we are in the throes of an exponential downward decline. It is very, very sad ... 😪
The UK specifically England went to the World Bank and the IMF for emergency LOANS ....because the previous LABOUR GOVERNMENTS HAD SPENT EVERY LAST Single PUBLIC TREASURY POUND In the 1970's........... THE UK WAS A THIRD WORLD ECONOMY THAT THATCHER SAVED FROM THEMSELVES. HISTORY IS A BITCH WHEN SOCIALISTS SPEND EVERYBODY ELSES MONEY. THE BRITISH ARE CAN BE, INFERTILE WHINGY PISSHEADS BLUDGERS OF THE FIRST ORDER WHITE PRIVILEGE KUNTS. WHO ROGER WATERS DESCRIBED PERFECTLY IN "WE DONT WANT NO EXUCATION, HEY TEACHER LEAVE THE PUNKS AND OISS HEADS ALONE" BRICKS IN THE WALL. THATCHER MADE Them ALL GET OFF THE ARSES AND GET BACK TO WORK.
The Britain you grew up in had just finished stealing the wealth of 40% of the planet for hundreds of years. Now you're sad that the capitalists are stealing your wealth.
The minister of transport in Victoria Australia admitted after the first ten years of privatisation of the railways had not saved any money, and then oversaw a new contract being tended. So if its not saving money what's the point? There is another reason to argue for school privatisation: racism, a private institute can refuse entry to students. This was a big drive from the 50s to the 70s for private institutes in the south, its where the charter school came from, and the people pushing for it today have roots in that movement.
KentAllard totally agree with the school aspect. The only thing i’d say is that I wouldn’t assume the people pushing for privatization of railways think it will save money. Most of the time the people pushing privatization are either the ones who are going to get rich charging us tolls or they’re receiving kickbacks from those people. The whole save money and increase efficiency thing is just how they sell it to suckers like us. Edit: perfect example is a partially Australian company. Australia owns part of the corporation that owns EZ-PASS. They charge me tolls to drive on US roads that my tax dollars already paid for. A portion of those tolls goes to some dickhead in Australia that will never reinvest that money into to roads. It would be more efficient for the state to hire full time technicians to operate electronic tolling. I’m sure the employees would get better pay and benefits from the State or Fed gov then they do from EzPass also.
Briefly, all privatization does is introduce a " middle man" between the utility and the tax paying consumer, profits are siphoned off. The public purse begins to hemorrhage money, it cannot be sustained, unless taxes are increased, or social services, education budgets etc, are reduced.
the 11pm subway example is one of my favourites, "entrepreneurial values"... hire a limmo. 24/7 school with a public transport system (24/7, of course) so you can go to school whenever you like, would be a blessing
3:17 I follow Mr. Chomsky up to that point (and the rest, too). But I'm less concerned about people wanting to get "stuff" (shoes, video games, car, clothing, electronic devices, etc.) than about putting in those people's mind that they have to focus on saving up, watching their investments, and trying any trick possible to maximize their retirement fund. And then blaming the others who can hardly do that.
@Matt Guitar If you are still under 18-years old and living with your parents, your Ayn Rand American-style libertarian ideas are cute and fun. You are a special boy! If you are an adult and still believe this nonsense, then you are either stupid or lucky. You are not special. When you or a loved one gets sick, you will meet the cold, hard reality of capitalism face to face. You'll have the choice of going bankrupt or dying. Freedom?
Matt Guitar the concept of society means that we are all in this together, my brother problem is my problem, so if i can do anything to help him i will, thats what community means. What you talk about is pure egotistical individualism, you care about how much you can hord in order to satisfy your individual needs, somehow that has become more important than the health of the community. And then we all become islands living disconnected lives. How wonderfull it is.
Matt Guitar the car exemple is a stupid one, no one is asking to have free cars, we are asking for healthcare for example, specially for those that cannot afford it. Do you mind a contribution?
Matt Guitar It should be someone else's burden, because we are civilized and not monsters. We allow Jeff Bezos to accrue $200 billion dollars on the backs of his workers, yet let those same workers die from lack of healthcare. Grow up. Were you always stupid and evil, or did your inculcation into the American-style libertarian cult make you stupid and evil?
@Matthew Apsey Your own argument where you said 'You've done nothing to address my point; you don't have the right to confiscate someone else' wealth' is literally in contradiction of where you say 'Forcing someone else to foot the bill is called slavery'. Did you even watch the video, or you immediatly jumped into comment section ? They just said your government will take care of the profit from a company before your own social security, that's stealing worker's production, that's slavery
If and/or when children are not properly educated in the public school system, educated to actually prepare them for real life in the world, then maybe they really don't care whether of not other people's children attend school. I can understand their apprehension to fork over the money, their hard earned money and in too many cases hard earned but not enough money to fund for them a truly quality life, enough money to fund their choices into manifestation in their own lives, very possibly because as youths they themselves received inadequate education and therefore ended up as wage labor slave exploits their entire lives, low income labor with no chance of advancement into any type of management position providing more of a living wage than a token stipend decided by the business establishment to guarantee them minimal operating expenses to allow for maximum corporate profits, when IF they had received the proper pertinent and necessary information, those people would have made very different choices at the crucial time which would have greatly increased their chances in life to actually reach the point of financial security.
