noam Chomsky - Regan and Friedman Economics 6-6

[gobuddyboy]

people around the world dont like america is not because of america's "FREEDOM" They hate because american is a terrorist state who uses violence to control the world.

[HoRostam]

Whatever Friedman said is irrelevant, actual free market ideology in practice is the new "Communism" of the 21st century, in so far as it being the new coolest intellectual thing, ready to be abused. Soviet Union was about as communist as the emerging global situation is truly free market. I love when neoliberals use china as some kind of example, when the Chinese gov't accounts for about a third of the GDP...

[mutantstrain]

Both NC and MF would NOT advocate their views at the end of gun. This an important point that I think gets missed.

MF would argue "look how much better off these people are"

NC would say "look at all the misery we've created"

And Both men would be totally correct.

Personally I would advocate a "freer" market but not at gun point.

This is where NC has the moral high ground. But remember MF was not a hawk, nor a republican: He was a libertarian!

[rhth79]

@mutantstrain Good point. Friedman is often blamed for the negative consequences that have come about when it appears his ideas were hijacked by powerful interests in the process.

How can you have a freer market with these interests at play who hold so much influence over it all?

[nammoo89]

So tell the consumers not to buy their products!

[boing3887]

@nammoo89

they can't afford any alternative. a lot of deficit hawks LOVE to point out how americans r SO irrsponsible and spendthrift and how savings rates have collapsed. well, wages have been falling in real terms for the past 30 years. spending has actually risen recently and it's done nothing for the economy. tell consumers not to buy from wal-mart? that's absurd. if a person can only afford wal-mart, how can they afford not to buy from there? you miss the reality of poverty

[nammoo89]

Continuation!

...parties involved.

But consumers buy their products, i.e. the democracy of the market vote for WAL-MART!

[boing3887]

@nammoo89

the "democracy of the market for wal-mart" isn't much of a free-choice vote. most people are FORCED to buy from wal-mart. you think people want to buy junk food and crappy clothes, because that's what they're getting for their money. when people actually have a choice in what they can buy, i.e. when they have some money, they usually choose much more expensive alternatives because they care about quality, not quanitity. your wal-mart example doesnt work at all

[nammoo89]

@boing3887

So what can be provided for 6 800 000 000 people, i.e. can everyone have more than W-M provides?

[nammoo89]

Continuation!

...i.e. you don`t gain anything, you`re life won`t improve as a result of giving politicians more control/power over your life/liberty.

It would be derserved if you entered into the agreements willingly, i.e. it does not mean you have the right to coerce others into cooperating with you, i.e. you have the option of providing the goods you need to survive in the wild, by yourself, but you benefit more from cooperating with others, but it should be voluntary for all the

[boing3887]

ii don't want to give politicians more power, i want direct democracy.

[nammoo89]

@boing3887

But why should the majority call all the shots, why can`t they make the best of their lives alongside the minority, without having to force the minority to adopt the majorities solutions?

[nammoo89]

Continuation!

... between everyone, at all times, i.e. the individuals have to take more responsibility for their own dealings/actions. I.e. there`s the phrase; "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety", by Ben Franklin, i.e. the only thing one gains from giving politicians etc more power is to satisfy the politicians craving for more power over you,

[boing3887]

you should relaly come up with more real-life examples and talk about how things work in the real world. right now you're just philosophizing. i suspect you're a ludwig von mises libertarian. i'm sorry, but mises didn't really work in the real world. you can't support your position by talking about some ideal hypothetical world in which everything works perfectly

[nammoo89]

@boing3887

Real life does not equal todays system, todays system is manipulated etc, i.e. not real.

[nammoo89]

Continuation!

Regarding the insurance, I think employees must be more vigilant, i.e. government can`t protect against all sorts of misdoings on the part of corporations/people in general, I think government should focus on intervening when someone initiates viloence/coercion etc, and leave the rest to the parties involved in the voluntary cooperations, which they will make if it`s mutually beneficial to all parties involved, i.e. government can`t control everything that goes on in society,

[nammoo89]

Continuation!

What kind of/to what degree can medical services be provided to 6 800 000 000 people, i.e. I don`t think anyone should have access to more medical services than others, thanks to protectionism/nationalism/mark­et manipulation etc, i.e. the absence of a free market. I think everyone on the planet should have equal oppurtunity/or as close as possible, regardless of where they reside/their race/sex/religion etc, to seek fullfillment in absence of coercion/vilolence/force etc.

