+Bender Rodriguez only people who benefit hugely from the market system, or are brainwashed (by those who hugely benefit from the market system) believe this.
+Bender Rodriguez  Curious how that works. Profiting from huge amounts of government funding wasn't a motive for these innovations? saying that "somebody somewhere made an argument..." isn't much help.
When they put men on the moon they were part of the propaganda division, when they were putting up GPS satellites they were part of the intelligence division, all that rocket technology is derived from ballistic missiles, all the gear to survive in the vacuum of space from pressurised cabins for flying military aircraft at high altitudes. If it were up to Reagan they would have gone full out and put up space-lasers.
Pressurized cabins are fine in the outer atmosphere, but it was the propaganda division that sold us the vacuum of space. And just how do we verify that there are no lasers up where only they can go?
Cause I don't think the U.S. could have resisted the temptation of using them by now. But maybe they did, and now Trump is going to blow it by using one to burn a crude tweet into the front lawn of some shit-talking foreign head of state.
There was a real proposal, probably never put into effect, called "Rods from God," which involved inserting meter-long tungsten rods on satellites which could be released from orbit to fall to Earth. The rods would theoretically hit the surface of the Earth with kinetic energy equivalent to the energy released by an atomic bomb. Fun fact!
Ronnie Raygun and The Donald will go down together in history. As the two people most responsible for the ever widening gap between the 'haves and the haves not'. With their tax 'reforms'. The %1ers will always love them dearly for this fact. That must have been one heck of a party when they heard Trump's repeal of the estate tax had become law.
Professor Chomsky analyzes every issue he talks about with critical and analytical thinking so sharp that he's among the most reliable intelectuals. I'm a great fan of him
@@microplasticsinurblud No, Noam Chomsky helps people open their dimension of Intelligence, which is completely different from the Intellect which can be programmed or brainwashed. Intelligence is a human, spiritual dimension. You need to better your understanding.
@@ronalddash6520 , Chomsky is a Linguistics Professor. He has NEVER served in the Military. -NEVER held any affiliated Government or Public Service Position. -NEVER held any other job outside academia, that would give him legitimate insight into what the Military does, or how they do it. He merely cherry-picks facts, and exploits 20/20 Hindsight, in order to support his own preconceived conclusions. In other words, Chomsky has NO IDEA WTF he is talking about here! SMH
@@mck1972 , what, specifically, is Chomsky wrong about in this clip? Just because he doesn't have some direct connection to the military doesn't mean that his ideas and opinions on this topic are inherently wrong. He is essentially saying two things in this clip. One, the idea that most of our modern conveniences and technologies are simply due the benefits of capitalistic entrepreneurism is at best an oversimplification, and at worse flat out wrong. Two, the reason the American government is putting *this* much money into the military is more for geopolitical power and the stability of the military related industries rather than purely for defence. I don't see how these points are really *that* controversial where you would need insider information from the military to confirm or deny.
@@Sleepteiner , There is a key difference between merely reciting facts, like Chomsky does here, vs proving what those facts actually prove: The fact that X number of inventions have their origins in Government research does not prove to what extent this has occurred over the years. And the fact that the U.S. spends X dollars on Defense, does NOT prove what the MOTIVES of those who actually work in Defense are.
Noam seems to be such a GOOD person. You never hear him indulging in off-color humor or anything even slightly weird. He's almost too good to be true. He seems to have lofty ideals that are not rooted in religion but very real, nevertheless.
Who knew that a degree in linguistics will teach you about the economy, politics, and the military. Chomsky should be in change since he clearly knows how to solve the problems of all institutions.
@@ethanmccormick3271 Right, you wouldn't go to a vascular surgeon for someone who knows about heart surgery. That would be appeal to authority. Just because he is an MD in vascular surgery does not mean he knows about it, its just appeal to authority. Great logic!
