The stupidity of right-wingers knows no limits, it's annoying as fuck. To be this calm whilst debating against them would require a steady supply of tamazepam.
If the US is such a powerful "Evil Empire", why would they go through all this political cloak and dagger? Why not just conquer all these countries and directly control the people and resources? Isn't that what an Evil Empire would do? And if it required all the cloak and dagger secrecy, why allow a Chomsky to publicly spill the beans? Wouldn't an Evil Emperor have snuffed him out long ago? Darned common sense just keeps haunting me.
Because the US has a population of around 300,000,000 people, and tries to maintain a bullshit moral highground at all times. They have to hide their crimes or they will have no support.
So Reagan is responsible for crimes "mereting comparison to Pol Pot,". Is that Chomsky's way of saying that Reagan really isn't that bad, just misunderstood.
yeah, American policy post-WW2 was to rebuild Europe and Japan. . . to prep them for the Western corporate takeover. The Marshall Plan was a product of the Grand Area ideal, both thought up in the CFR.
Perle, like every neocon, conveniently leaves that out. :rolleyes:
It's not Chomsky's idea that such policy was intended to aid American 'control', it's what the documents themselves say!
@mcshobe2008 : What I'd like to see is a president elected by the people instead of the electoral college. The people do not elect the president or many others the hold high-ranking offices. That is one of the reasons that they are ineffective (in regard to serving the people. The all serve the people that get them elected into office (the members of electoral college), many of whom have conflicting interests.
Presidents have no relevance to anything in the long run because they're dispensed to the public by the elite sectors of finance and industry. The "Executive" Branch is named that for a reason. A close knit network of major- Corporations and investment firms run the economy, staff all the major Executive branches of govt (including president), they own the major media, and they own the country. The two 'parties' are two factions of a one-party State; a Business State. Democracy? Not at all.
"The massive disarmament of the US military post World War II"-9:00
Ok, so the Korean War, the massive stockpiling and testing of nuclear weapons, the supporting of European regimes such as that of Salazar in Portugal, Papandreau in Greece, Batista in Cuba etc and not the mention the placing of US military bases in Europe and around the world (West Germany, South Korea, France, etc), all which took place in the first ten years after 1945, is Richard Perle's idea of "US post war disarmament"?
Can Perle really say that our propaganda does, and did, not mirror soviet propaganda? The soviet propaganda machine is indeed monopolized by federals, but ours is monopolized by conservative, private power. Both suck, and neither speak for the people.
@dannyvets25, you are correct here. I wrote rather quickly, and did not word my comment correctly (500 character limit is a bitch). I meant to say it does not speak in the interest of the people. Judging by the fact that FAUX news is the highest rated network, your point goes without saying.
This is hilarious. Chomsky quotes other sources while Perle resorts to evasive techniques designed to change the subject. Perle's opening statement sounds like my 6th Grade history book.
Perle's entire gambit is to evoke patriotic sympathy and stir the emotional response of a child, which is so contrary to his typical hawkish absolutism. He's so disingenuous it makes me nauseous.
@Hoomanmohammadi76 This is absolutely correct. He squashed Perle here into the gound. What I find hilarious is that Perle, who so adamantly backed the Iraq War, is now regretful and feels a sense of guilt. One can understand his initial attitude as it is rather consistent with his absurd views here... if only he'd listened to Chomsky all those years ago he would never be experiencing this cognitive dissonance.
out of curiosity, why does the sound quality (particularly the presence of ambient noise) shift abruptly at certain points in the video? is this culled from several different recordings, and if so, is it complete, or are there missing sections?
@livluv44 thats not true. when they talk about cuts in military spending, they mean a cut in the annual predetermined exponential budget increase. the military's budget has gone up every year since 1776. just sometimes, the proposed budget increase gets shot down.
Pearle's first point highlighting the fundamental difference between Soviet and American media is the most eloquent and succinct certification of Chomsky's intellectual dishonesty. There is absolutly no viable comeback to this check mate.
Yes, yes, Chomsky could point to the secret cabal of Jews and Masons who control all of the world's institutions, including the media. He actually does so in this debate. However, Hitler had already beaten him to it, and thus the psychotic Chomsky is not even being original. The only alternative to so-called corporate media is state run media, modeled after Norh Korea or Nazi Germany or Cuba. Moreover, all objective studies on the media show that there is a clear left-wing slant.
And what entity oversees and manages the BBC? Who determines BBC content? Does BBC spontaneously generte content or does it employ editors, publishers, producers, reporters etc?
the irony of this is the royal charter was given to the BBC to "be free from both political and commercial influence and answer only to its viewers and listeners" and as I understand, it still applies today.
The BBC does. It stands for British Broadcasting Corporation and it is the company and the channel. It's payed for with a direct fee from the people who get it (kinda like HBO) and it isn't allowed to have commercials (except outside in the UK).
Basically it answers only to the people who pay for it and is organized by it's own corporation.
So the BBC derives it revenue from consumers? Kind of like a corporation? If consumers stop subscribing to BBC, it will go bankrupt? The BBC employs and manages workers and has a profit motive? How then is NOT a corporation?
It's established and has a commitment to it's charter making it "be free from both political and commercial influence and answer only to its viewers and listeners" by law.
Haha, so the BBC makes money by providing a valuable service to consumers. How is that any different from the NYT or ANY other corporation for that matter? Companies make money by satisfying the consumer. If the BBC does not receive any government subsidies, it is an evil corporation.
Corporations receive billions in subsidies bro. Hell even the CATO institute put out a report on corporate welfare that was in tens of billions.
But that's besides the point, the point is the BBC is different because it is required by law to have an objective analysis. Note this is the THIRD time I explained this to you.
Required by law to have an objective analysis? What does that mean? Who decides what is objective? Does the BBC present both sides of the argument or just one side? Your explanation is absurd.
Yes, corporate subsidies are wrong and iare modeled after fascist/socialist policies. Glad we can agree on that point.
I suppose in some abstract way it is possible to abide by a charter that mandades objectivity, although it would be extremely difficult since objective reporting is often, well, subjective. However, the BBC is patently left-leaning and does not present both sides of the argument. In either case, if we accept that what you say is true--that is, the BBC's bottom line depends on providing a valuable service to the consumer, and not on govt subsidies, then BBC is, by definition, a corporation.