[nammoo89]

Continuation!

Workers should get paid, in goods or money with intrinsic value(i.e. there`s a limited amount of both non-renewable/renewable resources, so I think everyone should get a shot at buying/exchanging it with the fruits of their own labour regardless of where they reside/their race/sex/religion etc), not in fiat money, i.e. in buying power, derived from the fruits of their actual labour in a free market, not buying power derived from protectionism/nationalism/mark­et manipulation etc.

[nammoo89]

I have no problem with global free trade, i.e. if consumers choose to buy from the big corporations/the rich, you must make your complaint to the consumers.

[24Cenac]

A decent man. A fellow 'Conservative anarchist' & a man who generates a lot of warmth & respect. Marx was a statist, Smith a futurist, Bakhunin a jihadist-libarationist. All in their way spoke a truth, but the last, like Noam, lived it.

[Questfortruth86]

All of the quotes you provide directly contradict your position. You should read up on the Corn law debates.

[boing3887]

you only think that the quotes i give you contradict my position bc you assume what it is. i'm not some raving anti-market marxist, ok? stop quoting marx - why quote him when i never do, and i haven't read him since a freshman course in poli sci?

my position is that what exists now is not capitalism as formulated by smith, but mercantilist/corporate/state capitalism, which is just mercantilism with various market features incorporated where convenient. that's chomsky's position as well.

[boing3887]

i realize that's why you keep on throwing marx at me and have to reflexively defend markets as though i'm some kinda leninist, when i'm not. every comment i make and chomsky makes is in that context of recognizing the distinction btwn smith's capitalism and "existing capitalism" (which is a corrupted version, no doubt), and attacking the existing version.

if you recognize my position in this regard, then the quotes i throw at you don't undermine me, because, for the 100th time, im not a marxist

[Questfortruth86]

Whatever form of socialism that may be.

[zzzfore]

It's interesting that free market wankers never want a free market of ideas. The minute you challenge their ideology, you are a commie and must be thrown in the brig to be replaced a free market dictator.

[wizardofohm]

When was this speech given?

[gjsterp]

Great presentation, as usual. Although he covers so much ground, that I wish he would outline in the beginning what he is going to say, and then say it.

The problem as I see it is getting the people to get off their duffs and do something about American policy towards South America and Palestine and the renewal of Unions here in America.

[USRLA]

Wow I have a headache...

[futsal1958]

Stunning. Uncle Noam, you are a hero.

[westphalianprinz]

He's so right about Venezuela and how academics behave towards Venezuela.

I can tell you stories!

[mahyarmohaghegh]

we can all tell stories, simply because we have certain perspectives in common and the 'academics' have another that is in common, what we must do is try to understand or create a way to commit ourselves to a discourse with these academics, where we can both come to a certain perspective. the problem today is the seperation of the intellectual from the masses. which was very strong back in the 19th century and early 20th century.

[westphalianprinz]

How to get the intellectuals and the masses together is a good question. As brilliant as Chomsky is, he actually resents the title of intellectual. He's a thinker, but he's not allowed thoughts to overcome his basic humanity. I think that his example is a good place to start.

[Questfortruth86]

He's a thinker, and a great intellectual, just economically illiterate. He focuses on America's political agenda, and then ties it to the great metaphysical construct known as capitalism, and classical-liberalism; not realizing that they are polar opposites. If Noam read the work of actual capitalists, and actual libertarians, I'm sure he would better understand.

[boing3887]

well...he actually has read all of adam smith's wealth of nations. he just likes to pint out that adam smith, if you take his writings in "wealthh of nations" seriously protest the current economic system.

i would also like to point out that "libertarian" in the american sense is only used in the america. if you used "libertarian" in the ron paul sense anywhere else in the world people would say "oh, you mean conservative" bc libertarian means "anarchist" everywhere else in the world.

[Questfortruth86]

Yes because they use the term Liberal instead. But "liberal" in America has come to mean radical socialist. Libertarianism is merely a reference to classical-liberalism. Many of the old timers call themselves liberal when they say their pro free markets and limited government intervention. Classical-liberals are sometimes considered anarchists, depending on the degree of their liberalism. Complete liberals are absolutely against any and all forms of government, while socialists clearly are not.

