Commodity backed currency makes our money worth more over time and keeps its value. Loans are supposed to be based on savings, not printing money and hoping the economy grows by the same amount you printed. I mean, they are playing god with the economy and poor people pay higher prices because of it. The fed is a transfer of wealth from main street to wall street and it is the gov'ts fault. Besides, what are we going to do when the rest of the world dumps the dollar like a prom night hooker?
Cut all taxes dummy what an idiot....this guy is just another socialist that thinks you can tweak Government and it will work...Government never works it kills creativity and freedom...as Benjamin Franklin said.."the power to tax is the power to destroy"!!!!!
@doobersmanster thank you for sharing with us about the futility of government spending on the internet from your computer running an operating system coded in C++. Those things all have something in common btw. They were all government funded.
@nerfmyaccount Your point is what? That Government helps? Well, if you do your research you will find that for everything that has been government funded there are probably thousands of Ideas that have been killed because of Government, Have you ever tried to see what it takes to get a simple airplane part "sanctioned" by the Government" all the red tape it takes and waiting and rudeness it takes to even get a Drivers license? Google 50 ex of Gov Waste. Godbless
@doobersmanster many of the killed ideas were probably done to secure a corporate monopoly that is sanctioned by the state. I never claimed the government isn't corrupt or inefficient, just that its corrupt inefficiency is often at the bequest of anti-democratic and pro-corporate institutions. A more democratic government could be less wasteful and less corrupt since they have to answer to the people. As it stands now, they dont answer to the people much, although more than corporations.
@nerfmyaccount I agree..that is what I have been saying over and over...it is not Free markets.."capitalism" that is the problem, but corpratism..the access of intrests groups to the government..whether they are Corps..or unions all should not have access to the Government..I think that was the point of Federalist paper #10..nevertheless Government has too much power..on the federal level..reduce the federal power back to constitutional levels and we would see over all wealth increase..
@donnyforte2 Says logic and the science of economics. Market forces. Behaviors. History. Current elements of our system. Math. Anybody who actually has a brain. That's who
@AroundSun You've said nothing. But thanks for the "insight" on rhetoric. Refocusing federal power at the state level does nothing about "increasing wealth" for all.
@donnyforte2 Reducing the federal power back to constitutional levels is what was said, not refocusing federal power at the state level. What the fuck are you talking about. With a more limited central government and sound money, yes, we would see over all wealth increase just as we have seen in the past.
@AroundSun Any commodity backed currency is idiotic. Especially during a down economy when there's no way to control inflation. Things like gold are just as manipulated and controlled as we currently see with the Fed. While we do need an audit, we should be nationalizing the Fed, not "ending" it. And you won't be seeing an "increase in wealth". That's just complete bullshit when the vast majority of wealth already exists at the top. And refocusing power is not a reduction in government. Rhetoric
@donnyforte2 Any commodity backed currency is idiotic? Says who?! You can't fix the fed, you end it. That is like saying what do you replace cancer with. You make no sense right off the bat talking about inflation, when the fiat currency we use can be increased out of thin air. The increase in the money supply IS what causes inflation. Why do you think gold is hitting record high's every week? The price of gold doesn't increase, the dollar falls. Too much for you to understand.
@donnyforte2 Your whole 'the wealth' nonsense is bogus. There is no set wealth, wealth is created. If me being richer made you poorer, we would be the poorest country in the world because we have the most amount of billionaires. People with money can't 'hoard' it either, that doesn't make any sense. It is invested into goods and services people want creating employment for people. Or it is kept in the bank which lowers interest rates.
@donnyforte2 A reduction in the scope and size in government with lower taxes, less regulation, and free trade will in fact give us an increase in wealth. You think if someone is rich that it makes someone else poorer. Stop talking about refocusing power, nobody said refocus federal power at the state level.
@AroundSun We wouldn't be printing money if it wasn't thanks to idiots like Phil Gramm sponsoring legislation to repeal Glass Steagall--- we wouldn't be in half the mess we are today. The funny thing is, Wall Street is making money off of other money, which makes no sense, yet I don't hear any crying from the right. Screwing the SEC and moving the FBI off white collar crimes is also not advisable. The bottom 50% control less than 3% of all wealth in this nation, and it is a refocus of power.
@donnyforte2 Glass Steagall is like, your holy grail of arguments. The community reinvestment act forced the banks to lend. The whole sub prime mortgage collapse is the government's fault. It is the fractional reserve banking principle of the federal reserve that is shot. If this system was in place, you wouldn't need Glass Steagall. Private banks would take responsibility without a helping hand from government. Politicians thought a free lunch was possible.
@AroundSun "It is the fractional reserve banking principle of the federal reserve that is shot. If this system was in place, you wouldn't need Glass Steagall."
==
I have never heard of this.
Please explain what "Glass-Steagall act" supposed to do and its relation to fractional reserve banking.
@MillionthUsername: The video I refereed to is on You Tube as: "Noam Chomsky - Libertarian Socialism Contradicting terms". Basically about the semantic problems between Americans and the rest of the world on the meaning of the word "libertarian".
@SlighRock "The whole sub prime mortgage collapse is the government's fault"
Well, you got one thing right, and thanks to those three Republicans sponsoring this legislation. Add on 2 large-scale wars put on credit, stealing trillions from SS to hide the debt, expanding medicare without paying for it, and supplying tax breaks to people who don't need at the top, and you've got yourself a shitload of trouble. Ground zero is Wall Street. The Fed comes in second, it needs nationalizing and an audit
Progressive taxation, the welfare state, unionization, etc are all attempts at making CAPITALISM BARABLE for the majority of the population.
They are "democratizing" features on a system which is NOT in fact DEMOCRATIC (greek "demokratia" - lit "power in the hands of the people.")
America is a capitalist oligarchy with some accrued democratic FEATURES. And those features were largely only conceded because of FEAR of popular revolt.
Most of the things that intellectuals come up with are so ridiculous, that only an intellectual could come up with them. In my opinion, intellect doesn't compensate for common sense, which is something absent in much of academia.
That's precisely why we have law to prevent the initiation of force, so that s State cannot arise.
What you are describing with the supposed flaws of anarcho-capitalism is precisely the system we have now, whereby the rich have formulated a State to initiate coercion for their income. It's not that we have to fear Bill Gates making a private army. It's that such things have already happened, now the State gets rich not by serving others but by mass theft and we gloss it over with 'democracy.'
@Nintendomanwill thanks. I agree with you that there has formed an alliance between big business and the State. However I disagree that Capitalist market trade grows via supply rather than demand. Companies simply don't drop their prices until the market clears, they determine a fixed price and then use marketing to boost demand, shifting demand to the right, and throw away excess stock/underutilise capacity. Production is consistently below capacity. Hence supermarkets bin food.
But what if marketing does not boost demand? The fact they throw away food suggests that they are losing income! The company that shifts unsellable stock is more solvent that those which hold onto unsellable produce all of which costs. Even if businesses did try to 'profit from scarcity' there is always more competition in a free market than in a Mercantilist/Socialist coerced market. And 'demand' is a mental state. It is never insufficient, there's no 'general glut.' Keynes did NOT refute Say.
But what if marketing does not boost demand? The fact they throw away food suggests that they are losing income! The company that shifts unsellable stock is more solvent that those which hold onto unsellable produce all of which costs. Even if businesses did try to 'profit from scarcity' there is always more competition in a free market than in a Mercantilist/Socialist coerced market. And 'demand' is a mental state. It is never insufficient, there's no 'general glut.' Keynes did NOT refute Say
Next consider salary levels and appropriate tax. If I earn $200k and you earn $25k, I feel quite happy in general for me to pay 50% tax (100k) and you 20% (5k). Don't worry, you'll still be poorer than me. And if you consider that market manipulation, then consider thatas you rise in pay-grades, your pay tends to be less linked to market pressure due to increased monopoly pricing. Bt also, CEO pay has ballooned massively out of proportion; they would do the same job for far less pay - there...
is a massive supply of people willing to director's jobs, many of whom are up to the task - therefore a free-market situation would predict for their pay-levels to fall. But since they decide their own pay - they often end up overpaid relative to suppl-demand equilibrium price. The main problem is that a company earns money via market forces - but market forces are much less relevant in determining who gets what shareof the company income - this is mainly an administrative decision.
Income redistribution through taxation does not depend on a large centralized government, it can be done simply through income taxes, which does not divorce income from work. I personally agree with state funded healthcare and pension and disability benefit to a reasonable degree - but this does not require centralized rather than decentralized power centres. Also, these should be responsive to public opinion, with as little as possible coercion, to increase democracy.