I'm not arguing that it's not a corporation only that it's possible to have an alternative to the "traditional" corporate news structure through something like a charter.
wait I think I somewhat misread this. The charter says the BBC can't have commercial or political influence (i.e. no commercials or political donations) but overall it has the net effect of making the BBC objective.
There's no orwellian objectivity police in the government making it fair or w/e.
Corporations don't contribute to the NYT, and the NYT does not make political contributions, although the NYT, as well as most mainstream American newspapers, do endorse political candidates...ALWAYS Democrats.
Are you kidding? This is a basic fact. I am not your research assistant. Google "liberal bias in media" and go nuts. The Pew Research Foundation and the Columbia School of Journlism have both produced such studies.
Wow all those "studies" just proved that the journalists were liberal which doesn't prove anything.
This is like putting blame on factory workers for the effectiveness of the product they make.
The point is the majority of the media is conservative and for very basic market based reasons. If it were "liberal" I'm sure their would be a lot more journalists on MSNBC criticizing GE for giving people cancer or Microsoft for having a monopoly.
Um, no. The studies prove that there are far more negative stories about Republicans than Democrats and that Democrats and liberal policies are portrayed more favorably than Republicans.
So you think that MSNBC and Steve Colbert are NOT left wing, just because they don't criticize the corporations they work for, but criticize all other corporations and the free market in general? Doesn't make much sense.
No I'm saying that the majority of media isn't leftwing because it doesn't criticize corporations period (hence killing the point of what "leftwing" means).
Actually your somewhat right MSNBC is literally one of the only (if not the only) channel to criticize any kind of corporations (blackwater etc.) and various policies (Patriot Act, FISA).
On the subject of the study I don't really know what "liberal" policies are portrayed unfavorably but most GOP policies around the time of the....
Sorry I mean *favorably*. But most GOP policies around that time (Patriot Act, Iraq War etc.) were portrayed negatively for a reason, because they were negative.
Wow...Have you ever watched CNN or read the NY Times? These and all other left-wing outlets criticize oil companies, Wall Mart, Pharma, Insurance companies INCESSANTLY. I think I just checkmated you....Most GOP policies--whether Social Security reform, welfare reform, lower taxes, etc. are portrayed negatively, while left-wing policies--e.g. welfare state initiatives--are portrayed positively. Pretty simple.
Having watched CNN and having read NYT on a daily basis in the months leading up to the Iraq War, I can vouch with certainty that they were NOT cheerleaders for the war--that is a falllacious left-wing talking point. Shortly after the war began, they were at the forefront of the war's opposition, highlighting only the bad news, and underplaying all positive developments
Although I don't really have sources I remember a lot of editorials promoting the war (along some article basiclly saying the war was necessarily).
I'm not saying they positive when the war happened but I remember them being supportive or sympathetic to the invation in the time of the build up to the war.
Trust me, the vast majority of editorials were highly skeptical of the war. But even if half were supportive, then at the very least NYT was fair and balanced--which it is not. It is left-leaning. Furthermore, your central argument is made moot by the fact that you concede that NYT was strongly critical of the war after the war began.
Not necessarily. To be supportive of build up then be critical of the implementation was basically what Fox News did and their almost beyond right wing.
Plus it's not just the Iraq War, it's other issues like NAFTA, US intervention in Nicaragua etc. that makes NYT either somewhat right-leaning or frankly just not allowed to talk about those things.
I have to say that your comments about Fox News, Nicaragua and NYT indicate that you are terribly misinformed, likely as a result of being brainwashed by Chomsky's insane propaganda. I have given you several examples of the US mainstream media opposing conservative policies--or more precisely, policies advocated by a conservative President--and you are still regurgitating the same nonsense.
The policies you listed aren't unfavorable to corporations therefore no corporate "censorship" is needed.
I actually already explained this.
Unless you can provide examples where the media was super critical of policies that benefit corporations (not just "conservative" policies), your argument is null.
Lets see, were you around when gas prices were $4/gallon and every media outlet was incessantly castigating oil companies? Or how about the perpetual assault on Walmart by every editorial board and left-wing anchor/pundit in the country over the last decade. Should I go on?
When you say these free market reforms have a "negative" impact, do you mean that they affect the evil corporations negatively? Or do they negatively affect the masses? If they negatively affect the masses, then you have just contradicted your main thesis, which is that American media outlets are shills for corporations. Second check mates.
It's possible to affect the masses negatively and not benefit corporations the two aren't mutually inclusive.
i.e. social security reform/being allowed to opt out of social security doesn't really effect corporations and neither does a flat tax (when there's huge amounts of capital gains taxes to pay)
You'd have to tell what specifically what issues the "liberal media" was critical of but most of what you proposed don't have shit to do with corporations.
My point was that the mainstream media, through beat reporting, anchoring, and editorilizing, negatively portrayed free market policies, such as social security reform, lower taxes, etc, and positively portrayed left-wing policies. What don't you get about that?
I'm not saying it didn't but that doesn't make the media "liberal" so much as it makes it point out the obvious, and it doesn't somehow disprove the propaganda model.
with regards to the unfavorably shown issues. I honestly need a whole other comment just to point out what's wrong with those things.
Ok, now you're just talking in circles. You asked me to give you examples of the media bashing corporations, and I did. Face it, Chomsky's "propaganda model" is utterly moronic. In fact, the "anti-Chomsky Reader" takes it apart point by point. I highly recommend you read it.
Haha, ok. Mainstream media outlets were against tax cuts on dividends, against capital gains tax cuts, and AGAINST corporate tax cuts. Should I say it or do you know it's coming? Check mate.
I've literally never seen a mainstream media report critical of things that benefit corporations (capital gains tax cuts, etc.) and I've seen things critical of tax cuts/flat tax proposals etc.
So AGAIN unless you can show examples critical of the things you said, your point is moot.
You have never seen a mainstream media report critical of "greedy" corporations (oil companies, Wal mart, pharma, insurance, etc.)? You have never seen pundits bloviate about how corporate taxes should stay the same or increase? Come on, you are not THAT detached from reality are you?
I've never seen an unwarranted critical report (companies do something bad and get into the news etc.) and literally the only pundits who criticize anything about corporations is on MSNBC (yeah as long it's not GE),
especially when you have people like Neil Cavuto run stories on why downsizing is good and Glenn Beck talk about why unions are basically satan.