[boing3887]

well, the term "libertarian" traditionally meant "anarchist" or short for "libertarian socialist." that's how europeans, who invented all this terminology, understand these terms we're throwing around (so haphazardly here in the US). now, libertarian socialists are against govt. for sure.

classical liberals can indeed be anarchist, but many classical liberals were also pre-capitalist and would disagree fundamentally with likes of friedman or, say, hayek. look up wut chomsky said on adam smith

[Questfortruth86]

But Chomsky is completely wrong about Smith, and Smith wasn't a pre-capitalist.

"The statesman who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals, would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted to no council and senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it." Adam Smith

[boing3887]

"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. "

"What improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconvenience to the whole. No society can be flourishing and happy if the greater part of the members are poor and miserable. "

smith was for markets, but wanted them under certain conditions - he'd be disgusted with the likes of, say, ayn rand

[Questfortruth86]

Smith on Taxation:

"Such taxes [upon the necessaries of life], when they have grown up to a certain height, are a curse equal to the barrenness of the earth and the inclemency of the heavens; and yet it is in the richest and most industrious countries that they have been most generally imposed. No other countries could support so great a disorder." Adam Smith

Smith and Marx both adhered to the labor theory of value, and had similar labor theories, that's it.

[boing3887]

"All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind. "

"Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all. "

[boing3887]

"The whole of the advantages and disadvantages of the different employments of labour and stock must, in the same neighbourhood, be either perfectly equal or continually tending to equality...This at least would be the case in a society where things were left to follow their natural course, where there was perfect liberty, and where every man was perfectly free both to chuse what occupation he thought proper, and to change it as often as he thought proper."

Book I, ch. X, p. 111

[boing3887]

in other words, adam smith argued for markets b/c he thought it'd bring about some kind of justice and equality, not just "equal opportunity" though that's important too.

i'm not trying to say adam smith was some socialist or something, but he definitely wasn't what the ayn rands and friedrich hayeks think of him as

[Questfortruth86]

You're second quote says it all, the government should be instituted to protect the rich from the poor. Smith argued for markets because he understood the need for accurate prices and resource allocation. He was certainly not for "equal results" but does support "progressive taxation" to a marginal degree. And again, excessive taxation, according to him, "is as bad as barren farmlands." Smith was wrong about a lot, as all classical economists were, but he was not in line with Marx.

[boing3887]

you keep on bringing up marx, which i don't get. marx spent alot of time pointin out flaws to capitalism and markets but not solutions. i consider him to be just an economist who just points out when markets don't work - a task many economists spend their time on today.

anyways - but if you look at the second quote in the context of "the vile maxim of the masters" it's quite clear that he doesn't view that role of government as a good thing.

[Questfortruth86]

Markets don't work relative to what? That's like saying gravity doesn't work because people die when they jump off bridges. There is no other system, economics is capitalism, it is voluntary exchange through markets.

The Vile Master's Smith is referring to is the house of commons and lords, or the Mercantilist monarchies of his day. The Merchants and manufacturers were chosen and heavily regulated by the Government, chosen by the government. Free trade was not allowed.

[boing3887]

you're putting words in my mouth again. i never said markets don't work, and neither did marx (if you want to bring him up again). but noone serious believes that markets are perfect. that's all i'm saying, and that's what marx spent him time doing, nitpicking on markets, pointing out flaws to further his cause.

[boing3887]

the statement "economics is capitalism" only works if we actually had a capitalist system. you point out yourself that we don't but point out, as chomsky does, the myriad ways that govt intervenes on behalf of the rich. in that case, the statement should be 'economics is corporate mercantilism/corporate socialism, there is no other way.'

but u would never accept that statement and neither do i. economics is just the sum of economic transactions, whether they be free market, govt., or a mix.

[Questfortruth86]

Government intervention is anti-economic. Meaning it prevents certain individuals from acquiring their desired ends.

The reason why I keep bringing up Marx is because Chomsky is implying that Smith is Marxian in a sense, that he would be against capitalistic systems and free trade. But I agree with you, the system we have in place today is pure corporatism.

But this is not Chomsky's position; you can't tell me he's for pure capitalism and doesn't support socialism.

[boing3887]

i never said he was for pure capitalism, he simply points out that what exists now and he's criticizing isn't capitalism. of course he's for socialism, but i think what you think socialism is and what he thinks it is are different.

you've been wrong alot on his positions so far.

chomsky never implies that smith is marxian and if you read chomsky (as i regularly do) he actually has a higher opinion of smith than of marx.