LOL, Chomsky again proves he's a complete economics ignoramus in this video! He said 'regressive taxation that gives money to those who will spend it will increase needed demand and that's one way to grow the economy'
What a lot of old Mercantilist bullshit! 'Demand' doesn't exist outside of the mind or positivist references to the saleability of a commodity. Commodious items impute demand of their own & no matter if exchange is depressed, growth comes from savings of production AND investment.
@Nintendomanwill LOL Chomsky couldn't be more correct, progressive taxation by putting more money into the hands of poorer people will boost demand since the poor spend a higher proportion of their income. The free marke grows through demand, not supply, which is why we always have unused capacity. Demand calls up opportunities to invest money at a profit, calling those resources into use. Savings and investment capital are already in abundance in the west. Commodities may impute their own...
...demand, but that doesn't matter, we can throw food away whilst people starve due to a lack of those people having sufficient "effective demand". The supply is there, but the effective demand is deficient due to wage levels. Communism grows through supply, Capitalism grows through demand. If this weren't the case, production of goods and services would be vastly higher since we have vast amounts of idle economic capacity, including food, electronics, etc that we regularly dispose of.
It's not that goods impute demand, it's that they may be consumed as soon as they are produced. It is up to the seller to find a low enough price to shift the stock, it is NOT up to thieving subhuman rats like you to redistribute human wealth to those who are more likely to buy such produce because it is not, contrary to pawn consumerists like you, society's mandate to patronise everyone in their productive efforts. Demand is always high for things that are NOT being produced hence bankruptcy.
@Nintendomanwill by the way, when you say "superhuman rats like you" referring to me, what perhaps you aren't looking at is the following: a business earns income in the open market; but its labour costs have different amounts of market pressure at different pay-grades. At the end of the day, within a company, pay-levels are set largely by administrative decision. Bottom evel might be market linked, but top-level staff the market is so thin as to give almost no guidance on pay - and pay doesn't
...tend to relate necessarily to performance, as recent research papers have indicated - many director's pay relates to stock performance, influenced by short-term price gyrations, and also they tend to have one-way bonus packages, and furthermore tend to pay more than the amount that would be necessary to attract labour to fill the position. Thus directr pay has been pushed above equilibrium point, not free-market rate, precisely because those at the top have more power to influence pay-levels.
... therefore intervention to provide some amount of income redistribution is only a corrective pressure attempting to correct the first misallocation of resources, which was a tendacy for over-remunerating those in higher pay-grades due to the fact that administrative decisions play a larger role in determining these than lower levels. Also, money has less value the more you earn. Survival cost might be $18k say, then $20k salary leaves you $2k, whereas $30k salary leaves you $12k, an increase
of +600% disposable income on an increase in pay of only +33%. Therefore higher tax rates for higher earners has a lower social impact than on lower earners - in other words, there is a low distortionary impact on the market for doing so. A guy earning $1m, paying $500k tax suffers less social harm than one on $20k paying $10k tax (assuming both full-time work). Also some CEO's earn 500x that of employees, but don't work 500x harder, so wecan hardly call it a theft, but a reasonable re-distribut
...ion. And furthermore, this 500x more pay is clearly above the market-equilibrium price level for their position anyway, since there is a queue of people waiting in the wings for an opportunity at this job, many of whom are capable f doing it, thus the price is above the market-equilibrium which the free-market would surely indicate to be the correct price.
That's all entirely wrong as I would expect from a Chomsky moron. Putting tax into the hands of those more likely to spend the money will decrease ability and increase need by divorcing income from labour. Without production there'd be no welfare. The economy does not grow through demand you idiot because demand refers to people's propensity to buy a product. Expressing demand for currently produced products is asking producers to replenish supplies of them not to expand the PPF
If progressives really want to wail about regressive taxation, they really need to go after inflation. Inflation is a stealth tax that harms wage-workers most.
chomsky is a libertarian socialist which is pretty much the same thing as a regular libertarian except he sees the "long-run" being when people just willingly give their resources to each other without the governemnt telling them to do so.. Seems crazy to me, but who knows?
Democrats and Republicans are funny. Tax, spend, surplus. It's all a facade. Good cop / bad cop. What a farce. No wonder Nazi's and KKK and other terror gangs rule America- and the world. We are nearing the end here folks. The end of power. Now is the time to question everything and accept no answer. Transfer your funds from public to local or from FED to microbank. Drop the system of terror before the system of terror blows your town up and collapses your economy. That's just how I roll.
anarcho -cap is a joke, you want freedom for companies and corps. not people.free maket cap. is what made America a 3rd world nation before the term was invented.The people through struggle gained a better standard of living,it was not givin.why do American buis. outsource jobs to another country?Over there they are not regulated so they can pay $1 a day reaping huge profits like they used to do to us and are trying to do again.Your greed will be your undoing,people will not stand for much more.
What can be provided for the 6 800 000 000 people on the planet, when it comes to standard of living, wages(i.e. what they can actually buy/consume), working conditions etc?
Capital = means of production and net worth. Wake up dude there is little capital left! It's all paper and debt. The Capital is either liened, soon to be liened/monetized, or hidden in trusts. All this proposition would do is take credit rolls that the "rich" are in debt for already and give it to the "poor" to spend on consumption. The profit from those sales would then get taxed again so No reinvestment & No new production of CAPITAL
Financial capital is Net worth... this means Assets - Liabilities.
If I "own" a house that is worth $160K and a mortgage of $250K, what is my capital? Negative $90K, which means, if I foreclose, the bank is -$90K. If the banks mortgages yield more negatives then their reserves, the Fed is negative.
The same goes for businesses. If I own a business and get a loan for $300K, have I made Capital Gains of $300K? Nope. It is this very Economic Ignorance that results in our current systematic fail.
You mean that collectivist new world order junk? It's propaganda wearing a documentary mask.
Zeitgeist 2 does exactly what Zeitgeist 1 was supposed to be against. You just don't notice it because this time the illusion comes in your favorite color.
so the government doesnt purchase money from the fed?money does not come from a debt?nor is it created by banks digitally?So its possible to pay off all debt and still have a currency?I liked Z2 more because it went on facts,provable facts for most of its analysis things i already knew to be true.Z1 had probably the most complete history of what religion could really b,but its not possible to prove,nor disprove.Z1 suposes a few things and shows an ugliness that slaves fear.Z2 is hope and facts.
that -$90k is interest, created money anyway.will they in turn not finance for another +$90k does earned interest on the future sale get minused off debted interest from previous sale?No, so they make $180k off 2 transactions which do they want to happen?$90k or $180k hmmm.controlling debt is a brilliant form of slavery.
This guy is clueless when it comes to economics. There's a shortage of capitol because of decades of cheap credit by the central bank. This is common knowledge for anyone that even casually follows whats going with the economy.
@bcbowar50 The establishment needs a pet commie to thrash "capitalism."
Chomsky "criticizes" everything; then he doesn't. Of course, when your whole livelihood is based on deceit, you can do this forever. You can "criticize" state socialism and then laud socialist dictators when they nationalize industry. At the same time you can also insist, "Oh, that's not socialism." Socialism exists, but then it doesn't. He loves it, but then he doesn't. It's all rhetoric and very little rigor.
@MillionthUsername He's a libertarian socialist or an anarchist, which is anti-statist so of course he's critical of "socialist" dictators. I actually got to talk to him once and he said that there is no leader in history that isn't subject to criticism.
@bcbowar50 He praises the dictators for nationalizing industry or doing a host of other socialist things by force. That is endorsing state socialism. Then he has the gall to turn around and say, "That's not socialism" when people criticize the very state socialism that he smugly praises!
How the hell can you be an "anarchist" and then be in favor of gov't run healthcare? There's a vid where he explains how "efficient" it is! What the hell is that? Anarchism? Don't think so.
@MillionthUsername@MillionthUsername Can you give an example of where he has praised such dictators? There are many different varieties of anarchism, and certain anarchists like Chomsky can favor things such as national health insurance.
@bcbowar50 In some of the interviews I watched, he speaks matter-of-factly about nationalizing industry when the issue is brought up by the interviewer. Perhaps Venezuela was one example. I forget. He'll talks about taxes positively. He seems to be against tax cuts, wants more welfare, etc. He praises gov't run healthcare, stupidly saying that it is "more efficient than free market"! Unbelievable. These are the views of an "anarchist"? It's no different than Democratic Party HQ.