This isn't even taking into account the evidence that proves chomskies point.
Ok this discussion is going nowhere. I do appreciate the fact that we could keep it civil. You have never seen a report critical of corporations? Not to mention that the entire popular culture is geared towards vilifying corportions. You must not watch CNN or read the NYT or watch Hollywood movies. Of course, you will not see the kind of rabbid Marxist/Chomskyire anti-business zeal on most media outlets, save MSNBC. But this is because the communist market is quite small.
Look the discussion will go somewhere when you provide a large amount of evidence showing that the mainstream media often portrays corporations negatively often and possibly for unwarranted reasons.
All you've provided are examples of it being negative to "conservative" policies that don't have anything to do with corporation but that's not even the main point.
The main point is whatever "cultural" tendencies exist towards corporations it doesn't show that the media is against them.
Again, I am not your research assistant. I merely stated a basic, incontrovertible fact. Go ahead, do some research. Googe "CNN oil companies" or "CNN Wall Mart". You have been blinded by psychotic Chomskyite propaganda, if you think that the mainstream media does not routinely and unfairly vilify corporations.
Haha! This further strengthens my point. Even though Exxon and Walmart advertise on CNN, CNN still editorializes AGAINST corporate practices. When oil was $4/gallon, every other story on CNN had an anti-oil company theme. How many checkmates is that?
that's zero "checkmates" and again you use a fallacious argument that proves my point.
That article (not a part of any CNN show just a separate article) only lists facts and doesn't contain some sort of agenda. The fact that CNN newsroom hasn't even mentioned the story once, proves my point.
Your argument literally boils down to "the media is against corporations because they briefly mention every time they do something bad or comment on how paying $3 per gallon sucks"
You are hopeless. Every time I give you an example, you say "yeah, yeah, but they deserved it!". Don't you think if the media were shills for corporations, they would defend them even if they "deserved" condemnation? You're in an almost untenable position of having to defend a thesis---i.e., the media is pro-corporation--in spite of incontrovertible evidence, which I carefully laid out for you, proving the opposite. I don't envy you.
they are shills for their own corporations and advertisers but what you don't seem to understand is the limits it entails.
For instance SNL pulling "conspiracy theory rock" and Fox News censoring a story on BGH is different then an unbiased CNN article talking about a company committing crimes.
This isn't a corporate police state, news will inevitably break but the question is how much it is featured relative to it's importance.
Your only "evidence" is the CNN story I layed out.
And I presume BBC is a shill for BBC? Does BBC routinely run stories criticizing its operations? Your argument is incredibly weak. Mainstream medi outlets ROUTINELY run stories that treat corporations unfavorably and in my opinion, unfairly. What don't you get about that???
Except what you said isn't true. The media only runs stories about corporations screwing up if they aren't advertisers/are independent from the media (ie the CNN article on Exxon). Running stories about corporations only when they screw up isn't "unfavorable" it's just the news cycle and it's greatly under reported anyway.
Like I said before the BBC is an exception the "traditional" corporate structure because it abides by a charter forbidding it to do things like lobby and run ads etc.
the BBC gets its revenue from listeners (and I'm sure massive government subsidies.) Guess where the NYT gets its revenues? You got it, its readers. You keep repeating the same untrue drivel, even in spite of the obvious fact tht the mainstream media portrays corporations unfavorably even when they have done NOTHING wrong. Anyway, we're arguing in circles. I'm done. Hopefully, one day you will mature enough to not become brainwashed by idiotic Chomskyite propaganda.
Look I guess this is it, I'm going to stop arguing because you simply don't get it.
What you define as unwarranted criticism is basically any criticism (or basic news of corps. doing something bad) at all.
Your "evidence" of unwarranted criticism is negative reporting to conservative policies that don't have anything to do with corporations or even showing news of companies doing something wrong. (cont.)
Like I said before we don't live in some corporate police state but if news casts have to run a story about their parent company doing something wrong chances are thier going to self-censor as much as possible and that's been shown in tons of examples.
As far as the BBC goes for like SIXTH TIME it's forbidden by law to doing something biased like endorse a candidate or have ads, and no it's big enough to not get subsidies.
"Guess where the NYT gets its revenues? You got it, its readers."
The New York Times gets its revenues from advertisers, unless you honestly believe they're able to run their business on people paying a few bucks for their paper. There's a reason why 60% of the Times is advertisements. The NYT is in the business of selling readers to advertisers. The more readers, the more money it can charge for ads.
And your point is what exactly? The NY Times generates ad revenue based on the number of readers who subscribe to its publication...That's pretty consistent with economic liberty--an anathema to the Chomskyite lunatics.
Oh cool the "anti-Chomsky Reader" was edited by David Horowitz a guy who literally made stuff up to prove his point of liberal bias in the University.
Note I'm not discrediting the book or even his overlying theory, just that he lied to prove a point.
He lied about some biology professor showing Fahrenheit 9/11 to his students to influence opinion for the 2004 election and lied about some Kid getting a failing grade for some political question.
That and judging by the chapter descriptions of the anti-Chomsky reader it looks like it's filled with nothing but straw-mans and other fallacies.
You do however see blanket and economically ignorant attacks on excessive corporate profits, various corporate practices, calls for windfall profit taxes, etc. As a free market advocate, who understands how indispensible corporatons are to freedom and prosperity, I wish mainstream news outlets and popular culture were more balanced and less staunchly and blindly anti-corporation.
You don't necessarily need corporations or other limited liability entities to have a free market.
In fact corporations are pretty detrimental to a free market because their considered "people" under the law (Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad) and are allowed to have political influence without the shareholders being responsible etc.
You're terribly misinformed, my friend. Corporations are former small businesses that became big corporations because they provided a highly valuable service or product to the consumer (Microsoft, Walmart, et al.). The corporations that became big because of govt subsidies aren't legitimate private entities (Fannie Mae); they are the manifistation of socialist policies. Most corporations don't seek political favors, and began defensive lobbying only after the statists came after them.
I know how the free market works buddy, and I don't hold some socialist agenda,
but what's uneeded is the limited liability law and corporations having political influence as a constitutional right.
To put it simply, when a corporation does something bad, the government can't punish the people behind the decision, but they can punish the "corporation" for it (ie Walmart has to give a million dollars).
You can look up Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad if your interested.
