Noam Chomsky destroys "Libertarians"
- Thread starter acri1
- Start date
I respect the appeal to his "authority". 
But the premise of this thread is just
But the premise of this thread is just
Domingo Halliburton
Handmade in USA
who doesn't noam chomsky destroy? he destroys dems and republicans the same way.
See I have nothing but love for Noam Chomsky, but his forte lies in history, social issues and foreign policy, the issues with mainstream media but not the economy.
In the beginning of the Vid he said Ron Paul said the church would take care of the guy in the coma, that is a misquote.
What Ron said that when he was growing up the churches did take care of the sick and nobody was turned away and it was done for free, that is not the same as saying TODAY the church will take care of him.
Secondly he said that no federal govt. involvement would lead to corporate tyranny?
Really? Because it seems to me that with the massive amount of government involvement in the economy today corporate tyranny is exactly what we have right now. Would anyone disagree with that?
You think the govt. is ever going to go against large insurance companies, oil companies or banks?
No giving the govt. power over sections of the economy allows elected officials to auction off those powers to the highest bidder.
In the beginning of the Vid he said Ron Paul said the church would take care of the guy in the coma, that is a misquote.
What Ron said that when he was growing up the churches did take care of the sick and nobody was turned away and it was done for free, that is not the same as saying TODAY the church will take care of him.
Secondly he said that no federal govt. involvement would lead to corporate tyranny?
Really? Because it seems to me that with the massive amount of government involvement in the economy today corporate tyranny is exactly what we have right now. Would anyone disagree with that?
You think the govt. is ever going to go against large insurance companies, oil companies or banks?
No giving the govt. power over sections of the economy allows elected officials to auction off those powers to the highest bidder.
When he was directly asked who should take care of him or if society should let the man die he went on a tangent about how back in his day the churches did it, but other than that he gave no real answer. So depending on how you take his comments, he either:
1. Thinks churches/charities would take care of the guy in the coma
2. Thinks that society should let him die (hey, that's freedom right?)
3. Completely dodged the question
I don't think any of the above reflect very well on his economic views, but that's just my two cent. A single payer system that everybody pays into would avoid that type of situations in the first place.
So we just get rid of the government and the corporations will just regulate themselves?
The problem isn't the existence of a government...any successful society has to have some type of government. The issue is the fact that there's too much corporate influence on the government.
Type Username Here
Not a new member
Listen, no is going to argue that our government is greedy, corrupt, violent, malicious, incompetent and composed of whores but if you think the solution to the problem is to get rid of government so the people/institutions who made our government ineffective in the first place now have free reigns to do whatever they wish under some fairy tale hope of "self-policing", you deserve to be smacked.
At least with the current puppet show and entertainment we call our political process, there at least has to appear that people can alter some events and have an illusion of impact.
Limited government just means fewer politicians to buy. It's a cost cutting strategy.
At least with the current puppet show and entertainment we call our political process, there at least has to appear that people can alter some events and have an illusion of impact.
Limited government just means fewer politicians to buy. It's a cost cutting strategy.
So we just get rid of the government and the corporations will just regulate themselves?
The problem isn't the existence of a government...any successful society has to have some type of government. The issue is the fact that there's too much corporate influence on the government.
This is a government issue, not an economic one, if I offer you money and you take it, you are at fault.
And out of curiosity, could you give me some examples of unregulated business running amuck?
Or evidence of the horrors of a less regulated market?
Self policing from what exactly?
...and wouldn't diminishing governments power diminish corporate "power"?
88m3
Fast Money & Foreign Objects
Under regulated businesses constantly run amok.
Savings and Loan Crisis, Ponzi Scheme's, The Enron's, WorldCom's, and Adelphia's, subprime mortgages, Wachovia.... and the list goes on and on.
Evidence of the horrors of a less regulated market? Look at why we are where we are now.
Why do you think there is Federal Law, State Law and its governing bodies? Why is there OSHA? Why is there the SEC?
Laws against child labor? Laws against discrimination?
diminishing government power = more corporate power
Your post is hard to take serious.
Type Username Here
Not a new member
And out of curiosity, could you give me some examples of unregulated business running amuck?
Or evidence of the horrors of a less regulated market?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil_Co._of_New_Jersey_v._United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_stock_market_crash
Start there.
Self policing from what exactly?
...and wouldn't diminishing governments power diminish corporate "power"?
Do you not understand the term self policing?
No to the second Q
Last edited:
Sorry i wasnt clear, Can you give an example that didnt involve government interference?
Look at where we at now? This isnt the result of a free market... when has the U.S. market been free?
Standard Oil? 
Again offering goods at a lower price to consumers is seen as a bad thing by you guys
Lemme guess Wal-Mart is too huh?
The shortest recession in our history is the one where the president did nothing... go fig
Again offering goods at a lower price to consumers is seen as a bad thing by you guys
Lemme guess Wal-Mart is too huh?