@@lukegibson9410 if your mailman told you your house was on fire would you just not believe him because he's not a firefighter? I'm not here to argue use cases for logical fallacies but the point is, argue against Noam's statements rather than ad hominem attacks xx
Date for this entry ? I'm not familiar with the CPE press conference as I suspect many of the viewers here aren't. Dating and sources are almost always helpful, especially if viewers want to do further research. Thanks.
There's nothing wrong with the government funding high tech. There's everything wrong with CEOs awarding themselves private salaries for public-funded results.
You think you know more than this guy? I’m not tryna treat him as some sort of godly figure, but simply that he is thorough in his research. DARPA is not some covert operation, if it was you wouldn’t know about it.
Very well put, at the end of the day the majority of private investment and entrepreneurial ship that goes on deals in short-term gain of about 10 to 15 years, anything past that is not considered a quick enough return so it doesn’t get invested in, the private sector only comes in after the public purse has done the hard yards in research and development and they build on that, put it in a new shiny package with an extra pricetag on it and sell it back to the very public who paid for the entire foundation of the product, all the while that company taking credit as if it all came from them
As Dick Jones said in RoboCop, "I had a guaranteed military sale with ED-209. Renovation program. Spare parts for 25 years. Who cares if it worked or not?"
As far as I understand, his point is that the government is used as a tool to redistribute tax revenue in favour of powerful people and that public subsidies therefore work, but they're being used inadequately
@@CBT5777 please explain this part of the comment then (or how this part relates to the rest of the comment): "public subsidies therefore work but they're being used inadequately". sounds a little stupid and/or unrelated to me
James Nation It means that seeing truth from only one perspective is not absolute truth and should not be confused as such. In other words a relativistic truth. Think as Einstein did.
Fascinating. Can you give me an example or two from the Chomsky video in which the professor offers us a truth that is "relativistic"? Thanks in advance.
James Nation I will give you a general example that pervades him and his followers comments and that is that wage labor is akin to chattel slavery. That is a bit off the rails in my opinion. I find it very liberating to trade my labor for a medium of exchange that I can invest how ever I want. That is truth to me. Relative to my perspective. I can see the other side too. Sometimes I feel like a slave at work but that isn't a healthy way to look at it. I prefer to empower myself. I also don't think it is healthy to constantly call my own culture and country perverted which I find slightly masochistic.
Metal ships = military advance of technology. Computers = military advance of technology. Nuclear technology = military advance of technology. Aeroplanes = not invented by, but tremendously developed by the military. Space flight = NASA may be a civilian agency, but they were highly supported by military interests. There is truth in what Chomsky says.
Truth to the idea that the MIC heavily influenced innovation? Or truth to the idea that free market capitalists like Greenspan are in denial about it? Different claims.
Greenspan is not for a free market and he is not a capitalist. He is a. Courtier of monopolists: A Marxofascist in the true Hegelian sense. Michael Hudson in his book"Killing the Host" mentioned him advocating using techniques to traumatize people to get them to work for less. He is in the game of farming people
IBM's biggest customer was the military, perhaps, though I'm not for sure on that. And IBM is responsible for industrializing the modern the computer. Not the military. Again, military was just a customer AFTER IBM did all the work.
I'd prefer seeing Greenspan stripped of all his wealth and then forced to work at McDonalds for the rest of his life. Let him experience the results of unfettered free market capitalism up close for himself if he loves it so much.
Interesting points. 'we'll pay for the r&d, you can keep the money you made, but dont forget who owns you'. This is why you never see Zuckerburg break a sweat in congress.
Zucky is probably a MKUltra mind control victim, with multiple personalitys, which is why he can't by shaken. For more info, read transformation of America by Cathy O'Brien and Mark. It's all in there. Google it.
You do know that the Federal Government already spends Far More on SS than on the Military-Right? You just don't hear Academic Libs like Chomsky, who have never actually worked in Government themselves, talk about that. 😀
He is always interesting to listen to. One thing I wonder about is that he says we have 1000 military bases. I thought it was 700 or so. What constitutes a "base"?