Um, you are aware that if a corporate executive breaks the law, he is generally indicted and prosecuted, right? You know about Exxon, Tyco, World Com, etc. right?
You do realize if HE (emphasis on he) breaks the law he is indited.
If a company does something like break regulations and pollute in public water or something the company needs to pay the million dollar fine not the people who decided to do it.
There's a difference between an exec cheating on taxes and a company breaking anti-trust laws.
Once again, you're deeply confused. If a company unknowningly violates some vague or contradictory regulation (as most regulations are) it pays a massive fine. If an executive knowingly breaks the law, e.g. Enron (I said Exxon before; I mispoke) CEO cooking the books, HE goes to jail. Executives don't usually "decide" to pollute the water or intentionally violate a regulation; when they do, they are held accountable.
You might want to look into limited liability law because that's not true. You can't legally sue the boss of some company for something the "company" did, even if it was his decision to do it.
In the case of Enron, Lay and Skilling personally commited fraud insider trading, and laundering etc. which is why they went to prison.
Why would you want to sue the CEO directly? The company's treasury has a lot more resources than the individual executive, and the greedy trial lawyers have a better chance of settling with a company than if they ambulance chased a single person. On the other hand, if an executive knowingly broke a federal statute (not violated some vague regulations) HE is held accountable by fedearl prosecutors.
If the CEO makes bad decisions, the company DOES lose money. Do you think companies profit from bad PR and having to pay out millions of dollars in frivolous lawsuits? Boards hold their CEO's accountable for bad decisions. Most CEO's ar extremely talented, often brilliant, hard working men and women with families, not the inhuman villains the socialists make them out to be. Moreover, no one would dare start a business, if they knew they would be personally liable for every workplace accident.
If human beings were perfectly rational machines weighing risk, profit, and other factors even just reasonably well, the "gaming" (read: gambling) industry would not be worth billions today. CEOs make bad decisions, despite the risk of having to answer for them, because they minimize the consequences of bad behavior in their minds in favor of an addict's iron focus on profit potential. This fits the institutional model as well -- the board wants to hear about profits, not whining about bad PR.
This is mindless Chomskite drivel. Bad PR has a direct effect on profits, which is why corporations invest milllions of dollars in PR. Corporations make a profit by creating VALUE for you, the consumer. You like your YouTube, don't you? How about your iphone, ipod, and PC?
I am not a "Chomsky-ite", firstly. Second I am aware of the salient fact that most corporations try to provide things people "want" in order to make money. What's your point? MY point was that corporations need to create "value" for shareholders, and sometimes this objective blinds them to making bad decisions -- ever heard of Enron? It is also true that the interests of many stakeholders don't factor much compared to shareholders, except in so far as "bad PR" may go, which is very debatable.
Enron executives committed massive fraud and went to prison. Enron is an anomaly. 99.99% of businesses don't commit fraud; they create value for shareholders by creating value for the consumer.
Well, that's just flatly false. If you ignore the banking industry, which nearly destroyed our economy (with acts that the FBI's white collar department describes as mostly fraudulent), the top defense contractors have defrauded the government hundreds of times for tens of billions of dollars over the last decade.
But I'm sure you have a source for that 99.9% number...
Re: ThrasybulusBrig's comment "mindless Chomskite drivel." I assume he meant "Chomskyite?" This from the same you-tuber who thought Dershowitz "won" the debate with Chomsky. And that Dershowitz is a "scholar." LOL!!
You're implying that these things can only exist in the system we have now, and every other system would eliminate them. That's completely untrue. And of course corporations invest millions in PR, they have to make themselves look good especially while committing horribly immoral acts. Instead of talking trash, like "Chomskite divel", how about you present an argument. Those mindless put downs don't belong in intelligent discussion.
Well, it's rather difficult to hold an intelligent discussion with someone who is fundamentally unintelligent. In the absense of entrepreneurs, innovators, and investors who would create the goods and services that even the psychotic Chomskyites treasure? Please, I would love for you to tell me the marvelous inventions and innovations that have come from Cuba, North Korea or the former Soviet Union.
Once again, you're arguing with me while sticking to the pretense that innovators, and inventors cannot exist unless there is capitalism. Psychotic? Chomsky's intellectual achievements are astounding in the field of linguistics, so please stop your ignorant put downs. Umm.. who was the first to put a man into space? Soviet Russia maybe? That's just one example, and either way the Soviet regime was horrible, and I don't support it at all, and neither does Chomsky. Get your facts straight.
The Soviet Union did put a man into space, yet the SU was unable to manufacture the microwave oven. This is because a government monopoly, while perfectly capable of building superior military capabilities, is utterly incapable of sustaining a broad base of innovation and progress. You might want to read Ludwig Von Mises, Ayn Rand, F.A. Hayek, or Milton Friedman among countless other, to get an idea of why capitalism is the only economic system that spawns unlimited human progress.
@ThrasybulusBrig there is no such thing as unlimited human progress. and capitalism definitely does not encourage that, unless you're talking about just making a shitload of stuff.
@ThrasybulusBrig USSR- spirograph, ice climbing cam, 3-color tv pigment system,naval nuclear reactors, AK-47, arc welding, chanel no 5, first tracked vehicle, first rocket powered fighter plane, lollipop making machine, particle collider, first space station, sugar synthesis, holograms, first deep column metro station,first monorail, first tandem rotor helicoptor, black plague vaccination, diode laser, graphene, vodka, first nonsteril hybrid created from crossbreeding, underwater welding...
Your ridiculous comment also seems to imply that corporations are abstract entities, somehow removed from human nature entirely. Corporations are originated, organized and run by talented, hard working, innovative and in many cases brilliant men who create millions of jobs for obese trolls like you, as well as the goods and services that you use to disparage them (e.g. software, email, etc.).
Clearly you don't understand that its your comment which is completely ridiculous. The legal obligation of a corporation is to create and maximize profit. To act otherwise would be illegal. So no there is no moral factor behind a corporation, and it has nothing to do with the people who run the company because they are legally obligated to make money, not to have morals, and they'll be the first to tell you that. And all of those things once again could have been achieved without corporations.
Interesting, because Amazon was losing money for years. tens of thousands of businesses lose money every year. Some go under, other survice. Are these businesses "breaking the law?" Your ignorance is stunning...You keep repeating the platitude that "these things" are possible in the absense of capitalism. Please, give me a concrete example of a socialist country that has spawned the kinds of goods and services that have been the hallmarks of capitalism.