[boing3887]

you see, marx comes from the tradition of anarchist mikhail bakunin. bakunin was thrown out of the first communist international by marx bc bakunin and marx were so at odds on socialism. marx was more statist, bakunin, as anarchist, obviously not.

so bakunin was thrown out of the first communist international, and a significant number of socialists followed him, the anarchist wing. and that's the wing chomsky hails from.

[Questfortruth86]

That makes sense, but the economic difficulties still remain. Now I'm not entirely familiar with this branch of socialism, but I do know that workers cannot control the means of production, as they are profit-seekers, like anyone else, and would control their own wages. Their wages would have to exceed their marginal productivity, unless they were some kind of selfless saints. Does this branch call for complete economic integration? And does it allow for money?

[boing3887]

the whole "socialist vision of the future" i'm actually just starting to get into. some of it i reject and some i like. it depends. whenever people ask chomsky about his vision of the future, he simply says "who cares what i think? it's up to the people to decide - what's important is that the freedom for democracy to function is brought about. then people can decide themselves, not like right now."

[boing3887]

the economic difficulties are indeed real, and various people spend their time theorizing on how to fix it. dean baker is one, though he's pretty mainstream for a leftist and is similar to paul krugman. there's radicals like robin hahnel and michael albert who propose something called "participatory eocnomics" and wrote all kindsa crazy stuff which i don't know what to make of yet.

the main goal is: let people run their own affiars first. democracy is most important for me.

[boing3887]

smith points out that govt is run on behalf of the rich interests of merchants and manufacturers, so that means that the vile maxim applies both too parliament AND to the merchants whose needs are "so peculiarly attended to." you're right to point out that the economies of the day were mercantilist and i agree.

the problem is that all governments have been pretty much mercantilist, with market features incorporated here and there. you've been pointing that out yourself.

[boing3887]

you're right that free trade wasnt allowed, and chomsky points this out constantly. you point out that free trade wasnt allowed by govt, but smith points out that govt was run by the merchants and manufacturers. doesnt that mean that the merchants and manufacturers didnt want free trade, unless it benefited them?

we can see this with NAFTA, TRIPS, GATT, as you pointed out yourself. policy continues to be crafted by the wealth, and that policy is usually not free trade.

[boing3887]

you interpret adam smith as believing that the role of government SHOULD be to protect the rich from the poor. but then why does he go on ranting against the "vile maxim of the masters" and sarcastically saying that the "merchants and manufacturers have their interests most peculiarly attended to" when one saw how government policy benefited the population.

[boing3887]

the quote on merchants' interests being "most peculiarly attended to" comes from book IV. ch.8.54.

smith was not a man who saw the "traditional role" of govt. of protecting the rich as a good thing. if the govt.'s role is to protect the rich, then taxation will ultimately benefit the rich. that's the context in which he ranted against taxes. in those times, taxes almost always meant war.

i dont get how you could conclude that the role of govt. should be to protect wealth from reading smith

[boing3887]

smith wanted progressive taxation and some limited govt. role for things like public education not to protect the wealth of the nation but to help the regular public. he shows nothing but contempt for the "masters" with their "vile maxim" or for the "merchants and manufacturers" who had their needs so "peculiarly attended to."

in fact, in this context one can see that he was against too much govt interference in markets since it usually benefited the wealthy. smith was no admirer of the wealthy

[Questfortruth86]

You need to put his comments in a historical setting to understand what he's saying. Smith and Ricardo were trying to destroy the Mercantilist system which had government severely regulating trade and production. The point of mercantilism was to maximize gold reserves through colonization and perpetual warfare. Smith is completely for free markets, which is the exact opposite of Marx. Marx spent a lot of time trying to show how trade was a zero-sum game; Smith said it was a positive sum game.

[boing3887]

again you bring up marx, whom i don't care too much about. you're absolutely right about smith and ricardo trying to destroy the mercantilist system - but they didn't. you look at actual policy of the british govt and it shows that they only adopted market measures once their economy was very strong - and they'd gotten strong through extremely high protectionism (and i'm not defending protectionism here).

smith was for free markets - but again, under conditions of perfect liberty.