It depends. See the "The Lily-Pad Strategy" in the following link. www.tomdispatch.com/archive/175568/ See also "Lost count": www.tomdispatch.com/archive/175338/nick_turse_empire_of_bases_2.0
What's misunderstood? He outlines two functions which are probably of no surprise to most people: 1) Funding research and tech innovations that have defense implications and potential to enter a broader consumer market (which of course employs a lot people) 2) Beating people up. Who here misunderstood that, or can point to somebody who has?
+Iridescentsquids I think what he's saying is that the extent of the military's role in driving innovation is not, in general, appreciated in popular culture. As such the role of the state sector in advancing technological progress is understated, with an undue emphasis on private sector venturing.
+Iridescentsquids The market fundamentalism is a cult which devotes itself to denying it, and also denying the protectionism and interventions in the past few centuries which created the gulf between the first and third world.
Ricardo Ruiz You sound like an ideologue complaining that other people are ideological. No matter how snazzy your views or captivated Chomsky's audience, I'm personally not interested until the evidence carries. And I think it's a mistake for you or anybody else to just believe shit people tell you, even intelligent well-read individuals like Chomsky, without healthy skepticism. I'm not saying you or Chomsky are wrong. Just that you do your views terrible disservice when the so-called evidence provided is nothing but a big fat strawman. If what you say is so obviously true there shouldn't be a need to fabricate evidence like Chomsky appears to have done here. You should be able to find real evidence with little effort and share it.
verbadum22 verbadum22 I guess that’s why he said “somewhat” misunderstood. Its common knowledge that the pentagon’s expensive toilets or $10,000 bolts aren’t necessary for defense. In my experience very few people fail to acknowledge that in addition to such high profile examples of reallocation, there are both military and economic implications to our enormous defense spending. The particular historic details certain vary in popularity but I think the general understanding is there. Although saying that US military dominance is just an ancillary, truly irrelevant outgrowth of that spending is itself a misunderstanding not many people share. If you believe that you would be the only person I know as I don’t believe that’s what he’s saying-that it doesn’t matter “at all”.
Everybody acts like it was the military that did it. Military may have funded research, but it wasn't soldiers doing the work. The co-opted engineers and the like from the universities, in a way they sort of farmed the schools a bit. Got first pick, before private sector could even make a job offer. Military just stands around, waits until it hears an idea it likes, then funnels the cash into it. Doesn't mean it wouldn't have happened w/o the military. Military always comes in after something get's invented. Twisted thinking.
Listening to radiolab they told the story of coca cola who I had always assumed spanned the globe due to their great taste and infectious branding. They argued it was in fact due to govt subsidies - to keep up the morale of American soldier across the world they gave coke money to insure that soldiers could have "a taste of home" no matter how far away they were - this created an infrastructure which made them one of the largest international corporations in the world.
@@markcostello236 Anti-theist (specifically anti-Abrahamic) nonsense. He starts by mocking people who don't have a purpose in life and have a lot of innate troubles pleading God or praying to a God for their purpose on life and how they're unworthy (only people that I know of who talk like that are Christians). He then goes on to say how the Abrahamic God made mistakes writing the Testaments which was why he updated them so much and etc. Then dispenses anti-religious and anarchist nonsense. So he's either Troll, a Satanist, or a lunatic. All of them just as bad as the next (maybe not symbolic Satanists).
It is no more lunatic than atheism. Do you know what atheists absolutely cannot claim? They cannot say it is objectively true that rape is wrong, they cannot say it is objectively true that love exists, and they cannot say it is objectively true that murder is wrong. This is something even Richard Dawkins admits. Yet most of them abide by some type of moral system-where does this moral system come from? It is not scientifically based. This is where philosophy starts: philosophy begins where science cannot go, and it concerns itself mainly with ethics, morals, existence, consciousness, and reality. While atheists absolutely can't rationalise morals, theists can. The only people safe from any criticism are agnostics.