Your ignorance is stunning. A true socialist democratic state has not yet been given a chance to be implemented or flourish. I've read Freedman, his economic ideas when implemented have caused utter starvation and terror abroad. That's a known fact. If there's any platitude being consistently mentioned here is your ignorantly narrow-minded idea that the only way to do things is the current way. And once again there read up on some facts. A corporation is legally bound to maximize profits.
What would this magical "socialist democratic" paradise look like. Please describe its central features. Really, you've read Friedman? Based on yur absurd drivel, I find it hard to believe. Wherever the power of capitalism has been unleashed, freedom and prosperity have followed. People starved in the SU and the former Eastern Bloc, and people starve and die en masse in NK and Cuba. Look at the phenomenal increase in prosperity over the last twenty years in eastern Europe, to cite just 1 ex.
A corporation is "legally bound" to maximize profits? Again, this is nonsensical drivel, but the essential point is that entrepreneurs and businesses maximize profits by creating tremendous wealth for society. Where would an obese troll like you be without your gmail, DVD player or blender?
And moron this "nonsensical drivel" is the truth. Anyone in their right mind knows a corporation is legally bound to maximize profits, and you're going to attempt to argue against me without knowing this basic fact? Good luck.
Sometimes things go wrong and that has nothing to do with ethics. Then their share value drops, and shareholders get pissed. You're trying to give me a lecture without knowing basic economics.
And who says that SU wasn't able to create a microwave oven? Not to mention that the microwave oven is another example of corporations not caring about public health, because food cooked in a microwave oven has been proven unhealthy many times in many ways.
I lived in the SU until I was 9 and my family suffered under the socialist worker's paradise for decades. The SU could not manufacture basic goods that capitalist countries take for granted. Anyone who has read a basic history book would know this. Compare the destitute and despotism in East Germany (enslaved by the SU) to the prosperity and freedom of West Germany (in the sphere of influence of the United States) during the Cold War. So you think microwaves are evil? I'm not surprised. LOL.
Microwaves are evil. Who said anything about evil. So i see now, your reasoning behind everything is so simple its all about good vs evil. That's not how the world works. Do you even know how a microwave works? Maybe you should learn some science. Yes, SU couldn't manufacture them, but for completely different reasons than what you're suggesting. Obviously you're the one who hasn't read enough on the topic. Arguing with you is a joke you sound like a high school kid.
@ThrasybulusBrig Did you consider the fact that the SU had nothing to with anything socialism actually stands for, and that maybe the term was used to exploit its support in the working class
@ThrasybulusBrig socialism is just a word for government mandated social responsibility. it's the counter-force to darwinist economics, which are dangerous. all your bullshit in this discussion is not talking about what socialism actually is. all you're doing is talking about how kick-ass capitalism is. aren't you just jerking off? capitalism doesnt need you to hold its balls
Also you know nothing about my physique.All you do is make baseless assumptions, about me and about every argument you have presented. Intelligent people don't need to use insults to get their point across.
@SIavicgrils everybody tries real hard to talk like grown-ups under a chomsky video. it's pathetic. i've never seen the phrase "your ignorance is..." so many times in my life. we all think we are smart and important.
I dunno how Chomsky does it.
The stupidity of right-wingers knows no limits, it's annoying as fuck. To be this calm whilst debating against them would require a steady supply of tamazepam.
SyndicalistTimes 6 days ago
Perle is beyond pathetic. A lap dog for the imperial zionist plunderers and barbarians.
where does one see American control? what a scoundrel.
390bullitt1968 1 month ago
If the US is such a powerful "Evil Empire", why would they go through all this political cloak and dagger? Why not just conquer all these countries and directly control the people and resources? Isn't that what an Evil Empire would do? And if it required all the cloak and dagger secrecy, why allow a Chomsky to publicly spill the beans? Wouldn't an Evil Emperor have snuffed him out long ago? Darned common sense just keeps haunting me.
xlucim 1 month ago
@xlucim
Because the US has a population of around 300,000,000 people, and tries to maintain a bullshit moral highground at all times. They have to hide their crimes or they will have no support.
SyndicalistTimes 6 days ago
So Reagan is responsible for crimes "mereting comparison to Pol Pot,". Is that Chomsky's way of saying that Reagan really isn't that bad, just misunderstood.
RadioFreeWisconsin 10 months ago
How much money does the NYT make from adverts when nobody buys their paper?
JessAtlas 1 year ago 3
Thank God we have the internet-the last place where free speech still lives.
ZakBrownrigg123 1 year ago
@ZakBrownrigg123 and that too shall pass...
mcshobe2008 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ZakBrownrigg123
@ZakBrownrigg123
"Thank God we have the internet-the last place where free speech still lives. " thoughts like that diservice and kill free-speech.
Ryukikon 7 months ago
yeah, American policy post-WW2 was to rebuild Europe and Japan. . . to prep them for the Western corporate takeover. The Marshall Plan was a product of the Grand Area ideal, both thought up in the CFR.
Perle, like every neocon, conveniently leaves that out. :rolleyes:
It's not Chomsky's idea that such policy was intended to aid American 'control', it's what the documents themselves say!
kappy0405 1 year ago
Noam Chomsky for President!
Evangelander 1 year ago
@Evangelander that would mean the end of civilization as we know it. He would have a red carpet for the enemies of America to walk on. Heheheheh
44warjunkie 1 year ago
@44warjunkie ?? haha... you sound like george bush... why don't you watch the debate and learn something? facts are more important than flags...
mcshobe2008 1 year ago
@Evangelander
Wouldnt change a thing. He has even admitted that if he was president the constraints on him would limit him from being able to do anything.
ZakBrownrigg123 1 year ago
@Evangelander how about no president?
mcshobe2008 1 year ago
@mcshobe2008 : What I'd like to see is a president elected by the people instead of the electoral college. The people do not elect the president or many others the hold high-ranking offices. That is one of the reasons that they are ineffective (in regard to serving the people. The all serve the people that get them elected into office (the members of electoral college), many of whom have conflicting interests.
Evangelander 1 year ago
Presidents have no relevance to anything in the long run because they're dispensed to the public by the elite sectors of finance and industry. The "Executive" Branch is named that for a reason. A close knit network of major- Corporations and investment firms run the economy, staff all the major Executive branches of govt (including president), they own the major media, and they own the country. The two 'parties' are two factions of a one-party State; a Business State. Democracy? Not at all.