[boing3887]

i am aware of the historical setting, and i also know that you have to take his comments in context with eachother. so you have to take his comments on the evils of taxation along with his views on public education and the views on trade with his view that govt. policy is formed for the benefit of the rich, a feature of society he obviously hated

[Questfortruth86]

So then would you say that you're pro laissez faire? Were the government has no control of markets whatsoever, that is, no control over voluntary exchange? Where there would be no income taxation whatsoever, and no regulations preventing market entry? If you allow the government to control the school system they will only teach the young to revere and worship them. This is why FDR and Lincoln are hailed as saints, and why Rockefeller is an evil tyrant (he maybe, but not for the reasons given).

[boing3887]

i obviously wouldnt like it very much. but i live with market features everyday, and i can obviously accept them bc i live with them.

the scenario you suggest i would only accept if there were a kinda "year zero" scheme where inequality was destroyed and everyone started from scratch. and along with smith, only under conditions of perfect liberty.

we're not anywhere close to either condition, and big business & govt are workin hard to prevent them, so that day's far off. but if it came i would

[Questfortruth86]

No government can maintain its power without the support of the majority, as a rule, and as such must control public sentiment. Once this sentiment turns on them, they are doomed. Turning our economy around would not be difficult at all to do as long as society wants it to turn around. Eliminate the FED, go to 100% gold reserve requirements, make constitutional provisions which only allow the government to protect property rights and contractual agreements. It's not complicated at all really.

[boing3887]

you're obviously from the austrian school of thought. good for you. i like rothbard and ron paul. but as to whether gold reserves and getting rid of the Fed, i don't really know. if the majority of people want it after education and a fair oppportunity to weigh the costs and benefits for themselves, then i'm all for it. ultimately, democracy comes first, and our job is to make sure that the public has all the info available to it so they can make proper decisions.

[Questfortruth86]

Yeah, If people choose to keep the FED after they understand how it operates, then they should. That's fine with me. But I seriously doubt that they would support an institution responsible for business cycles, income disparity, the diminution of their real wages, ect., ect.

[boing3887]

i agree on the Fed: the comments i hear are either negative and critical or neutral. nothing positive. my feeling on it's in that vein as well, negative to neutral - but i admit my ignorance on all but the most basic Fed affairs.

[boing3887]

recent polls i've seen also show that while people have a negative view of capitalism, they don't have a negative view of markets. this despite all the propaganda out there and the fact that the US as a country is fairly insulated and ignorant. common sense seems to work for regular people, as long as they don't let their common sense be overcome by propaganda.

[boing3887]

for example: people when asked what they think is the biggest waste in the budget, they say welfare - they think we're spending 40% or some crazy number on it (of course not). then when asked what percentage of the budget is reasonable to spend on welfare, they give a number that's higher than the actual number. the same goes with foreign humanitarian aid. most regular people are pretty reasonable, and if we let democracy work things would get better instantly even without massive education

[boing3887]

you don't like reagan, do you?

[Questfortruth86]

No, just another pretender. But he did raise interest rates early in his first term, that was good.

[boing3887]

oh, thank god! so many people who claim to be american 'libertarians" are just old-fashiond conservatives who've realized that "conservative" and "republican" has a bad meaning for people so they changed their self-labeling. but they refuse to condemn reagan for the same reasons they condemn, say, clinton or kennedy, so you know they're just frauds.

[boing3887]

i agree that govt teaches people to revere govt, but they also teach to revere the rich as long as they aren't too evil (it's ok to bash on rockefeller bc it was so obvious he was evil that noone will bother defending him).

i think smith views public education as having the ability to have some independence and intellectual freedom. that's why the likes of murray rothbard had tenureship at a public university like U. of Nevada (though i think he belonged somwhere better)

[boing3887]

the one time i heard chomsky talk aobut property rights, he usually has a long rant against the likes of bill gates and other multibillionaires who drive bentleys while african children starve. and then he says "we should have moderate and reasonable property rights." and that's all i've ever heard him say. his lifestyle confirms this view: he owns a home in an upper-middle class suburb and drives a toyota or something.

[Questfortruth86]

That's very admirable, but to deny human nature is to destroy incentives and productivity. If someone wants to live modestly they should, if not, they should take some risks and achieve their dreams. Some people want to feed the whole world, others dream about big cars and mansions. Free markets allow people to do both, and in both situations society is benefited. The altruistic man can feed millions, the egoist needs to produce something of use to make his millions.

[boing3887]

you're right, incentives and productivity must be preserved. but that's an issue for democratic votes of the people to resolve, not specifically you or me or ron paul or chomsky.

noone wants capitalism imposed by force on a majority, and obviously noone wants socialism imposed by force on a majority either. work first on enhancing democracy, and we'll work the kinks out. that's my position.