Thank you for your Service. But-Even IF everything Chomsky says is true, then the Worse decisions that Chomsky believes our Government has made all these years, whether Defense spending, or any other issue, then the Worse this makes Chomsky himself look, for never getting involved in Policy Making Himself, and-with his superior wisdom-Show he can do better! Instead of spending his whole life merely complaining from the sidelines!
@@mck1972In order to be able to do that, he'd have to be elected and for that he'd have to become part of the complex he so deservedly criticizes. The idea of capable people being able to just "get involved" and enact enormous changes on their own in a system squarely opposed to them is quite frankly naive. And there is a purpose his arguments serve, to try and educate the people who vote and to help them understand and through that indirectly influence policy. Ironically, you're complaining about him "just complaining from the sidelines".
@jphenry3404 , So then Chomsky's solution is to supposedly, ' educate ', misguided people who mistakenly take him seriously about fields that he has NEVER had the guts to actually worked in himself, that he does NOT actually understand himself, and that has NEVER actually changed or influenced any issue in any measurable verifiable way himself, is to just complain from the sidelines? You really don't see how ridiculous that reasoning is? And the difference between Chomsky and myself is that I have actually held elected office, and also Served in the Military, which entailed actual responsibility. So I actually achieved far more in my own life than merely complaining from the sidelines! UNLIKE worthless Armchair Critic Chomsky! :-D
@@mck1972 nonsense. first of all, you dont have to get into politics to make an impact. you can be sure he does a much better job from talks, raising awareness, arguing etc. he would just drown in the political business as he is quite alone. also it doesnt make sense to reduce any form of activism just to getting into politics.
@@BuGGyBoBerl , LOL No what is actually, ' nonsense ', is making pathetic excuses for Chomsky's lifetime of merely complaining from the sidelines, and calling it, ' activism '! When in reality, there is ZERO proof that anything Chomsky has ever done ever impacted any issue facing this country-Ever! Outside Linguistics-Besidez Chomsky making all his millions complaining that is! :-D ;-D :-D So please open your eyes here!
Good question. Another good question is: Even If Chomsky's facts & figures are accurate in & of themselves, how can we be sure h is representing the entire issue accurately, given that he has never served in the Military, nor worked in Defense, nor has any background in Auditing, whatsoever!
@Jack , Nobody said Chomsky, ' lied ', But-EVEN IF EVERY FACT Chomsky recites is true, there is a still a big difference between merely reciting facts, vs establishing what those facts actually prove-Or the underlying motives behind them-A big difference that Chomsky has ZERO grasp of!
New 'OpenDemocracy' debate on Chomsky's relationship with military research is here: scienceandrevolution.org/blog/2018/6/18/chris-knight-frederick-newmeyer-and-randy-allen-harris-debate-decoding-chomsky-in-the-pages-of-open-democracy
Chomsky's status as a, ' Consultant ', to the US Military in matters of Linguistics does appear to be accurate. However-This does NOT In & Of Itself prove that Chomsky had any extraordinary insight into how the Military, or the Government, works. -UNLESS there is additional documentation from Chomsky and/or the Military, which details exactly what Chomsky did, who in the military he interacted with, how long he was in contact with them, and what his particular responsibilities were.
Actually, the .gov, which funds the military, uses the military to fund quite a few things. So, follow the money. There are a couple of steps that happen before the military get it. To start with, the military doesn't collect taxes. Nos does it do the budget to allocate those monies.