Bodhidharma1986 1 year ago 10
@Bodhidharma1986 : You are 100% correct. as my 30 years of research would bear out.
Evangelander 1 year ago 2
"The massive disarmament of the US military post World War II"-9:00
Ok, so the Korean War, the massive stockpiling and testing of nuclear weapons, the supporting of European regimes such as that of Salazar in Portugal, Papandreau in Greece, Batista in Cuba etc and not the mention the placing of US military bases in Europe and around the world (West Germany, South Korea, France, etc), all which took place in the first ten years after 1945, is Richard Perle's idea of "US post war disarmament"?
BloggerMusicMan 1 year ago
Fascists are yummy in my tummy ;-)
FaaarLeft 1 year ago
Can Perle really say that our propaganda does, and did, not mirror soviet propaganda? The soviet propaganda machine is indeed monopolized by federals, but ours is monopolized by conservative, private power. Both suck, and neither speak for the people.
sfmike20 1 year ago
@sfmike20 Unfortunately propaganda does speak for many highly ignorant members of society.
dannyvets25 1 year ago
@dannyvets25, you are correct here. I wrote rather quickly, and did not word my comment correctly (500 character limit is a bitch). I meant to say it does not speak in the interest of the people. Judging by the fact that FAUX news is the highest rated network, your point goes without saying.
sfmike20 1 year ago
This is hilarious. Chomsky quotes other sources while Perle resorts to evasive techniques designed to change the subject. Perle's opening statement sounds like my 6th Grade history book.
apostolostv 1 year ago 2
Perle's entire gambit is to evoke patriotic sympathy and stir the emotional response of a child, which is so contrary to his typical hawkish absolutism. He's so disingenuous it makes me nauseous.
brandnutopian 1 year ago
chomsky is a rapist; I've never seen anyone rape anyone that badly in a debate.
Hoomanmohammadi76 2 years ago
@Hoomanmohammadi76 This is absolutely correct. He squashed Perle here into the gound. What I find hilarious is that Perle, who so adamantly backed the Iraq War, is now regretful and feels a sense of guilt. One can understand his initial attitude as it is rather consistent with his absurd views here... if only he'd listened to Chomsky all those years ago he would never be experiencing this cognitive dissonance.
dannyvets25 1 year ago
@dannyvets25 cognitive dissonance is a bitch, worse than a hangover
sleeperkickers 1 year ago
Perle's arguments are incredibly weak, even i could rebuttal them
nameherejony 2 years ago
Rebut them.
D0g63rt 2 years ago
You can't put up a good argument against the truth.
oli90 2 years ago
Perle is a full blown fascist.
smujismuj 2 years ago 23
@smujismuj He's not a fascist. He doesn't read Mein Kampf at night. That dead IOC president Juan was a pure fascist.
Perle is a fascist-apologist.
MikhailSilverwood 1 year ago
@smujismuj Yes, I'm pretty sure he is the dictator of a little known country somewhere. Oh yeah, Chomsky is a full blown Maoist.
jmchristian63 1 year ago
@jmchristian63 lol not even close.
Kurios91 1 year ago
@jmchristian63 Quite the opposite actually. He is against any form of totalitarianism, including Marxist totalitarianism.
fidomusic 1 year ago
out of curiosity, why does the sound quality (particularly the presence of ambient noise) shift abruptly at certain points in the video? is this culled from several different recordings, and if so, is it complete, or are there missing sections?
jlToolfan 2 years ago
Did Perle just say the US dismantled the military after WWII?
I'm pretty positive that in 1988 the military was orders of magnitude of what it was in the 40s with regards to spending and technology.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
thats not true at all. mil spending was less than half it was in the 40s.
livluv44 2 years ago
my mind is actually blown with regards to this information.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
@livluv44 thats not true. when they talk about cuts in military spending, they mean a cut in the annual predetermined exponential budget increase. the military's budget has gone up every year since 1776. just sometimes, the proposed budget increase gets shot down.
sleeperkickers 1 year ago
"The only alternative to so-called corporate media is state run media, modeled after Norh Korea or Nazi Germany or Cuba."
Really, what do you call Democracy Now! ?
"All objective studies on the media show that there is a clear left-wing slant. "
Would you be so kind as to cite these "objective studies" you refer to?
johnnycbar 2 years ago
trust me ur not gonna get anything out of him...he's an idiot. i've been through it.
Itsrothytime 2 years ago
Pearle's first point highlighting the fundamental difference between Soviet and American media is the most eloquent and succinct certification of Chomsky's intellectual dishonesty. There is absolutly no viable comeback to this check mate.
ThrasybulusBrig 2 years ago
I disagree.
Chomsky (I haven't listened ot the whole debate yet) could easily point to the right wing media bias or corporate propaganda etc
While Soviet media was indeed state controlled, American mainstream media is often under corporate control.
It ignores inconvenient facts whereas the BBC acknowledges them such as the illegal strikes on Pakistan during Obama's first week in power.
foxoftrot 2 years ago
Yes, yes, Chomsky could point to the secret cabal of Jews and Masons who control all of the world's institutions, including the media. He actually does so in this debate. However, Hitler had already beaten him to it, and thus the psychotic Chomsky is not even being original. The only alternative to so-called corporate media is state run media, modeled after Norh Korea or Nazi Germany or Cuba. Moreover, all objective studies on the media show that there is a clear left-wing slant.
ThrasybulusBrig 2 years ago
Or you can create something like the BBC and make it illegal to have government influence etc.
To say the only alternative to corporate media is state-run media is a pretty bad dichotomy.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
And what entity oversees and manages the BBC? Who determines BBC content? Does BBC spontaneously generte content or does it employ editors, publishers, producers, reporters etc?
ThrasybulusBrig 2 years ago
the irony of this is the royal charter was given to the BBC to "be free from both political and commercial influence and answer only to its viewers and listeners" and as I understand, it still applies today.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
Ok.....So who manages and funds the BBC? Who employs its employees?
ThrasybulusBrig 2 years ago
The BBC does. It stands for British Broadcasting Corporation and it is the company and the channel. It's payed for with a direct fee from the people who get it (kinda like HBO) and it isn't allowed to have commercials (except outside in the UK).