[nammoo89]

Should anything be forced on the minority?

[boing3887]

@nammoo89

depends on what you mean when you say "minority." and what is being forced? but generally no.

if you're talking about progressive taxation, in which the rich pay a larger share, then i have no problem with it.

[nammoo89]

But what about the rich in a libertarian society, i.e. in a society where there were no governmental redistribution through inflating the compulsory monetary system/forced corporate bailouts etc(benefits the owners of capital), i.e. would it be OK to let people keep the fruits of their labor in a truly free market, i.e. in a society where the governments only job was to intervene when someone initiated violence/force/coercion etc

[boing3887]

@nammoo89

sure, in a hypothetical "libertarian society," sure. but that would be like me saying "what about in a perfectly anarchist-socialist society?" neither of those things exist, and never have - probably not even close in either case. and to be honest, i don't really prefer govt. or markets - it's about the outcomes. that doesnt mean i'm saying ANY means (like murder, etc), but dean baker has shown how lots of market measure can bring about progressive outcomes.

[nammoo89]

But "anarchist-socialist" seeks collectivism/central planning, and is anti-individualism, i.e. it just ain`t a logical system, i.e. some group of people in society, want`s to tell the individual what to do, so it will "benefit" the common good. Or put in a different way, 6 800 000 000 people just won`t agree, so libertarianism etc, is a better option, because it basically says that anything goes(individuals can organise themselves as they see fit, i.e. so that it benefits them), except violence

[nammoo89]

Continuation!

...force/coercion etc. So different individuals/groups/collectives etc can operate within the larger libertarian society, more or less independent of eachother, i.e. it gives more people the chance to be happy(unless of course their goal is to have power/be sadistic etc).

There were of course anarchy to begin with, right?

So you`re a pragmatist, i.e. anything goes except murder etc, as long as it benefits the common good(whatever that is)?

[nammoo89]

Continuation!

What dou you refer to when you write "market measure" and "progressive outcomes"?

[boing3887]

@nammoo89

when we talk about policy and so on, we need to talk about conditions in the here and now. if you want to talk about some hypothetical ideal society, sure i can do that, but i dont think its that productive. we need to talk about so-and-so proposed policy considering conditions in this world. right now, the US has among the lowest taxes among rich nations, and our poor are the worst off. i see no need to defend the "rights of the rich"

[nammoo89]

So/so policy, very often create new problems, i.e. they`re more harmful than good, they`re often meant to benefit some group, without considering what effects it will have for other groups in society, i.e. it`s unproductive to continue to create more problems than we actually have to deal with(laws of nature). I think the kind of society we have is not really meant to help the poor etc, i.e. "help the poor" etc is only an excuse to get power over people, so they can directed in a direction that

[nammoo89]

Continuation!

..only benefit some special interest group(corporations/unions etc), i.e. it`s corporatism. And it`s not the poor thet call the shots or who benefit, by giving the resourceful alot of power over other people through government. So I belive the best way to help everyone, is to remove the possibility to control other people via the government, because it will escalate/be misused etc, i.e. "power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely", so the only thing a non-libertarian

[nammoo89]

Continuation!

...society provides, is the possibility that the resourceful(the rich etc), get an easier task when they try to take advantage of others, i.e. in a libertarian society, the governments only job is to assist those who are the victims of coercion/violence/force etc, i.e. the government is not the tool one can use to inflict the coercion/violence/force etc on people, as it is today. Ergo, the problem with todays system/society, is that it gives the strong/resourceful people

[nammoo89]

Continuation!

...a greater advantage over the weak etc. And no one are truly altruistic/unselfish/all knowing for that matter, so when the non-altruistic/selfish/not-all knowing are given power, it will in all likelihood lead to more harm than good, i.e. it won`t benefit anyone else than themselves/their friends/their family etc.

Taxing the rich won`t benefit the poor, the rich only owns the means of production, i.e. they don`t eat more than the poor/consume so much more than the poor,

[nammoo89]

Continuation!

...i.e. if one redistributes the ownership of the means of production, average Joe, will still have to work and settle with average, i.e. it`ll still be a limited amount of resources(both commodities/labor), so the only thing taking from the rich achieves, is that the envious get a little satisfaction, and the only thing using the rich as an enemy achieves, is to give power to a select few non-altruistic/selfish/not-all knowing etc.