It points to the fact that we don't need bullets for technical innovation. We have the brains to solve the problems of war using technology imagine if technology was used to benifit everyone and stop all wars. Most wars are resources based give everyone renewable resources through innovation and more innovation would be created. Furthermore developing mankind, we develop to a point and then fight ever decreasing humanity's chance of survival go figure
Whilst of course what Chomsky says is true, it is a bit of a non-argument. This is only a refutation of pretty hardcore libertarianism that takes a view of state spending that without doubt impedes progress for no real reason. I think most people can grasp the idea that a mobile phone, the Internet or transistors, whilst perhaps being acceptable to sell as a private commodity, are infrastructure for private sector innovation. The specifics of the new iPhone or Samsung Galaxy are private sector created, the websites that make up the Internet are largely private sector created and many products that use transistors are private sector created. He is refuting people who whilst they hold authority and I am sure aren't idiots want to win over people in the most simplistic manner possible. He isn't effectively refuting capitalism by saying this however.
@@beethovenfan3 Yes but I know the poing of what he is saying and it isn't really doing anything other than creating a slightly more sophisticated piece of propaganda in favour of his politics. All I said in that response is directly relevant to what he said.
I think he's refuting American capitalism. I think you can have a wholly private capitalism, but in America the tax payers are footing the bill for a large part of the r+d without access to the profits.
@@anahata3478 read what I said. A huge amount of what is actually on the Internet has nothing to do with the state, besides the Internet itself. What makes it so useful is largely private sector innovation after the fact.
So I appreciate a lot of the nuances here... but one burning question I have is whether the Pentagon really set out "trying to bring about the next phase of the economy". I'm not as tied to the military-industrial complex as Chomsky is, but nothing I've read has indicated that the Pentagon has over-arching aims to manage the economy at such a high level. A lot of what the Pentagon seems to accomplish is by accident: after all of the trillions of dollars wasted on things like Reagan's missile defense system, or Raytheon's weather balloon monitoring systems (alternately for missile defense and more recently as an anti-terrorism measure) etc etc you'd think that there would be some successes if only by accident. Maybe I'm wrong and some enlightened commenter here can point me to such a document outlining the Pentagon's intention to alter America's economic landscape via techonologies like the internet. Somehow I doubt such a long-term plan exists in an institution that's produced such wonderful planning documents as "How to prevent the entire country of Iraq from descending into anarchy and looting one month after invasion"
The short answer to that question is a resounding ‘Yes’. In my book, “Winning the Race among Nations for Economic Superiority” I have an entire chapter on “How the US Military Created the Computer Industry”. It’s a fascinating history. In short, DAPRA was created in the last 50’s when the US was caught off guard with the launch of Sputnik. It’s hard to underestimate the profound impact that had on the US. DAPRA was chartered with funding and driving all technologies needed for the US military to rein superior since the military has long recognized that a modern military must be on the cutting edge technologically. The net effect has been that DAPRA has funded virtually all aspects of the computer revolution - GPS, Internet, computer architecture, operating systems, pinch and zoon, etc. In fact, the iPhone is really just an assembly of technologies that the US government initially funded. Marianna Mazzucato wrote an entire book on that topic.