Basically it answers only to the people who pay for it and is organized by it's own corporation.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
So the BBC derives it revenue from consumers? Kind of like a corporation? If consumers stop subscribing to BBC, it will go bankrupt? The BBC employs and manages workers and has a profit motive? How then is NOT a corporation?
ThrasybulusBrig 2 years ago
It's established and has a commitment to it's charter making it "be free from both political and commercial influence and answer only to its viewers and listeners" by law.
That's the difference.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
Haha, so the BBC makes money by providing a valuable service to consumers. How is that any different from the NYT or ANY other corporation for that matter? Companies make money by satisfying the consumer. If the BBC does not receive any government subsidies, it is an evil corporation.
ThrasybulusBrig 2 years ago
Corporations receive billions in subsidies bro. Hell even the CATO institute put out a report on corporate welfare that was in tens of billions.
But that's besides the point, the point is the BBC is different because it is required by law to have an objective analysis. Note this is the THIRD time I explained this to you.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
Required by law to have an objective analysis? What does that mean? Who decides what is objective? Does the BBC present both sides of the argument or just one side? Your explanation is absurd.
Yes, corporate subsidies are wrong and iare modeled after fascist/socialist policies. Glad we can agree on that point.
ThrasybulusBrig 2 years ago
Oh my god, are you really making the claim that it's impossible to abide by government charter and be a self governing corporation at the same time?
the BBC isn't state-run and it's not some evil corporation it just abides by its charter.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
I suppose in some abstract way it is possible to abide by a charter that mandades objectivity, although it would be extremely difficult since objective reporting is often, well, subjective. However, the BBC is patently left-leaning and does not present both sides of the argument. In either case, if we accept that what you say is true--that is, the BBC's bottom line depends on providing a valuable service to the consumer, and not on govt subsidies, then BBC is, by definition, a corporation.
ThrasybulusBrig 2 years ago
I'm not arguing that it's not a corporation only that it's possible to have an alternative to the "traditional" corporate news structure through something like a charter.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
@AndroidPolitician the government sets its fees. there is a clear underlying interest. they are not immune
sleeperkickers 1 year ago
wait I think I somewhat misread this. The charter says the BBC can't have commercial or political influence (i.e. no commercials or political donations) but overall it has the net effect of making the BBC objective.
There's no orwellian objectivity police in the government making it fair or w/e.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
Corporations don't contribute to the NYT, and the NYT does not make political contributions, although the NYT, as well as most mainstream American newspapers, do endorse political candidates...ALWAYS Democrats.
ThrasybulusBrig 2 years ago
Yeah because so many Democrats are totally liberal.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
@AndroidPolitician what a load of bullshit. what a dream law... required to have objective analysis. what the fuck ever
sleeperkickers 1 year ago
@sleeperkickers
No it's very simple, you make a law that creates a TV channel and says that channel can't be influenced politically or through advertisers.
Magic....
AndroidPolitician 1 year ago
@AndroidPolitician the BBC doesn't get government funding? Democracynow rejects public broadcasting grants, i'm pretty sure BBC doesnt
sleeperkickers 1 year ago
@sleeperkickers
The BBC gets payed directly from fees not from any grant or tax.
AndroidPolitician 1 year ago
"all objective studies on the media show that there is a clear left-wing slant."
Such as
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
Are you kidding? This is a basic fact. I am not your research assistant. Google "liberal bias in media" and go nuts. The Pew Research Foundation and the Columbia School of Journlism have both produced such studies.
ThrasybulusBrig 2 years ago
Wow all those "studies" just proved that the journalists were liberal which doesn't prove anything.
This is like putting blame on factory workers for the effectiveness of the product they make.
The point is the majority of the media is conservative and for very basic market based reasons. If it were "liberal" I'm sure their would be a lot more journalists on MSNBC criticizing GE for giving people cancer or Microsoft for having a monopoly.
Hell Stephen Colbert can't even mock Viacom.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
Um, no. The studies prove that there are far more negative stories about Republicans than Democrats and that Democrats and liberal policies are portrayed more favorably than Republicans.
So you think that MSNBC and Steve Colbert are NOT left wing, just because they don't criticize the corporations they work for, but criticize all other corporations and the free market in general? Doesn't make much sense.
ThrasybulusBrig 2 years ago
No I'm saying that the majority of media isn't leftwing because it doesn't criticize corporations period (hence killing the point of what "leftwing" means).
Actually your somewhat right MSNBC is literally one of the only (if not the only) channel to criticize any kind of corporations (blackwater etc.) and various policies (Patriot Act, FISA).
On the subject of the study I don't really know what "liberal" policies are portrayed unfavorably but most GOP policies around the time of the....
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
Sorry I mean *favorably*. But most GOP policies around that time (Patriot Act, Iraq War etc.) were portrayed negatively for a reason, because they were negative.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
Wow...Have you ever watched CNN or read the NY Times? These and all other left-wing outlets criticize oil companies, Wall Mart, Pharma, Insurance companies INCESSANTLY. I think I just checkmated you....Most GOP policies--whether Social Security reform, welfare reform, lower taxes, etc. are portrayed negatively, while left-wing policies--e.g. welfare state initiatives--are portrayed positively. Pretty simple.
ThrasybulusBrig 2 years ago
CNN very rarely does that, and both CNN and New York Times basiclly acted like cheerleaders for the Iraq war.
Most of those "reforms" opting out of social security, and lower taxes (yeah try mostly for the rich) do generally have a negative impact though.
I honestly don't want to go through with why unless you really want to hear my analysis/opinion on why those all have a negative effect.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
Having watched CNN and having read NYT on a daily basis in the months leading up to the Iraq War, I can vouch with certainty that they were NOT cheerleaders for the war--that is a falllacious left-wing talking point. Shortly after the war began, they were at the forefront of the war's opposition, highlighting only the bad news, and underplaying all positive developments
ThrasybulusBrig 2 years ago
Although I don't really have sources I remember a lot of editorials promoting the war (along some article basiclly saying the war was necessarily).
I'm not saying they positive when the war happened but I remember them being supportive or sympathetic to the invation in the time of the build up to the war.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
Trust me, the vast majority of editorials were highly skeptical of the war. But even if half were supportive, then at the very least NYT was fair and balanced--which it is not. It is left-leaning. Furthermore, your central argument is made moot by the fact that you concede that NYT was strongly critical of the war after the war began.