The shortest recession in our history is the one where the president did nothing... go fig
No one has given an example or any evidence of the horrors of unregulated markets...
unless you mean the lowering of cost to consumers.
unless you mean the lowering of cost to consumers.
No one has given an example or any evidence of the horrors of unregulated markets...
unless you mean the lowering of cost to consumers.
http://tomjacobsen.tripod.com/MyLectures/lecture19crash.htm
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Colum...t-Examples-of-How-Markets-Can-Fail.aspx#page1
Unregulated Drug Market http://sciencebusiness.technewslit.com/?p=4159
Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan answered that he had placed his trust in a flawed theory when he was called before Congress to explain why he, Goldman Sachs Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and Deputy Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, prevented Brooksley Born, head of the Commodity Futures Trading Corporation, a government regulatory agency, from doing her job of regulating over-the-counter derivatives.
The efficient markets theory is that unregulated markets are efficient and rational. http://economyincrisis.org/content/markets-fail-when-humans-are-unregulated
The free market brings better goods at lower prices, so restraints on the free market are bad for all.
This has enough truth in it to have persuaded most Americans to accept it almost as a religious dogma. During the latter half of the 19th and much of the 20th centuries, more and better goods have become available to more people in Capitalist economies than in non-competitive Marxist economies. Despite persistent pockets of poverty, most developed capitalist economies had higher average standards of living than controlled Communist ones, and the pressures of the market on capitalists to produce more popular goods at lower prices clearly have a lot to do with this.
But capitalism is not always competitive. The Japanese economy thrived for several decades by strictly controlling competition. Would-be monopolists are always emerging as natural products of capitalism, threatening to do away with competition from capitalist, not socialist motives. If people have been able to raise their standards of living it has been partly because of the work of labor unions and those who have agitated for minimum wage and maximum work day laws, all denounced as harmful to free competition.
Sometimes it is the capitalists who fear the free operation of the market and call for regulation. When employment is high and people are achieving higher wages, the stock market frets about inflation and creates pressures on government regulatory agencies to "cool off" the economy, creating more widespread unemployment and lower wages.
As the Asian "tigers" (Japan, Korea, Taiwan, etc.) stumble in their pursuit of regulated capitalism, the free marketers are currently triumphant; but the record of the unregulated market in post-Communist Russia is not inspiring. That unregulated capitalism could produce misery was demonstrated during the industrial revolution, and the demonstration has been often repeated since. No society can long tolerate the entire lack of restraints on business, and never does. http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/hum_303/market.html
This has enough truth in it to have persuaded most Americans to accept it almost as a religious dogma. During the latter half of the 19th and much of the 20th centuries, more and better goods have become available to more people in Capitalist economies than in non-competitive Marxist economies. Despite persistent pockets of poverty, most developed capitalist economies had higher average standards of living than controlled Communist ones, and the pressures of the market on capitalists to produce more popular goods at lower prices clearly have a lot to do with this.
But capitalism is not always competitive. The Japanese economy thrived for several decades by strictly controlling competition. Would-be monopolists are always emerging as natural products of capitalism, threatening to do away with competition from capitalist, not socialist motives. If people have been able to raise their standards of living it has been partly because of the work of labor unions and those who have agitated for minimum wage and maximum work day laws, all denounced as harmful to free competition.
Sometimes it is the capitalists who fear the free operation of the market and call for regulation. When employment is high and people are achieving higher wages, the stock market frets about inflation and creates pressures on government regulatory agencies to "cool off" the economy, creating more widespread unemployment and lower wages.
As the Asian "tigers" (Japan, Korea, Taiwan, etc.) stumble in their pursuit of regulated capitalism, the free marketers are currently triumphant; but the record of the unregulated market in post-Communist Russia is not inspiring. That unregulated capitalism could produce misery was demonstrated during the industrial revolution, and the demonstration has been often repeated since. No society can long tolerate the entire lack of restraints on business, and never does. http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/hum_303/market.html
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/10/free-market-misconceptions.asp
Free Market Means No Regulation?????? Free market is a bit of an unfortunate misnomer, because people tend to equate "free" with "unregulated." Unfortunately, "self-regulated market" doesn't roll off the tongue, so we're stuck with this misconception. The fact is, there are many indications of what an unregulated market would look like. Every time you consult a consumer review of a product, a car for example, you're seeing non-government regulation at work. Car manufacturers watch what people are saying about their cars and they change the next year's models, to eliminate the things that irked reviewers.
Free Market Means No Regulation?????? Free market is a bit of an unfortunate misnomer, because people tend to equate "free" with "unregulated." Unfortunately, "self-regulated market" doesn't roll off the tongue, so we're stuck with this misconception. The fact is, there are many indications of what an unregulated market would look like. Every time you consult a consumer review of a product, a car for example, you're seeing non-government regulation at work. Car manufacturers watch what people are saying about their cars and they change the next year's models, to eliminate the things that irked reviewers.