The symbiotic relationship of forces. The authority provides assurances of existential safety and stability to the subordinates. In return for the authority’s assurances, subordinates pursue their destined course of productivity. In order for the Authority to retain the consent of the subordinates majority, occasional “proof” of the promised assurances need to be given. (It’s called propaganda.) But because in most cases the authority is incapable of taking proactive actions, the assurances are by and large based on unsubstantiated beliefs. Hence, the authority's existence is based on a fictitious foundation that the subordinates chose to believe in. Belief energizes nurtures and motivates the subordinates to be productive. The yield of the subordinates' productivity is unevenly distributed to the disproportionate advantage of the authority. If the authority's assurances are insufficient the symbiotic relationship between the authority and the subordinates is in danger of collapsing. • The fear of being left behind, of being disadvantaged and isolated from existential safety and comfort assurances is the major instigator. • Fear spurs adherence to the commanding authority. • Affirmation of beliefs in a divine “truth” functions as a justification of righteousness. We have known this all along but we have not made any fundamental progress in the ways we value life. We need to proactively challenge the covert symbiotic relationships of forces and replace it with a belief in life itself. We can only do that by stepping outside the prevailing system. The new mantra should be based on a deeply felt belief that is being administered through education at a very early stage. It would bring about different value perceptions in future generations. Hopefully. Alex Goslar
Relying on Noam Chomsky to really understand, ' how power works ', is like relying on biased sports statistician to really understand how to play or coach for an NFL team! :-D
Two major forces are fighting for control over the populace: Corporatism (plutocracy and oligarchy) and Government. In the age of modernity, we are seeing these two forces merge, and they are becoming harder to differentiate. Now I know that this has been the case since the dawn of civilization, but I think that today we are seeing a historical change in this paradigm of two forces hellbent on controlling and dominating the World's people and resources. Humanity has been fighting one another like beast of the field for territory and resources. In this vicious struggle of survival, the most vicious and deadliest predator wins. That is not to say this method is the only way to live on this earth-I personally wish that we live up to our potential to be kind and gentle intelligent creatures-but the reality of the day is that we are not that. We are an evolving intelligent being. Only recently have we stepped out of the jungle and into cities. Although we are immature adolescents struggling to conquer our morality, time may not be on our side. Like the oldest child of a poor family, we may have to mature before our time. If we fuck up, there is no one to catch us when we fall. And when we fall, our fall will be great.
The choice between socialism and fascism is a false alternative. It's like saying we have to choose between Democrats or Republicans. Rule by government bureaucrats or rule by government backed monopolies. The real choice is do we want the government to control our decisions, and pretend that we control them through a once-every-four-years ballot? Or do we want to choose for ourselves through a process of voluntary agreement, with the government operating simply to protect our most fundamental rights? The more that we use government to tell us what kind of food to eat and what size soda to drink, the more we undermine their most original objective of protecting our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Mark Stouffer that all depends on how you define socialism, how efficiently the administration operates, and the level of involvement and influence of the public. I describe Denmark as a socialist country, but it is very different from other countries that I would also describe as socialist.
Mark Stouffer So instead, we get Monsanto deciding what kind of food we eat, we get the six companies that own nearly all media outlets in this country filtering our news, we have our jobs outsourced even when it doesn't make sense from a financial perspective ( often transport costs, poor quality control and turnaround times offset the benefits, but stocks still go up on the announcement that a company is outsourcing no matter how poor the actual business case for it is.) It isn't like getting rid of government will magically restore our freedoms, it will just put the 50 or so billionaires that own a majority of our economy, mostly the same people who lobby congress to pass poor legislation in the first place, in charge. Either representative government works or it doesn't, if we can't get the government to act in an honest and competent manner, neither can we hope to actually get our freedoms restored. In what way have the republicans in congress made us more free today than we were 20 years ago?
b- dubz It is a perfectly fine approximation to say that the US military invented the internet...I also understand the points you are making even if you are splitting hairs....
Thank you for commenting this. For years I have heard that the internet is a capitalist invention, but this is the first time I had ever seen credit given to the US military. Both of which are false.
+The Solmanian in which case none of it would have been possible without charles babbage or the jacquard loom, thats like saying the dude who created the first wheel built the bugatti veyron
NC has been at MIT for 60 years? How old is this old codger? The military is the driver of our technology, that is a very very important thing for all Americans to understand. It makes the chasm between Left and Right almost trivial because there is not free market, except a kind of Disneyland of illusions about a totally manipulated system of technology. While everyone is arguing about capitalism and socialism we have what is basically economic totalitarianism that looks capitalist around the edges. The basic work of the US is defense, and offense. That is what is important, and do what really needs to be done is not to change the system per se, but to define and demand public sector rights - and do not pretend to screw with the defense department. I don't think people of the government think that we need to defend ourselves, but what we do need is a social system that works in all circumstances, and the basic circumstance of the human condition has been conflict and war - so what do we have in our country ... we have an economy driven by technical innovation in conflict and war. Then under that we have a sort of free market where certain connected people can exercise their creativity to create and sell products ... IF, those product cans be afforded by an increasingly larger population of workers that have less and less disposable income. This is done through massive coordination and cheap mass production. Also this allows the watching over of our population as well.