@MillionthUsername "Government-run health care" is different from national health insurance. He's against a regressive tax system like the US has right now. It's not stupid to say that national health care systems are more efficient than privatized systems. The US spends more on health care than anywhere else in the world, covers less people, and ranks pretty low among industrialized countries. Sure privatized health care is more efficient-for the rich and insurance companies.
@bcbowar50 "It's not stupid to say that national health care systems are more efficient than privatized systems."
Are you kidding? The gov't has caused healthcare costs to skyrocket for decades as a direct result of intervention, far above the inflation rate even. And you say that "national health insurance" isn't gov't run? What the freaking hell does that mean? They write 2000 pages laws drafted by lobbyists that no one even reads or understands? That's efficient?
@MillionthUsername I try not to use Wikipedia, but there's a direct quote from in on there where he argues the idea that anarchism is inconsistent with welfare state measures. He also criticizes the Democrats A LOT.
@bcbowar50 Chomsky will criticize cutting social benefits any day of the week. His "anarchism" is something he trots out whenever it suits him. He's just a socialist, and he approves of all that bureaucratic social engineering crap. He has never struck me as a libertarian at all. A libertarian will praise ANY reduction of the state. Chomsky and his ilk will always make it about left vs right, rich vs poor. They have a hard time being apolitical and hating the state. They like to use it!
@SlighRock I've watched dozens of his videos. I don't know which particular one you are telling me to watch now and for what reason. Which criticism of mine do you think he addresses?
@bcbowar50 I looked at the article. It's absolute nonsense. No understanding of economics whatsoever. As for its prescription under socialist anarchism, it's pretty vague. It just says that groups will see to it. I don't know how they view economic exchange happening, how prices are set, what liberty the providers and customers have, etc., so it's hard to comment on that part. It certainly isn't difficult to improve on the horrible state run systems, but those people don't understand markets.
its funny comsky is suppose to be smart but dos not know there is not a law anywhere to say you have to pay taxs in america, thousands have asked the i.r.s. to show them the law and then they would pay, the i.r.s. could not show them because its not written anywhere. you have been robbed all your life's. check it out on line, you will be sick when you realise the facts.
What you are referring to is the Income Tax not just any Tax. Without a tax, any tax, there is no state. And as far as those 'facts' are concerned, you probably have in mind the F2F Doc from the idiot A.Russo who confuses ideas from The Communist Manifesto with the centralization of capitals. A movement in capitalism that K.Marx explained long time ago, and that Russo couldn't understand nor does he want to. Instead he picks words and creates ideologies to suit his position. You should read.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This "genius" does the same thing. He talks about how repressed unions are, when in fact Big Labor is the most powerful group within the Democratic Party and has closed shops all throughout the north. Our taxes are bailing their overpaid asses out in the auto industry because Obama feels the need to pay them back for helping elect him. Chomsky has nothing on any other conspiracy theorist
You put this video way to short. He denies what he says about taxes is tthe best way to perform economic policy. He says "well thats not the way to do it". Hes obvoiusly against what he said your just copy and pasting to make him sound more like a socialist.
He is being ironic when he sais ''that's not the way to do it''. He actually wants higher taxes. Chomsky is a libertarian socialist, and he's in favor of social democracy and a high tax welfare state in the short run.
@lygophile Socialists have slaughtered millions of innocent citizens of their own country? Capitalism is nothing but free exchange? If I agree to work for a wage that somebody offers we both benefit, or else we wouldn't have done it. Under this system it is possible to set up a voluntary socialism, and many were tried before the income tax. Look up the Utopian societies of the 18th century. Most of them didn't last 20 years.
@Hashishin13. lol. they didn't last 20 years because they either balanced back with the capitalist environment, got pushed or forced by the nations they were in or other such reasons. some of them did go bankrupt.
" If I agree to work for a wage that somebody offers we both benefit, or else we wouldn't have done it"
only since we abolished slavery and rose everyone to the status of either civilians or gentleman. a kinda socialist thing to do eh?
So a 5 year old kid who works for a multinational corporation for 5 cents an hour is NOT exploited because he works 'voluntarily' for that corporation? That is bribery, which is hardly voluntary. Capitalists live outside of reality. Capitalism explicitly denies the majority of the world the freedoms that the minority has by creating two classes of property owners and wage labourers. Economic freedom means freedom for capital, not for people.
@GodOfTheInternets So by your definition paying anyone for anything is "bribery". Yea we are going to do much better when we put an end to giving money to people for work they willingly do, yea that will definitely save the world.*rolls eyes*
What is your alternative? Socialism? the system which denies EVERYONE the right to private property? Your solution to some people being better off then others is to make everyone equally poor?
You focus too much on the wealth and not how it is created.
No, not anything is bribery. Wage labour is bribery because for wage labour to exist there must always be a class distinction between property owners and wage labourers, this is essential to private property (i.e. capitalism), as, among others, expressed by John Locke. Socialism does indeed deny the "right" to private property and grants the right to social property, i.e. every individual being able to access means of production to satisfy his needs.
@Godinternetz part2 Under a free market system the only way people can make money, and be wealthy is by offering others that which they desire. In true free market capitalism, you can only become rich by enriching the lives of others. Is it the factory owners fault that people have more kids then they can feed? You sure act like it is. If that child working for 5 cents an hour had parents who could afford to feed, cloth and educate it do you think the child would be working?
Yet, another fallacy. As if every child that is forced to work has uncaring parents, what a terrible argument. You say "is it the factory owners fault that people have more kids than they can afford", so these days only rich people have a right to children? The problem is not poverty but having children? Yet another capitalist showing his social darwinist traits, capitalism is survival of the fittest.
Here is a thought experiment in case you don't see my point:
Imagine there are only two farms on earth, owned by two families. One family decides to slack off and not plant crops but the other works really hard and plants extra. When the winter comes and the lazy family is starving and are happy to work for slave wages, just to eat, is the hard working family exploiting them, or helping them?
Those factories in Asia could have opened somewhere else.
Your "thought experiment" is a false dichotomy/dilemma. You basically simplify it to "either they work for really low wages or have no wage", those are not the only two alternatives. I also like how you made one family "slack off", as if poor third world countries owe it to themselves they are poor, for being lazy.
You also seem to believe that children should be held accountable for the actions of their parents? Should a child suffer because of the decision of his parent? You seem to think so. You seem to think exploitation cannot exist, that children risking their lives for a few bugs per day is oky-dokey-dey. You seem to believe in socio-economic darwinism... Great guy you are. And strikingly enough, most of you are the way you are (devoid of empathy, segregated from reality).
@Redorgodead he is a die hard socialist. He talks about "wage slavery" and all kinds of nonsense. He is good on a lot of issues mind you, but socialism/capitalism ain't one of em.
In case you have fallen for this nonsense of "wage slavery" ask yourself if a job is voluntary or not, since it IS then it can't be slavery. If you say "well people have to eat and house themselves", then it is LIFE that is slavery, your living body and lack of material wealth force you to work, not your boss.
Wage labour might indeed be wage slavery. In Colonial Brazil slaves could buy their freedom, so any slave who did not do so 'voluntarily' submits to being a slave. A response might be "maybe he can't afford to buy his freedom", exactly, the vast majority of the world has no choice but work for a wage because they can't afford owning their own property, etc. Thus, wage labour can indeed be wage slavery.
government of the people as far as I understand it, and i assume you understand that hes labeling himself using the historical political terms, not new age political terms.
Libertarian in europe and even old america means different things then what libertarian means in america today.
Either way, big government isnt the right way to put his views. I believe, and i may be corrected, but the govs the size the people need it to be to perform the duties the citizens need it to perform.
"Libertarian in europe and even old america means different things then what libertarian means in america today."
Libertarian or liberal means less government, i.e.more liberation. The historic liberals/libertarians supported a laissez faire approach to society (show me one historical liberal that did not.)
Chomsky supports public industries, UN resolutions, SSI, medicare etc. All of these instutions violate liberty b/c they are not voluntary. If you're a gov socialist, ura gov socialist.
I agree with you entirely. I don't understand how someone can be an 'anarcho communist', when what they are advocating is to tear down the state as it stands, only to replace it with a more repressive, even more violent one. It makes no sense to me. Naom Chomsky and the like are of a very strange breed. When you present to them the idea of voluntary communes, they will respond.. They freeze up and the truth of what they want the government to impose comes out. :P
Stop having an organization steal people's money because it knows better what to do with it and we're back to a feudal society?
Even if your stat is true, it entirely ignores the far-reaching damage of taxes. Government spending *creates* nothing. It can only come from what's removed from the economy. In the hands even of the rich, it removes business capital, which is what almost all of the rich's money goes to.