He says about social security: "The last of the baby boomers will be gone before there's any problem in it" So he admits it's not sustainable and there is a big problem coming.
ofc if the distribution of age gets shifted there is a problem for a system thats adapted for a different distribution. however thats not a problem of social security per se and rather of the current system which needs to be adjusted. for example you can simply put in more money.(which btw happens either way)
Noam is without a doubt a brilliant person. But it is interesting how he always is very clear on mentioning the "highjacking" of the socialist concept yet he lumps up crony capitalism (the one that benefits big corporations that is prevalent today in America for example) and free market capitalism. If the argument is sound, there is no need to de-mask one and mask the other. And sure; maybe both ideologies in their truest form are just possible in theory. All I am after here is consistency.
waneagony well there is a huge difference between people taking the socialist name but going against socialist principals and capitalists doing what they've always done, rely on government protection.
David Rendon I don't agree with you. The misuse of definitions is on both sides. Your example of capitalists relaying on government protection is not free market capitalism, it's crony capitalism. That is my point - if one does not want to be a hypocrite one can't correct one of the definitions and misuse the other just out of preference.
agreed. if there is no state to protect the business, then the business will hire its own muscle. either way, capitalism must rely on brute force to continue profit for the owners and stop the workers from assuming control over the means of production
"Coorporations pick up thier copies of rand and friedman and go to the nanny state for bailouts." Thats the opposite of what those two people have talked about.
Why do some people always insist that corporate profit yield to social benefit? Private profit and individual initiative are far more important than mere human lives. In the grand scheme of things, individual lives don’t matter; but the unbridled right of private business for profit at any cost, and without any regard to social responsibility, is sacrosanct. What does it matter if a family across town lives or dies, if I can today turn $1.20 into $1.25? There lies the whole purpose and magnificence of life.
If the private school is non profit, i don't think this applies to schools. Parents want different philosophies for their schools and charter schools and school choice is a success. No choice of schools is a terrible idea bc then when a school is crappy, can't manage the bad students, has violence or you don't agree with their ideology there is nowhere else to go.
Privatization has one particular problem, the government was involved. Nationalization has the same problem. The good thing about privatization is once the State has sold it off, so long as the State keeps its hands off, including if the "private business" is failing, then it's good. But the government doesn't keep a hands off approach. They are constantly involved. So if the State remains involved then call it privatization if you will, but it is not private enterprise. But The Chomp won't explain that, because he is and has always been brilliantly manipulative and deceptive.
Avidcomp you can disagree with someone without them being deceptive. If he is so manipulative and deceptive; then what agenda is he pushing and now does it benefit him? Ie what conflicts of interests do you believe stop him telling the truth?
The issue is that if say health care is failing, and the govt doesn't bail it out, enormous amounts of people, the people the govt is sworn in to protect, will die. Now with privatisation you tie literally everything together in a horrible dangerous way, so if banks are failing then that will unleash a chain effect crippling all the institutions, including for example health care, which again, enormous death toll to be expected. So the govt can't be hands off lest they want to go against the very thing they're there for. Had it not been for the pesky issue with human lives, sure, the market would fix everything eventually, but the world is more than numbers and money unfortunately.
-No one would be forced to make risky investments with their retirement funds if social security did not exist. The politicians are selling retirement funds, just as bankers do. The only difference is that money doesn't stop rolling in when government makes a bad bet. -Privatization of education and pension systems does not imply a lack of caring for people. In fact I would argue that it is the politicians advocating the programs that themselves do not care about their fellow man. -Private transportation could leave their customers on the side of the road but they would be shooting themselves in the foot by letting their competitors exploit that surplus in demand. Here in Ottawa, it is the public bus systems that have been cutting routes to save money; meanwhile people are "left on the side of the road" because no other organization can legally compete with the city for these demanding bystanders looking for a ride.
"No one would be forced to make risky investments with their retirement funds if social security did not exist" -The fact that their investments will be in private institutions automatically makes their investments riskier. Even the safest investments can fail or at least result in you losing some money. I'd say abolish social security because of its inefficiency and the false security it creates. But it'd definitely make more sense to repeal and replace it with a different program. A program that teaches ALL citizens how the Market works, how investments work, how business works, how to save and how to limit consumption. Of course what I'm proposing wouldn't be appealing to the Private Sector, because the consumption culture we live in benefits the rich. The rich likes being the few people who actually understand the complexities of the markets and the economy. "Privatization of education and pension systems does not imply a lack of caring for people" -Yes it does. Especially, when it comes to education. Why the hell would you base people's education on something like profit? Anytime a certain type of education doesn't result in more money, like the humanities or a science like physics for example, Capitalists will shut it down or give it less priority. If someone happens to be born to a poor family today, they're already put at a disadvantage by going to poor schools, but if all schools are privatized, the situation could be even worse with poor kids having zero education. "....they would be shooting themselves in the foot by letting their competitors exploit that surplus in demand" -Well many people in the US have been demanding for a long time that cable companies stop selling customers deals in arbitrary packages so they could just pay more money for things they don't want. Customers want more flexibility and more choice in what they pay for. Since these cable companies are so big and work so closely together, these demands aren't being met. Free Markets doesn't always equal more competition. That's probably what it's supposed to be in theory, but it usually fails on this.
That's all a result of the horseshoe ideology that exists in capitalist social programs. They are inefficient because people are trying to profit off of them and they are competing with other groups despite their fixed income. Buses have to compete with cars and taxes, so the vast majority of people aren't using them. If enough people aren't using them, their cost isn't justified and their spending is scaled back, just like a business. So in practice, a government program is a business and restricting competition keeps holes in that the government can't fill.