He always offers a brillant reinterpretation of conventional wisdom - and while there is a lot of truth to his interpretations - that are not 100% complete, neat and clean as he would like to think.
Always interesting - but I always wonder where he is heading. Sure fundamental innovation is government lead. And? Sure institutions exercise power. And? Sure there are people who have power. And? What is actually the alternative? Sure America is the current world superpower, wasn’t so 150 years ago. And? As Churchill said: democracy is the worst form of government, except for all others.
would u say that during the last couple of decades the state hadn't been too productive with utilizing this format? I'll go with the easy example of spacex, which is obviously based off of state developed technology, but at a certain point that technology had stopped developing for the sake of money making. would that be considered a more capitalistic approach to the subject or maybe you can't get too much money anymore for these issues? and where would the funding for state developed technology come from in a less bizarre country? the tax payers money? would that be enough?
You mean as opposed to self-described, ' anarcho-syndicalist ', Chomsky, who actually made Every Penny of his own Multi-Million Dollar Fortune from Capitalism! 😀😀😀
This is such a nonsensical argument. The main problem I see is that the United States didn't have a permanent military force of any real size or budget until 1941. How did all the innovation occur before that date if the military's money is so critical to it?
+BulletRain100 Good point. Though he did specifically talk about hi-tech advancements, and remember that he's not discussing free-market-spawned advances so much as what much of the military's (Pentagon's, really) funding goes towards.
+Jebediah Krimsoncraftleding: Chomsky knows very little about how military research and procurement works. It's mostly innovation in the consumer market that's driven military innovation, not the other way around. Else the CSSCS and DIVAD programs wouldn't have been such disasters.
+BulletRain100 Abraham Lincoln funded northern industry and railroads via the state.. before that everything was also funded by the state, if you consider right after independence the first thing we did was cut off all outside markets via tariffs which were impossibly high and then we funded our own textiles and cotton etc etc via - you guessed it - THE STATE the pattern is the same since about 1500.. the state pays for everything and makes all the innovations, then all profits are privatized.. you are owned
Dylan Whitney I already have. And after the US Civil War, the nexus of world cotton output moved from the southern US to Egypt. The economy of the American South was crippled for decades afterward. What you're talking about is the rise of the textile industry in the northern US, which was driven by the rise of privately funded mills. It was privately owned and run textile manufacturing firms, and not raw material production or federal trade controls, that would make the US textile industry rich. Now make a few more stupid comments, add some arrogant bluster, declare victory and crawl off.
@@GlassesAndCoffeeMugs , Which ONLY proves that he has skill in the ONE field of Linguistics, and the ability to recite accurate past data about other fields-Nothing Else! 😀
@@mck1972 actually most of his cited works are on topics like the media, politics, Israel/Palestine etc not linguistics. Look, if you disagree with Chomsky and want to argue against some specific point he's making I don't take issue with that. Arguing he's in general a stupid person is just silly and can't be taken seriously
@@GlassesAndCoffeeMugs , LOL No you're missing the point: I never said that Chomsky is, ' stupid '. But just because Chomsky is, ' cited ', does NOT mean he actually understands that topic! So if Chomsky simply memorizes last season's pro football stats to the point that others, ' cite ', him as a source for that data, then does that make Chomsky qualified to actually play or coach for an NFL team??? See how ridiculous that reasoning is??? 😀
Military development of technology handed over to the private sector is corporate welfare. The public pays for the development of technology from taxes that is then sold back to us by private business with no dividends for our investment in the development.