If you want to give the government money, go ahead, but force is never good.
Chomksy has amassed quite a fortune selling books to universities and other dupes. Of course, he has that money hidden in offshore accounts. Typical pinko - his own rules don't apply to him.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
LOL. Chomsky just about falls for the broken window fallacy. seriously if anyone believes that robbing money stimulates economic growth then they have read about 3 pages about economics written by larouche.
The Fed intentionaly creates inflation in order to stimulate employment by providing this printed cash to employers. It is their polocy to steal money from the people they intend to generate jobs for. In their view robbing DOES INDEED stimulate economic groth.
Economic growth isn't necessarily good for people in general. As Michael Parenti has pointed out, car crashes create jobs (Tow truckers, police, paramedics, surgeons, lawyers, insurance agents, etc.) but they kill people.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Economic growth gives me food every day. 200 years ago, 60k poor people died of hunger in the streets of london every year. Then capitalism happened and solved the issue. Today, the poor recieves a check of 12,000$ every year allowing them to buy a TV, food and appartment, and complain that economic growth isnt good for them because their TV isn't 75 inches wide.
It might be true so far, but don't forget that western empires had expanded the capitalist system over asia and africa to (more or less) take their resources. Now this resources are becomes much more limited. Don't we need better system?
It is precisely because the resources are becoming limited that we need capitalism now more than ever. Because nothing come close has efficient as it is to allocate and set the true value of resources.
Lets us stop government from creating false common goods that simply encourage everyone to rape it and lets instead privatize all land. People would then be able to sue in courts whitout the judge saying; "its a common good, therefore companies can polute it." Like they say now.
As soon as you start engaging in discussion about the best possible social organisation you automatically tell other people how they should be living so get over thinking you are preaching democracy. Collective planning works better in some spheres of social organisations just like markets work in others. I've participated in some collective organisations where people were just so immature that I just couldn't help wishing there was a dictator to cut the bullshit.
"As soon as you start engaging in discussion about the best possible social organisation you automatically tell other people how they should be living so get over thinking you are preaching democracy."
You and I coming to a majoritarian consensus on how to live is, in fact, more or less the definition of democracy.
graaaaaagh is correct. Bastiat called it the Broken Window Fallacy. And he was a rabid free-marketeer and anti-socialist, so hara001 can't argue with it. But Bastiat was being critical of the fallacy, unlike some right-wing kooks who think war is actually good, because it can help a slumping economy. They approvingly agree with what Bourne disapprovingly said about war being the health of the state.
Well, that's easy, the market decides based on who's making the best product! Either that or one business gets burned down by the other business, who then hires a "private security group" such
can someone finish his sentence
dantheman3193 3 weeks ago
Where is the rest of the video? He was just getting to the interesting part!
sfjeff1089 3 weeks ago
Commodity backed currency makes our money worth more over time and keeps its value. Loans are supposed to be based on savings, not printing money and hoping the economy grows by the same amount you printed. I mean, they are playing god with the economy and poor people pay higher prices because of it. The fed is a transfer of wealth from main street to wall street and it is the gov'ts fault. Besides, what are we going to do when the rest of the world dumps the dollar like a prom night hooker?
AroundSun 3 months ago
Cut all taxes dummy what an idiot....this guy is just another socialist that thinks you can tweak Government and it will work...Government never works it kills creativity and freedom...as Benjamin Franklin said.."the power to tax is the power to destroy"!!!!!
doobersmanster 6 months ago
@doobersmanster thank you for sharing with us about the futility of government spending on the internet from your computer running an operating system coded in C++. Those things all have something in common btw. They were all government funded.
nerfmyaccount 6 months ago
@nerfmyaccount Your point is what? That Government helps? Well, if you do your research you will find that for everything that has been government funded there are probably thousands of Ideas that have been killed because of Government, Have you ever tried to see what it takes to get a simple airplane part "sanctioned" by the Government" all the red tape it takes and waiting and rudeness it takes to even get a Drivers license? Google 50 ex of Gov Waste. Godbless
doobersmanster 6 months ago
@doobersmanster many of the killed ideas were probably done to secure a corporate monopoly that is sanctioned by the state. I never claimed the government isn't corrupt or inefficient, just that its corrupt inefficiency is often at the bequest of anti-democratic and pro-corporate institutions. A more democratic government could be less wasteful and less corrupt since they have to answer to the people. As it stands now, they dont answer to the people much, although more than corporations.
nerfmyaccount 6 months ago
@nerfmyaccount I agree..that is what I have been saying over and over...it is not Free markets.."capitalism" that is the problem, but corpratism..the access of intrests groups to the government..whether they are Corps..or unions all should not have access to the Government..I think that was the point of Federalist paper #10..nevertheless Government has too much power..on the federal level..reduce the federal power back to constitutional levels and we would see over all wealth increase..
doobersmanster 6 months ago
@doobersmanster "reduce the federal power back to constitutional levels"
When there were slaves?
"and we would see over all wealth increase.."
Bahahaha. Says who?
donnyforte2 5 months ago
@donnyforte2 Says logic and the science of economics. Market forces. Behaviors. History. Current elements of our system. Math. Anybody who actually has a brain. That's who
AroundSun 3 months ago
@AroundSun You've said nothing. But thanks for the "insight" on rhetoric. Refocusing federal power at the state level does nothing about "increasing wealth" for all.
donnyforte2 3 months ago
@donnyforte2 Reducing the federal power back to constitutional levels is what was said, not refocusing federal power at the state level. What the fuck are you talking about. With a more limited central government and sound money, yes, we would see over all wealth increase just as we have seen in the past.
AroundSun 3 months ago
@AroundSun Any commodity backed currency is idiotic. Especially during a down economy when there's no way to control inflation. Things like gold are just as manipulated and controlled as we currently see with the Fed. While we do need an audit, we should be nationalizing the Fed, not "ending" it. And you won't be seeing an "increase in wealth". That's just complete bullshit when the vast majority of wealth already exists at the top. And refocusing power is not a reduction in government. Rhetoric
donnyforte2 3 months ago
@donnyforte2 Any commodity backed currency is idiotic? Says who?! You can't fix the fed, you end it. That is like saying what do you replace cancer with. You make no sense right off the bat talking about inflation, when the fiat currency we use can be increased out of thin air. The increase in the money supply IS what causes inflation. Why do you think gold is hitting record high's every week? The price of gold doesn't increase, the dollar falls. Too much for you to understand.
AroundSun 3 months ago
@donnyforte2 Your whole 'the wealth' nonsense is bogus. There is no set wealth, wealth is created. If me being richer made you poorer, we would be the poorest country in the world because we have the most amount of billionaires. People with money can't 'hoard' it either, that doesn't make any sense. It is invested into goods and services people want creating employment for people. Or it is kept in the bank which lowers interest rates.
AroundSun 3 months ago
@donnyforte2 A reduction in the scope and size in government with lower taxes, less regulation, and free trade will in fact give us an increase in wealth. You think if someone is rich that it makes someone else poorer. Stop talking about refocusing power, nobody said refocus federal power at the state level.
AroundSun 3 months ago
@AroundSun We wouldn't be printing money if it wasn't thanks to idiots like Phil Gramm sponsoring legislation to repeal Glass Steagall--- we wouldn't be in half the mess we are today. The funny thing is, Wall Street is making money off of other money, which makes no sense, yet I don't hear any crying from the right. Screwing the SEC and moving the FBI off white collar crimes is also not advisable. The bottom 50% control less than 3% of all wealth in this nation, and it is a refocus of power.
donnyforte2 3 months ago
@donnyforte2 Glass Steagall is like, your holy grail of arguments. The community reinvestment act forced the banks to lend. The whole sub prime mortgage collapse is the government's fault. It is the fractional reserve banking principle of the federal reserve that is shot. If this system was in place, you wouldn't need Glass Steagall. Private banks would take responsibility without a helping hand from government. Politicians thought a free lunch was possible.
AroundSun 3 months ago
@AroundSun "It is the fractional reserve banking principle of the federal reserve that is shot. If this system was in place, you wouldn't need Glass Steagall."
==
I have never heard of this.
Please explain what "Glass-Steagall act" supposed to do and its relation to fractional reserve banking.
allgoo19 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AroundSun "you wouldn't need Glass Steagall."
==
Hello?
No reply?
Does this mean you know the words but have no idea what they mean nor what they do?
allgoo19 3 weeks ago
@MillionthUsername: The video I refereed to is on You Tube as: "Noam Chomsky - Libertarian Socialism Contradicting terms". Basically about the semantic problems between Americans and the rest of the world on the meaning of the word "libertarian".