Now I assume that the starting point/

[boing3887]

so i sympathize with what you're saying, but we gotta talk about the here and now, and about what the facts and numbers are. you and i can debate the hypotheticals and frictionless ideal worlds of economists' and philosophers' models, but i don't see much use for that when we're talking about policy

[nammoo89]

Continuation!

...general rule in a libertarian society, is that the rich, deserves their wealth, cause it`s not made through the help of a corrupt/redistibuting/coercive­/violent etc government, i.e. if one gets rich in a libertarian society, people will have truly voted for them in the democracy of the free market. And if you`re offended by the the excessive consumerism of the rich, you can boycott their companies, i.e. it`s no use in taxing the rich, i.e. it`s better to limit peoples power

[boing3887]

as for "corporatism" and "central power," i don't know where you get that. i just propose democratization. why worry about bureaucracies and all that when you can just put things to a vote. i'm sorry, but i don't have much sympathy for the rich, i really don't, and i'm one of them, in fact. the fact of the matter is that your parents' income has a huge predictive effect on your income. example: if you're in the top 10% in income, theres only a 10% chance of you ending up in the bottom 10% income

[nammoo89]

What is "democratization" in practical terms(I believe it means corporatism/central planning etc)?

Direct democracy?

If you`re rich in todays society, it`s probably not deserved, but if you were rich in a libertarian society, it could be deserved.

[boing3887]

@nammoo89

so you don't believe in democracy? or are you of the strain of thought that you would rather have free markets over democracy when the two come into conflict? well, you're in the minority then, i'm sorry, and i don't agree with that at all.

[nammoo89]

I believe in the democracy of a global free market! People making transactions in a free market, are the same people who would take part in an election/a referendum, only difference is, that in the free market, there is room for more diversity, i.e. in a centrally planned society, the majority will have to much influence over the miinority, i.e. it will be the majority who decides what the minority should do, as oppose to the free market where both the majority/minority can do what they see fit.

[boing3887]

@nammoo89

you're speaking in hypotheticals when you talk about the "democracy of the free market." it doesn't exist in the real world. sure in the abstract it could be possible, but in the real world that's not how it works. in the free market the "majority" is basically the largest amount of money, and only a small amount of people hold the majority of the wealth. you're trying to equate dollars with individuals, and it doesn't work like that

[nammoo89]

@boing3887

Yes of course not, we don`t have a free market, but we should strive for one regardless.

As I`vw written earlier, laissez-faire does not include a mandatory centrally planned, manipulated/inflated curenncy system.

[boing3887]

@nammoo89

it's not clear to me that we should strive for one. in fact, that's not the direction that the rich countries are going or were going.

i don't see how how your comment on currency is relevant

[nammoo89]

Well protectionism/nationalism/trad­e barriers etc are detrimental to most people.

A manipulated/inflated fiat currency system distibutes money in an uneven manner, i.e. look at the obscene incomes on Wall Street, they wouldn`t be able to make that kind of money if the money was linked to goods with intrinsic value.

[boing3887]

@nammoo89

and buy from whom else, if not wal-mart? prices for fruits and vegetables are going up, and you don't find good food at wal-mart, so consumers aren't going there for the quality. the quality is at places like trader joe's and whole foods. so why do consumers keep going to wal-mart? do they like the stuff they get there? yeah, some of it.

[boing3887]

just look at europe. wal-mart cant get a foothold there bc europeans actually have money and wouldnt want the crap at wal-mart anyways, unlike americans. thats how you promote free consumer choice, by making sure consumers have money. also notice that you leave out of "free choice" things like better product standards. the europeans have pretty strong standards against genetically-modified foods and toxins in food and other products and are quite happy with these regulations

[nammoo89]

We have crappy stores here too!

[boing3887]

now, of course people respond to price signals, that's why they're buying at wal-mart. but we should also remember that real wages for the majority have been falling for a long time. you really think that people would rather shop at wal-mart than at whole foods if they could afford either one?

[nammoo89]

@boing3887

Wages have increased for the global population, but decreased for the US population, I don`t see anything wrong with that.

[boing3887]

@nammoo89

and by the way, the US is not and never has been a free market. in fact, right from the beginning the US has been the most protectionist country in existence, so that the famous economic historian paul bairoch called the US "the mother country of protectionism" bc they had tariff rates unheard of in history. the US is actually a mixed economy, as is the rest of the developed world.