LOL How dare you question Chomsky! Don't you know that being a Linguistics Professor, and reciting selected data about fields that he has never actually worked in, makes Chomsky an expert in Everything??? 😀😀😀
brownj2 He was referring to large commercial aircraft such as the 737 and 747, not all flying machines. Obviously the aircraft itself predated any particular subset thereof (other than the Wright Brothers' initial prototype, which I'm fairly certain Chomsky is aware wasn't a bomber).
It sounds like he is saying that technological advancement cannot happen unless it is funded by the state. This should be called "The Case for Fascism".
State control of industry and innovation. That is usually called corporatism or fascism, not "the system that was in use in the 60s and 70s (and today, but we don't talk about that.)" Just call it what it is. Name the devil.
nobody cares what you call state control. What you claimed was that Chomsky: "It sounds like he is saying that technological advancement cannot happen unless" This is in fact NOT what he is himself claiming in the video
He gives examples of how "everyone one of the so-called entrepreneurial initiatives" "came straight out of the state sector". He says this happened in all but one example of great achievements of the time, and that one was initiated at the directive of the state. So HE IS SAYING that no great innovations came out of the private sector of its own accord, and by not giving a reason why, he is saying that they could not have happened without government direction. But I suppose you will just deny that that is what he is saying, again, without any further explanation, again.
Mark Stouffer He said all of that EXCEPT the absolute "great innovations came out of the private sector of its own accord". The world is not black-and-white with only absolutes
Chomsky clearly said that it was extremely unlikely that the govt was involved in 9/11, but even if it was involved we can't prove it so who cares? He's been fighting the govt for decades and is used to far worse atrocities than 9/11 being swept under the carpet, that's why he has no time for a conspiracy theory based on very little evidence and that defies logic. Why waste time and energy on that when there are provable outrages happening constantly that we can actually get traction fighting against. As for JFK - he was killed over 50 years ago, there's no chance of proving who conspired at this point. Chomsky won't lose any sleep over JFK, he considers him a war criminal.
Charlie McTruth requires everyone to be in total lockstep agreement with him. If someone has one different opinion this means they are part of a vast cabal conspiracy, it also triggers Charlie and his mom has to lock him in a hug box until he can calm down.
KentAllard The latter part of what you've said is almost comically demonstrative of the flaw you see in Chomsky. He disagrees with you obviously, therefore he is "triggered" and a mama's boy (p.s. his mother is long gone) It's not as easy as you think to react impartially to those who oppose you.
correct but then theyll claim that whatever that tech was coudlve been developed in the private sector. which it couldnt have because the costs wouldve been too great for any one capitalist and the capitalist class forever forces people to pay for their lifestyles. its also predicated on the impossible idea of the separation between the state and capitalist industry. the capitalists would never allow that because their power over the working class would be impossible without state power
I always wondered why it was too good to be true that everything about the society is disgustingly backwards and empty, but you get the power to simulate the universe in the palm of your hand for little cost. Simulate everything except conveniently none of the basic needs.
I think it's great. In fact, I want more military funded technology in the hope that I can see the next computer or internet in my lifetime. That includes technology developed in Russia and China, which pose no threat to the US as long as the US respects them as legitimate sovereign powers.
When I listen to Chomsky elucidate on this it strikes me as amazingly similar (though not of course completely identical as in there wasn't entrepreneurialism at all in Nazi Germany) to fascist model of a state controlled private economy in Nazi Germany in which you were only free to own and produce in what was determined to be the national interest by the state ministries of economy which was primarily focused on war economy from the start - so the partial irony is the USA goes full circle into a fascist war economy which they fought against now in order to fight the extreme left communist menace (which the Nazi's also used as a part of their narrative to gain power before and during WW2) during the Cold War (which I am by no means supporting or legitimizing by this partial conclusion). Was it necessary for the speed of some of these beneficial and perhaps not so beneficial innovations it is quite possible that there wasn't another way.