SlighRock 6 months ago
@SlighRock "The whole sub prime mortgage collapse is the government's fault"
Well, you got one thing right, and thanks to those three Republicans sponsoring this legislation. Add on 2 large-scale wars put on credit, stealing trillions from SS to hide the debt, expanding medicare without paying for it, and supplying tax breaks to people who don't need at the top, and you've got yourself a shitload of trouble. Ground zero is Wall Street. The Fed comes in second, it needs nationalizing and an audit
donnyforte2 3 months ago
Progressive taxation, the welfare state, unionization, etc are all attempts at making CAPITALISM BARABLE for the majority of the population.
They are "democratizing" features on a system which is NOT in fact DEMOCRATIC (greek "demokratia" - lit "power in the hands of the people.")
America is a capitalist oligarchy with some accrued democratic FEATURES. And those features were largely only conceded because of FEAR of popular revolt.
OuTofJoY 8 months ago
thanks for uploading this interesting clip.
--
this was recorded(aired?) WHEN ? and (taken from?) where?
(please add to the description!)
wda013 11 months ago
Chomsky is against power structure. Just not government/state power.
*facepalm*
Sivels 1 year ago
@Sivels Oh really? Is that why he prefaced the book called ANARCHO-SYNDICALISM: Theory and Practice? Jeez...
trancetunes 11 months ago
lol, this guy should open an econ book!
poopster102 1 year ago
lol @ 'lets make rich people richer to stimulate investments!'
what's next? 'lets make people freeer by reinstituting slavery'?
lygophile 1 year ago
Chomsky is an intellectual lightweight; he being the king of the intellectuals proves that.
Ipetratz 1 year ago
@Ipetratz I'm not understanding your comment, could you please elaborate on this?
juanmora19910209 1 year ago
@juanmora19910209
Most of the things that intellectuals come up with are so ridiculous, that only an intellectual could come up with them. In my opinion, intellect doesn't compensate for common sense, which is something absent in much of academia.
That's my opinion.
Ipetratz 1 year ago
That's precisely why we have law to prevent the initiation of force, so that s State cannot arise.
What you are describing with the supposed flaws of anarcho-capitalism is precisely the system we have now, whereby the rich have formulated a State to initiate coercion for their income. It's not that we have to fear Bill Gates making a private army. It's that such things have already happened, now the State gets rich not by serving others but by mass theft and we gloss it over with 'democracy.'
Nintendomanwill 1 year ago
@Nintendomanwill thanks. I agree with you that there has formed an alliance between big business and the State. However I disagree that Capitalist market trade grows via supply rather than demand. Companies simply don't drop their prices until the market clears, they determine a fixed price and then use marketing to boost demand, shifting demand to the right, and throw away excess stock/underutilise capacity. Production is consistently below capacity. Hence supermarkets bin food.
dfjpr 1 year ago
But what if marketing does not boost demand? The fact they throw away food suggests that they are losing income! The company that shifts unsellable stock is more solvent that those which hold onto unsellable produce all of which costs. Even if businesses did try to 'profit from scarcity' there is always more competition in a free market than in a Mercantilist/Socialist coerced market. And 'demand' is a mental state. It is never insufficient, there's no 'general glut.' Keynes did NOT refute Say.
Nintendomanwill 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
But what if marketing does not boost demand? The fact they throw away food suggests that they are losing income! The company that shifts unsellable stock is more solvent that those which hold onto unsellable produce all of which costs. Even if businesses did try to 'profit from scarcity' there is always more competition in a free market than in a Mercantilist/Socialist coerced market. And 'demand' is a mental state. It is never insufficient, there's no 'general glut.' Keynes did NOT refute Say
Nintendomanwill 1 year ago
Next consider salary levels and appropriate tax. If I earn $200k and you earn $25k, I feel quite happy in general for me to pay 50% tax (100k) and you 20% (5k). Don't worry, you'll still be poorer than me. And if you consider that market manipulation, then consider thatas you rise in pay-grades, your pay tends to be less linked to market pressure due to increased monopoly pricing. Bt also, CEO pay has ballooned massively out of proportion; they would do the same job for far less pay - there...
dfjpr 1 year ago
is a massive supply of people willing to director's jobs, many of whom are up to the task - therefore a free-market situation would predict for their pay-levels to fall. But since they decide their own pay - they often end up overpaid relative to suppl-demand equilibrium price. The main problem is that a company earns money via market forces - but market forces are much less relevant in determining who gets what shareof the company income - this is mainly an administrative decision.
dfjpr 1 year ago
Income redistribution through taxation does not depend on a large centralized government, it can be done simply through income taxes, which does not divorce income from work. I personally agree with state funded healthcare and pension and disability benefit to a reasonable degree - but this does not require centralized rather than decentralized power centres. Also, these should be responsive to public opinion, with as little as possible coercion, to increase democracy.
dfjpr 1 year ago
LOL, Chomsky again proves he's a complete economics ignoramus in this video! He said 'regressive taxation that gives money to those who will spend it will increase needed demand and that's one way to grow the economy'
What a lot of old Mercantilist bullshit! 'Demand' doesn't exist outside of the mind or positivist references to the saleability of a commodity. Commodious items impute demand of their own & no matter if exchange is depressed, growth comes from savings of production AND investment.
Nintendomanwill 1 year ago
@Nintendomanwill
he sais progressive taxes, nor regressive
Endstation 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Nintendomanwill
he says progressive taxes, not regressive
Endstation 1 year ago
@Nintendomanwill LOL Chomsky couldn't be more correct, progressive taxation by putting more money into the hands of poorer people will boost demand since the poor spend a higher proportion of their income. The free marke grows through demand, not supply, which is why we always have unused capacity. Demand calls up opportunities to invest money at a profit, calling those resources into use. Savings and investment capital are already in abundance in the west. Commodities may impute their own...
dfjpr 1 year ago
...demand, but that doesn't matter, we can throw food away whilst people starve due to a lack of those people having sufficient "effective demand". The supply is there, but the effective demand is deficient due to wage levels. Communism grows through supply, Capitalism grows through demand. If this weren't the case, production of goods and services would be vastly higher since we have vast amounts of idle economic capacity, including food, electronics, etc that we regularly dispose of.
dfjpr 1 year ago
It's not that goods impute demand, it's that they may be consumed as soon as they are produced. It is up to the seller to find a low enough price to shift the stock, it is NOT up to thieving subhuman rats like you to redistribute human wealth to those who are more likely to buy such produce because it is not, contrary to pawn consumerists like you, society's mandate to patronise everyone in their productive efforts. Demand is always high for things that are NOT being produced hence bankruptcy.
Nintendomanwill 1 year ago
@Nintendomanwill by the way, when you say "superhuman rats like you" referring to me, what perhaps you aren't looking at is the following: a business earns income in the open market; but its labour costs have different amounts of market pressure at different pay-grades. At the end of the day, within a company, pay-levels are set largely by administrative decision. Bottom evel might be market linked, but top-level staff the market is so thin as to give almost no guidance on pay - and pay doesn't
dfjpr 1 year ago
...tend to relate necessarily to performance, as recent research papers have indicated - many director's pay relates to stock performance, influenced by short-term price gyrations, and also they tend to have one-way bonus packages, and furthermore tend to pay more than the amount that would be necessary to attract labour to fill the position. Thus directr pay has been pushed above equilibrium point, not free-market rate, precisely because those at the top have more power to influence pay-levels.
dfjpr 1 year ago
... therefore intervention to provide some amount of income redistribution is only a corrective pressure attempting to correct the first misallocation of resources, which was a tendacy for over-remunerating those in higher pay-grades due to the fact that administrative decisions play a larger role in determining these than lower levels. Also, money has less value the more you earn. Survival cost might be $18k say, then $20k salary leaves you $2k, whereas $30k salary leaves you $12k, an increase
dfjpr 1 year ago
of +600% disposable income on an increase in pay of only +33%. Therefore higher tax rates for higher earners has a lower social impact than on lower earners - in other words, there is a low distortionary impact on the market for doing so. A guy earning $1m, paying $500k tax suffers less social harm than one on $20k paying $10k tax (assuming both full-time work). Also some CEO's earn 500x that of employees, but don't work 500x harder, so wecan hardly call it a theft, but a reasonable re-distribut
dfjpr 1 year ago
...ion. And furthermore, this 500x more pay is clearly above the market-equilibrium price level for their position anyway, since there is a queue of people waiting in the wings for an opportunity at this job, many of whom are capable f doing it, thus the price is above the market-equilibrium which the free-market would surely indicate to be the correct price.
dfjpr 1 year ago
That's all entirely wrong as I would expect from a Chomsky moron. Putting tax into the hands of those more likely to spend the money will decrease ability and increase need by divorcing income from labour. Without production there'd be no welfare. The economy does not grow through demand you idiot because demand refers to people's propensity to buy a product. Expressing demand for currently produced products is asking producers to replenish supplies of them not to expand the PPF
Nintendomanwill 1 year ago
If progressives really want to wail about regressive taxation, they really need to go after inflation. Inflation is a stealth tax that harms wage-workers most.
diaverde09 1 year ago
chomsky is a libertarian socialist which is pretty much the same thing as a regular libertarian except he sees the "long-run" being when people just willingly give their resources to each other without the governemnt telling them to do so.. Seems crazy to me, but who knows?
lobsterman91 1 year ago
Funny. "the country is washed in capital" 1 year before the greatest credit crunch in a lifetime.