[nammoo89]

@boing3887

I know!

No, it was not the most protectionistic from the beginning.

Yes, I know!

[boing3887]

well, not from the beginning, but pretty much. we all know alexander hamilton, who pretty much invented the idea of "infant industries" (which japan and s. korea used to industrialize). pretty much every president followed the hamiltonian line, which was to limit foreign control of US business, have high tariffs, etc.

if u read 'economics and world history' by paul bairoch, he has tables showing tariff rates for the US through time compared to other countries, and noone else comes close!

[nammoo89]

Modern history, i.e. history of protectionist nation states?

[boing3887]

@nammoo89

so when you talk about "free markets," i want to know what real-world examples you're talking about.

[nammoo89]

@boing3887

I`m talking about free markets, i.e. before there were regulated markets, there were free markets, i.e. there was a big bang, then thee were singl cellular organisms, who developed into todays living organisms, ergo there was a free market before anyone discoverded regulation/market manipulation etc to enrich themselves at the expense of others, right?

[boing3887]

during what time period were there "free markets"?

[nammoo89]

Before there were nation states with nationalistic/protectionistic policies!

[boing3887]

so please give the specific examples. what countries used largely free market policies and thrived?

[nammoo89]

@boing3887 I wrote; "Before there were nation states"!!!

[nammoo89]

Continuation!

Can you elaborate on potential conflicts?

[boing3887]

@nammoo89

a democracy is one man, one vote. a free market is one dollar, one vote. the conflict comes when a majority in a democracy may vote for something like welfare measures to protect working people from market processes like dying industries or outsourcing of industry overseas - and the measures will be funded by progressive taxation. well, the free market is against welfare state measures, even if the majority of people want them, as most americans do

[nammoo89]

@boing3887

I`m not talking about fiat dollars, but the buying power derived from the fruits of each mans labor.

So why can`t the welfare people organize themselves like the Amish, and leave others to themselves?

[boing3887]

@nammoo89

economists have also noted that free financial flows can amount to a "virtual congress" because they can simply take their money out of the country if they don't approve of certain policies by the government, even if the govt. is simply doing the bidding of the people. the examples are numerous in the real world, and one can just think it through logically and see that potential confclits can come up.

[nammoo89]

@boing3887

I`m not a proponent of fiat money, but private/voluntary/competing providers of means of exchange.

[boing3887]

if you were born in the bottom 10% of income, there's a 60% chance that you'll move up. that's the highest % among first-world nations - income mobility, both up and down, is much higher in places like europe and east asia. europe generally has a more generous welfare state, and they have lower rates of poverty and more people in the middle and upper-middle classes.

[nammoo89]

But what are the bottom 10 % going to do, i.e. there will always be a bottom 10 %, even if 100 % of them climb, someone will replace them, and become the bottom 10 %.

About 10 % of the worlds population live in Europe, what about the other 90 %, are there enough resources to give the rest the same standard of living, oil for example?

[nammoo89]

Continuation!

...influence over others, i.e. a flat power structure in society(libertarianism), i.e. that no one can get the right to initiate violence/force etc through government, will do more good for the poor/average Joe etc than any other system/policy(collectivism/cor­poratism etc).

[boing3887]

ok, you're talking in hypotheticals again. how do the rich behave in the real world, and how did they gain their wealth/power in the real world. as for what policy is "good," you can do that by looking at the meat of the details in the legislation. generally, watchdog groups are quite good at predicting which legislation will screw the poor and which will help them.

[nammoo89]

Well libertarianism etc, is not fascism/collectivism etc, it`s an alternative.

Problem is that watchdog groups, and other groups have the power to make laws that benefit some group at the expense of another, so if they`re able to predict doesn`t help, i.e. the problem is the oppurtunity groups have to take advantage of others.

[boing3887]

i don't want to deny human nature. if you look at polls you find that most people are neither totally altruistic nor totally selfish and pathological.most people are in between - chomsky pointed out that when the better polls keep on questioning people the people are seen to be mildly social democratic (in the european vein) to centrist.

[boing3887]

"The education of the common people requires, perhaps, in a civilised and commercial society the attention of the public more than that of people of some rank and fortune."

all adam smith - and i haven't read much marx, even though i'm leftist (shame on me!)

[rankdog99]

Great speech ..with simple content that we all can understand by initiating our own research and education as individuals. Chomsky's linguistic theories on the other hand are a different story..thanks for the headache's Noam!