TheMobocracy 1 year ago
@TranshumanCyborg very good!
Southwestrepresent 1 year ago
Democrats and Republicans are funny. Tax, spend, surplus. It's all a facade. Good cop / bad cop. What a farce. No wonder Nazi's and KKK and other terror gangs rule America- and the world. We are nearing the end here folks. The end of power. Now is the time to question everything and accept no answer. Transfer your funds from public to local or from FED to microbank. Drop the system of terror before the system of terror blows your town up and collapses your economy. That's just how I roll.
HostileNegotiator 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Calling All Patriots and Truthseekers!!
Please Visit My Blog:
theconspiracyexposed.blogspot. (com)
barquedust 2 years ago
Voluntary Socialism will only work for about 6 percent of the world population anarcho-capitalism for the other 94 percent would be better
358Liberty 2 years ago
anarcho -cap is a joke, you want freedom for companies and corps. not people.free maket cap. is what made America a 3rd world nation before the term was invented.The people through struggle gained a better standard of living,it was not givin.why do American buis. outsource jobs to another country?Over there they are not regulated so they can pay $1 a day reaping huge profits like they used to do to us and are trying to do again.Your greed will be your undoing,people will not stand for much more.
99missingperson99 2 years ago
What can be provided for the 6 800 000 000 people on the planet, when it comes to standard of living, wages(i.e. what they can actually buy/consume), working conditions etc?
Who will not stand for what?
nammoo89 1 year ago
of course... least because most people are not poor, contrary, 94% has a lot of wealth, rather than shortage.
Greetings from Brazil, one of the most unequal countries in the world!
viniciusdavilaBFR 2 years ago
cap·i·tal 1 (kp-tl)
a. Wealth in the form of money or property, used or accumulated in a business by a person, partnership, or corporation.
b. Material wealth used or available for use in the production of more wealth.
hgh778 2 years ago
Lol, according to Chomsky: Capital = Money
Economics Fail
Capital = means of production and net worth. Wake up dude there is little capital left! It's all paper and debt. The Capital is either liened, soon to be liened/monetized, or hidden in trusts. All this proposition would do is take credit rolls that the "rich" are in debt for already and give it to the "poor" to spend on consumption. The profit from those sales would then get taxed again so No reinvestment & No new production of CAPITAL
enotdetcelfer 2 years ago
enotheridoit,
Noam is talking about financial capital fool
Marly61 2 years ago
Financial capital is Net worth... this means Assets - Liabilities.
If I "own" a house that is worth $160K and a mortgage of $250K, what is my capital? Negative $90K, which means, if I foreclose, the bank is -$90K. If the banks mortgages yield more negatives then their reserves, the Fed is negative.
The same goes for businesses. If I own a business and get a loan for $300K, have I made Capital Gains of $300K? Nope. It is this very Economic Ignorance that results in our current systematic fail.
enotdetcelfer 2 years ago
Yuo should watch zeitgeist 2 addendum then talk about your education.
99missingperson99 2 years ago
You mean that collectivist new world order junk? It's propaganda wearing a documentary mask.
Zeitgeist 2 does exactly what Zeitgeist 1 was supposed to be against. You just don't notice it because this time the illusion comes in your favorite color.
enotdetcelfer 2 years ago
so the government doesnt purchase money from the fed?money does not come from a debt?nor is it created by banks digitally?So its possible to pay off all debt and still have a currency?I liked Z2 more because it went on facts,provable facts for most of its analysis things i already knew to be true.Z1 had probably the most complete history of what religion could really b,but its not possible to prove,nor disprove.Z1 suposes a few things and shows an ugliness that slaves fear.Z2 is hope and facts.
99missingperson99 2 years ago
stop talking bout zeitgeist.. it's a huge hoax 1,2 & 3 prolly too
skankingrhythmics 1 year ago
that -$90k is interest, created money anyway.will they in turn not finance for another +$90k does earned interest on the future sale get minused off debted interest from previous sale?No, so they make $180k off 2 transactions which do they want to happen?$90k or $180k hmmm.controlling debt is a brilliant form of slavery.
99missingperson99 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This guy is clueless when it comes to economics. There's a shortage of capitol because of decades of cheap credit by the central bank. This is common knowledge for anyone that even casually follows whats going with the economy.
jerthemessiah 2 years ago
how u cut him off when he's talkin about whats the right way to do it?
omarlives 2 years ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
KILL THE JEW!
meatcannon 2 years ago
Chomsky has forgotten more than you will ever know.
communistrussia 2 years ago 45
Great Comment:)
TheToltec 2 years ago
what do u mean forgotten? he seems to know alot.
omarlives 2 years ago
@communistrussia He is not a god, stop treating him as such. Its rather... un-anarchistic eh?
wildabeast11235 1 year ago
@communistrussia
nein
RENEDU2 8 months ago
@communistrussia Chomsky is nothing but an irrational commie nutbag shill.
MillionthUsername 7 months ago
@MillionthUsername Right, that's why he's recognized as the most cited living author and has criticized Marxism and statist branches of socialism.
bcbowar50 7 months ago
@bcbowar50 The establishment needs a pet commie to thrash "capitalism."
Chomsky "criticizes" everything; then he doesn't. Of course, when your whole livelihood is based on deceit, you can do this forever. You can "criticize" state socialism and then laud socialist dictators when they nationalize industry. At the same time you can also insist, "Oh, that's not socialism." Socialism exists, but then it doesn't. He loves it, but then he doesn't. It's all rhetoric and very little rigor.
MillionthUsername 7 months ago
@MillionthUsername He's a libertarian socialist or an anarchist, which is anti-statist so of course he's critical of "socialist" dictators. I actually got to talk to him once and he said that there is no leader in history that isn't subject to criticism.
bcbowar50 7 months ago
@bcbowar50 He praises the dictators for nationalizing industry or doing a host of other socialist things by force. That is endorsing state socialism. Then he has the gall to turn around and say, "That's not socialism" when people criticize the very state socialism that he smugly praises!
How the hell can you be an "anarchist" and then be in favor of gov't run healthcare? There's a vid where he explains how "efficient" it is! What the hell is that? Anarchism? Don't think so.
MillionthUsername 7 months ago
@MillionthUsername @MillionthUsername Can you give an example of where he has praised such dictators? There are many different varieties of anarchism, and certain anarchists like Chomsky can favor things such as national health insurance.
bcbowar50 7 months ago
@bcbowar50 In some of the interviews I watched, he speaks matter-of-factly about nationalizing industry when the issue is brought up by the interviewer. Perhaps Venezuela was one example. I forget. He'll talks about taxes positively. He seems to be against tax cuts, wants more welfare, etc. He praises gov't run healthcare, stupidly saying that it is "more efficient than free market"! Unbelievable. These are the views of an "anarchist"? It's no different than Democratic Party HQ.
MillionthUsername 7 months ago
@MillionthUsername "Government-run health care" is different from national health insurance. He's against a regressive tax system like the US has right now. It's not stupid to say that national health care systems are more efficient than privatized systems. The US spends more on health care than anywhere else in the world, covers less people, and ranks pretty low among industrialized countries. Sure privatized health care is more efficient-for the rich and insurance companies.
bcbowar50 7 months ago
@bcbowar50 "It's not stupid to say that national health care systems are more efficient than privatized systems."
Are you kidding? The gov't has caused healthcare costs to skyrocket for decades as a direct result of intervention, far above the inflation rate even. And you say that "national health insurance" isn't gov't run? What the freaking hell does that mean? They write 2000 pages laws drafted by lobbyists that no one even reads or understands? That's efficient?
MillionthUsername 7 months ago
@MillionthUsername I try not to use Wikipedia, but there's a direct quote from in on there where he argues the idea that anarchism is inconsistent with welfare state measures. He also criticizes the Democrats A LOT.
bcbowar50 7 months ago
@bcbowar50 Chomsky will criticize cutting social benefits any day of the week. His "anarchism" is something he trots out whenever it suits him. He's just a socialist, and he approves of all that bureaucratic social engineering crap. He has never struck me as a libertarian at all. A libertarian will praise ANY reduction of the state. Chomsky and his ilk will always make it about left vs right, rich vs poor. They have a hard time being apolitical and hating the state. They like to use it!
MillionthUsername 7 months ago
@MillionthUsername Chomsky himself answers your criticism here, if you bother to hear. Search you tube for "Noam Chomsky on Libertarian Socialism".
SlighRock 6 months ago
@SlighRock I've watched dozens of his videos. I don't know which particular one you are telling me to watch now and for what reason. Which criticism of mine do you think he addresses?
MillionthUsername 6 months ago
@MillionthUsername Google: an anarchist vision of universal health care
bcbowar50 7 months ago
@bcbowar50 I looked at the article. It's absolute nonsense. No understanding of economics whatsoever. As for its prescription under socialist anarchism, it's pretty vague. It just says that groups will see to it. I don't know how they view economic exchange happening, how prices are set, what liberty the providers and customers have, etc., so it's hard to comment on that part. It certainly isn't difficult to improve on the horrible state run systems, but those people don't understand markets.
MillionthUsername 7 months ago
I support this nuts.
xcookiemonster88 2 years ago
these
omarlives 2 years ago
its funny comsky is suppose to be smart but dos not know there is not a law anywhere to say you have to pay taxs in america, thousands have asked the i.r.s. to show them the law and then they would pay, the i.r.s. could not show them because its not written anywhere. you have been robbed all your life's. check it out on line, you will be sick when you realise the facts.
irishgeal1 2 years ago
Chomsky is interested in, as he would say, "the real world", not cute technical facts that affect almost no one.
Cool, there's no law actually saying we have to pay taxes.
Now tell us something that will actually affect our lives and that will be reasonable grounds to judge the intelligence of someone like Chomsky.
Everyone knows that if you don't pay your taxes you get fucked over.
aewester 2 years ago
There doesn't need to be a law, it's in the constitution unfortunately.
ARMEDSh0t 2 years ago
Comment removed
bluntman007 2 years ago
What you are referring to is the Income Tax not just any Tax. Without a tax, any tax, there is no state. And as far as those 'facts' are concerned, you probably have in mind the F2F Doc from the idiot A.Russo who confuses ideas from The Communist Manifesto with the centralization of capitals. A movement in capitalism that K.Marx explained long time ago, and that Russo couldn't understand nor does he want to. Instead he picks words and creates ideologies to suit his position. You should read.
bluntman007 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This "genius" does the same thing. He talks about how repressed unions are, when in fact Big Labor is the most powerful group within the Democratic Party and has closed shops all throughout the north. Our taxes are bailing their overpaid asses out in the auto industry because Obama feels the need to pay them back for helping elect him. Chomsky has nothing on any other conspiracy theorist
BikiniBabe1985 2 years ago
Chomsy's enemy Milton Friedman proposed that they do just that. See the "negative income tax".
zasterguava 2 years ago
this video fucking sucks...what a waste
kiratisdale 2 years ago
You put this video way to short. He denies what he says about taxes is tthe best way to perform economic policy. He says "well thats not the way to do it". Hes obvoiusly against what he said your just copy and pasting to make him sound more like a socialist.
Redorgodead 2 years ago 19
@Redorgodead Uhhh, he is a socialist. And that's a good thing.
azoriusherald 1 year ago
@Redorgodead He is a libertarian socialist.
MinGophers 1 year ago
@Redorgodead
He is being ironic when he sais ''that's not the way to do it''. He actually wants higher taxes. Chomsky is a libertarian socialist, and he's in favor of social democracy and a high tax welfare state in the short run.
Endstation 1 year ago
@Endstation He's an anarchist. The concept of 'democracy' viewed through our common experience cannot conceive his ideal vision for the planet.
Manik2Magik 1 year ago
@Redorgodead He sounds like an anarchist to me. lol
tommytowne 1 year ago
@Redorgodead. but he IS a socialist. why are you buying in to the socialism is evil prop?
lygophile 1 year ago
@lygophile socialism is coercive and regards you as a cog in a machine rather then an individual being with rights. That is why socialism is evil.
Hashishin13 1 year ago
@Hashishin13. that's a totally bunk statement.
capitalism is coercive and regards you as a cog in a machine rather then an individual being with rights. that's why capitalism is evil.
see?
in my view, i am closer to the truth than you.
lygophile 1 year ago
@lygophile Socialists have slaughtered millions of innocent citizens of their own country? Capitalism is nothing but free exchange? If I agree to work for a wage that somebody offers we both benefit, or else we wouldn't have done it. Under this system it is possible to set up a voluntary socialism, and many were tried before the income tax. Look up the Utopian societies of the 18th century. Most of them didn't last 20 years.
Hashishin13 1 year ago
@Hashishin13. lol. they didn't last 20 years because they either balanced back with the capitalist environment, got pushed or forced by the nations they were in or other such reasons. some of them did go bankrupt.
" If I agree to work for a wage that somebody offers we both benefit, or else we wouldn't have done it"
only since we abolished slavery and rose everyone to the status of either civilians or gentleman. a kinda socialist thing to do eh?
lygophile 1 year ago
and also, what if there's no other option eh? just because you agree to an employment doesn't mean you had a real choice. the argument is very weak.
and socialists have not slaughtered millions of innocent citizens. authoritarian totalist statist regimes have done that.
and ultra-capitalist america is much closer to those regimes then social democratic europe.
lygophile 1 year ago
@Hashishin13
So a 5 year old kid who works for a multinational corporation for 5 cents an hour is NOT exploited because he works 'voluntarily' for that corporation? That is bribery, which is hardly voluntary. Capitalists live outside of reality. Capitalism explicitly denies the majority of the world the freedoms that the minority has by creating two classes of property owners and wage labourers. Economic freedom means freedom for capital, not for people.
GodOfTheInternets 1 year ago
@GodOfTheInternets So by your definition paying anyone for anything is "bribery". Yea we are going to do much better when we put an end to giving money to people for work they willingly do, yea that will definitely save the world.*rolls eyes*
What is your alternative? Socialism? the system which denies EVERYONE the right to private property? Your solution to some people being better off then others is to make everyone equally poor?
You focus too much on the wealth and not how it is created.
Hashishin13 1 year ago
@Hashishin13
No, not anything is bribery. Wage labour is bribery because for wage labour to exist there must always be a class distinction between property owners and wage labourers, this is essential to private property (i.e. capitalism), as, among others, expressed by John Locke. Socialism does indeed deny the "right" to private property and grants the right to social property, i.e. every individual being able to access means of production to satisfy his needs.
GodOfTheInternets 1 year ago
@Godinternetz part2 Under a free market system the only way people can make money, and be wealthy is by offering others that which they desire. In true free market capitalism, you can only become rich by enriching the lives of others. Is it the factory owners fault that people have more kids then they can feed? You sure act like it is. If that child working for 5 cents an hour had parents who could afford to feed, cloth and educate it do you think the child would be working?
Hashishin13 1 year ago
@Hashishin13
Yet, another fallacy. As if every child that is forced to work has uncaring parents, what a terrible argument. You say "is it the factory owners fault that people have more kids than they can afford", so these days only rich people have a right to children? The problem is not poverty but having children? Yet another capitalist showing his social darwinist traits, capitalism is survival of the fittest.
GodOfTheInternets 1 year ago
@Hashishin13
One can easily make money by not 'offering what others desire'. This is merely the 'real economy'.
GodOfTheInternets 1 year ago
@God part 3
Here is a thought experiment in case you don't see my point:
Imagine there are only two farms on earth, owned by two families. One family decides to slack off and not plant crops but the other works really hard and plants extra. When the winter comes and the lazy family is starving and are happy to work for slave wages, just to eat, is the hard working family exploiting them, or helping them?
Those factories in Asia could have opened somewhere else.
Hashishin13 1 year ago
@Hashishin13
Your "thought experiment" is a false dichotomy/dilemma. You basically simplify it to "either they work for really low wages or have no wage", those are not the only two alternatives. I also like how you made one family "slack off", as if poor third world countries owe it to themselves they are poor, for being lazy.
GodOfTheInternets 1 year ago
@Hashishin13
You also seem to believe that children should be held accountable for the actions of their parents? Should a child suffer because of the decision of his parent? You seem to think so. You seem to think exploitation cannot exist, that children risking their lives for a few bugs per day is oky-dokey-dey. You seem to believe in socio-economic darwinism... Great guy you are. And strikingly enough, most of you are the way you are (devoid of empathy, segregated from reality).
GodOfTheInternets 1 year ago
@Redorgodead he is a die hard socialist. He talks about "wage slavery" and all kinds of nonsense. He is good on a lot of issues mind you, but socialism/capitalism ain't one of em.
In case you have fallen for this nonsense of "wage slavery" ask yourself if a job is voluntary or not, since it IS then it can't be slavery. If you say "well people have to eat and house themselves", then it is LIFE that is slavery, your living body and lack of material wealth force you to work, not your boss.
Hashishin13 1 year ago
@Hashishin13
Wage labour might indeed be wage slavery. In Colonial Brazil slaves could buy their freedom, so any slave who did not do so 'voluntarily' submits to being a slave. A response might be "maybe he can't afford to buy his freedom", exactly, the vast majority of the world has no choice but work for a wage because they can't afford owning their own property, etc. Thus, wage labour can indeed be wage slavery.
GodOfTheInternets 1 year ago
@Redorgodead. He is a socialist.
ammypam 1 year ago
Why the hell did you cut this video so short? He was just getting to the bread and butter of the argument.
suckfist 2 years ago 4
we are living beyond our means
pragmatismnotidealis 2 years ago
Is Chomsky a Keynesian?
return135 2 years ago
Sure is.
TimeWarp66 2 years ago
More like an anarchist.
mikeJ334 2 years ago
He uses the title Libertarian Socialist.
JiffyNo0b 2 years ago
A nominal Libertarian Socialist that supports big government.
benjamaiLL 2 years ago
government of the people as far as I understand it, and i assume you understand that hes labeling himself using the historical political terms, not new age political terms.
Libertarian in europe and even old america means different things then what libertarian means in america today.
Either way, big government isnt the right way to put his views. I believe, and i may be corrected, but the govs the size the people need it to be to perform the duties the citizens need it to perform.
waltermh111 2 years ago
"Libertarian in europe and even old america means different things then what libertarian means in america today."
Libertarian or liberal means less government, i.e.more liberation. The historic liberals/libertarians supported a laissez faire approach to society (show me one historical liberal that did not.)
Chomsky supports public industries, UN resolutions, SSI, medicare etc. All of these instutions violate liberty b/c they are not voluntary. If you're a gov socialist, ura gov socialist.
benjamaiLL 2 years ago
I agree with you entirely. I don't understand how someone can be an 'anarcho communist', when what they are advocating is to tear down the state as it stands, only to replace it with a more repressive, even more violent one. It makes no sense to me. Naom Chomsky and the like are of a very strange breed. When you present to them the idea of voluntary communes, they will respond.. They freeze up and the truth of what they want the government to impose comes out. :P
VoluntaryGov 2 years ago
read books
poop121 2 years ago
books are just as much bs as videos. i'm pretty sure chomsky is republican
d3p3ch3mod3 2 years ago
Are you that stupid?
ZYKLONBKILLSHITLER 2 years ago
you're a neocon in sheeps clothing
d3p3ch3mod3 2 years ago
Explain...
ZYKLONBKILLSHITLER 2 years ago
can't prove it, just wanted you to know that i'm not actually brainwashed
d3p3ch3mod3 2 years ago
So to prove you're not brainwashed, you assert that Chomsky, a libertarian socialist, is a Republican. Bravo.
egolayer13 2 years ago
Hey, I want to hear him finish the sentence! What does he think is the right way?
lonanmu 3 years ago
ya damgubbit, I agree, just when I thought he was going to settle on progressive taxation, he said "finance..." ---> and then what?
I want more, he may be a TOOL [A fucking Craftsmen!] but he's intelligent and darn useful.
unkelb0b 3 years ago
Ad hominen attacks prove nothing, are a sign of insecurity, and make you a liability to what you're defending.
thinkingisawesome 3 years ago 2
Stop having an organization steal people's money because it knows better what to do with it and we're back to a feudal society?
Even if your stat is true, it entirely ignores the far-reaching damage of taxes. Government spending *creates* nothing. It can only come from what's removed from the economy. In the hands even of the rich, it removes business capital, which is what almost all of the rich's money goes to.
If you want to give the government money, go ahead, but force is never good.
thinkingisawesome 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Chomsky makes me sick.
Capitalism is the only moral system in human history.
thinkingisawesome 3 years ago
wow
daniel1402002 3 years ago
Does this sickness of yours result in reduced brain power?
oldjoe5 3 years ago
Chomksy has amassed quite a fortune selling books to universities and other dupes. Of course, he has that money hidden in offshore accounts. Typical pinko - his own rules don't apply to him.
jeffmagic32 3 years ago
mediocratic morrons like you , do the only thing they can do, which is lying.
amet1980 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
LOL. Chomsky just about falls for the broken window fallacy. seriously if anyone believes that robbing money stimulates economic growth then they have read about 3 pages about economics written by larouche.
economic fail
thorsmitersaw 3 years ago
The Fed intentionaly creates inflation in order to stimulate employment by providing this printed cash to employers. It is their polocy to steal money from the people they intend to generate jobs for. In their view robbing DOES INDEED stimulate economic groth.
AshMan32 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Wrong, the best way to increase growth is by letting the money freely flow to the most productive sectors of society -> i.e. almost no taxation.
hara001 3 years ago
Economic growth isn't necessarily good for people in general. As Michael Parenti has pointed out, car crashes create jobs (Tow truckers, police, paramedics, surgeons, lawyers, insurance agents, etc.) but they kill people.
graaaaaagh 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Economic growth gives me food every day. 200 years ago, 60k poor people died of hunger in the streets of london every year. Then capitalism happened and solved the issue. Today, the poor recieves a check of 12,000$ every year allowing them to buy a TV, food and appartment, and complain that economic growth isnt good for them because their TV isn't 75 inches wide.
hara001 3 years ago
It might be true so far, but don't forget that western empires had expanded the capitalist system over asia and africa to (more or less) take their resources. Now this resources are becomes much more limited. Don't we need better system?
mrbusy 3 years ago
but thats not capitalisms fault its the governments.
wildabeast11235 3 years ago
Are you confusing economic growth with welfare?
graaaaaagh 3 years ago
It is precisely because the resources are becoming limited that we need capitalism now more than ever. Because nothing come close has efficient as it is to allocate and set the true value of resources.
Lets us stop government from creating false common goods that simply encourage everyone to rape it and lets instead privatize all land. People would then be able to sue in courts whitout the judge saying; "its a common good, therefore companies can polute it." Like they say now.
hara001 3 years ago
Capitalism isn't what happened. Democracy did. Markets trump central planning, but collective, democratic planning beats all.
graaaaaagh 3 years ago
"collective, democratic planning beats all. " Please list the countries where it worked.
hara001 3 years ago
Anarchist Catalonia 1936-1939
Whiteway Colony 1898-present
Tolstoyan Communes 1921-1937
graaaaaagh 3 years ago 3
As soon as you start engaging in discussion about the best possible social organisation you automatically tell other people how they should be living so get over thinking you are preaching democracy. Collective planning works better in some spheres of social organisations just like markets work in others. I've participated in some collective organisations where people were just so immature that I just couldn't help wishing there was a dictator to cut the bullshit.
NameFrUtube 3 years ago 2
"As soon as you start engaging in discussion about the best possible social organisation you automatically tell other people how they should be living so get over thinking you are preaching democracy."
You and I coming to a majoritarian consensus on how to live is, in fact, more or less the definition of democracy.
You might want to re-think that bit.
inbrooklyn2008 2 years ago
graaaaaagh is correct. Bastiat called it the Broken Window Fallacy. And he was a rabid free-marketeer and anti-socialist, so hara001 can't argue with it. But Bastiat was being critical of the fallacy, unlike some right-wing kooks who think war is actually good, because it can help a slumping economy. They approvingly agree with what Bourne disapprovingly said about war being the health of the state.
vktrsx 3 years ago 2
and yet I am blasted for pointing out the broken window fallacy?
thorsmitersaw 3 years ago
think again..
tbktb 3 years ago
For example what if Mafia style extortion starts when rival companies compete for customers?
Josh31420 3 years ago
Well, that's easy, the market decides based on who's making the best product! Either that or one business gets burned down by the other business, who then hires a "private security group" such