ThrasybulusBrig 2 years ago
Not necessarily. To be supportive of build up then be critical of the implementation was basically what Fox News did and their almost beyond right wing.
Plus it's not just the Iraq War, it's other issues like NAFTA, US intervention in Nicaragua etc. that makes NYT either somewhat right-leaning or frankly just not allowed to talk about those things.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
I have to say that your comments about Fox News, Nicaragua and NYT indicate that you are terribly misinformed, likely as a result of being brainwashed by Chomsky's insane propaganda. I have given you several examples of the US mainstream media opposing conservative policies--or more precisely, policies advocated by a conservative President--and you are still regurgitating the same nonsense.
ThrasybulusBrig 2 years ago
The policies you listed aren't unfavorable to corporations therefore no corporate "censorship" is needed.
I actually already explained this.
Unless you can provide examples where the media was super critical of policies that benefit corporations (not just "conservative" policies), your argument is null.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
Lets see, were you around when gas prices were $4/gallon and every media outlet was incessantly castigating oil companies? Or how about the perpetual assault on Walmart by every editorial board and left-wing anchor/pundit in the country over the last decade. Should I go on?
ThrasybulusBrig 2 years ago
When you say these free market reforms have a "negative" impact, do you mean that they affect the evil corporations negatively? Or do they negatively affect the masses? If they negatively affect the masses, then you have just contradicted your main thesis, which is that American media outlets are shills for corporations. Second check mates.
ThrasybulusBrig 2 years ago
It's possible to affect the masses negatively and not benefit corporations the two aren't mutually inclusive.
i.e. social security reform/being allowed to opt out of social security doesn't really effect corporations and neither does a flat tax (when there's huge amounts of capital gains taxes to pay)
You'd have to tell what specifically what issues the "liberal media" was critical of but most of what you proposed don't have shit to do with corporations.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
My point was that the mainstream media, through beat reporting, anchoring, and editorilizing, negatively portrayed free market policies, such as social security reform, lower taxes, etc, and positively portrayed left-wing policies. What don't you get about that?
ThrasybulusBrig 2 years ago
I'm not saying it didn't but that doesn't make the media "liberal" so much as it makes it point out the obvious, and it doesn't somehow disprove the propaganda model.
with regards to the unfavorably shown issues. I honestly need a whole other comment just to point out what's wrong with those things.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
Ok, now you're just talking in circles. You asked me to give you examples of the media bashing corporations, and I did. Face it, Chomsky's "propaganda model" is utterly moronic. In fact, the "anti-Chomsky Reader" takes it apart point by point. I highly recommend you read it.
ThrasybulusBrig 2 years ago
Oh my god this is like the fifth time I have to tell you. None of those policies you mentioned benefit corporations. In fact let me repeat:
NONE
OF
THOSE
POLICIES
BENEFIT
CORPORATIONS.
And the media (with the exception of MSNBC) hasn't bashed corporations.
In fact I can give you a shit ton of evidence otherwise.
Find me an example of the media bashing something that benefits corporations (eliminating capital gains tax or something) and you'll have an argument.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
Haha, ok. Mainstream media outlets were against tax cuts on dividends, against capital gains tax cuts, and AGAINST corporate tax cuts. Should I say it or do you know it's coming? Check mate.
ThrasybulusBrig 2 years ago
I've literally never seen a mainstream media report critical of things that benefit corporations (capital gains tax cuts, etc.) and I've seen things critical of tax cuts/flat tax proposals etc.
So AGAIN unless you can show examples critical of the things you said, your point is moot.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
You have never seen a mainstream media report critical of "greedy" corporations (oil companies, Wal mart, pharma, insurance, etc.)? You have never seen pundits bloviate about how corporate taxes should stay the same or increase? Come on, you are not THAT detached from reality are you?
ThrasybulusBrig 2 years ago
I've never seen an unwarranted critical report (companies do something bad and get into the news etc.) and literally the only pundits who criticize anything about corporations is on MSNBC (yeah as long it's not GE),
especially when you have people like Neil Cavuto run stories on why downsizing is good and Glenn Beck talk about why unions are basically satan.
This isn't even taking into account the evidence that proves chomskies point.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
Ok this discussion is going nowhere. I do appreciate the fact that we could keep it civil. You have never seen a report critical of corporations? Not to mention that the entire popular culture is geared towards vilifying corportions. You must not watch CNN or read the NYT or watch Hollywood movies. Of course, you will not see the kind of rabbid Marxist/Chomskyire anti-business zeal on most media outlets, save MSNBC. But this is because the communist market is quite small.
ThrasybulusBrig 2 years ago
Look the discussion will go somewhere when you provide a large amount of evidence showing that the mainstream media often portrays corporations negatively often and possibly for unwarranted reasons.
All you've provided are examples of it being negative to "conservative" policies that don't have anything to do with corporation but that's not even the main point.
The main point is whatever "cultural" tendencies exist towards corporations it doesn't show that the media is against them.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
Again, I am not your research assistant. I merely stated a basic, incontrovertible fact. Go ahead, do some research. Googe "CNN oil companies" or "CNN Wall Mart". You have been blinded by psychotic Chomskyite propaganda, if you think that the mainstream media does not routinely and unfairly vilify corporations.
ThrasybulusBrig 2 years ago
You do realize CNN Newsroom's advertisers are Exxon Mobil and Walmart right?
Or does the article "Exxon Mobil to pay $600,000 for deaths of 85 protected birds" somehow denote CNN hating Exxon?
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
Haha! This further strengthens my point. Even though Exxon and Walmart advertise on CNN, CNN still editorializes AGAINST corporate practices. When oil was $4/gallon, every other story on CNN had an anti-oil company theme. How many checkmates is that?
ThrasybulusBrig 2 years ago
that's zero "checkmates" and again you use a fallacious argument that proves my point.
That article (not a part of any CNN show just a separate article) only lists facts and doesn't contain some sort of agenda. The fact that CNN newsroom hasn't even mentioned the story once, proves my point.
Your argument literally boils down to "the media is against corporations because they briefly mention every time they do something bad or comment on how paying $3 per gallon sucks"
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
You are hopeless. Every time I give you an example, you say "yeah, yeah, but they deserved it!". Don't you think if the media were shills for corporations, they would defend them even if they "deserved" condemnation? You're in an almost untenable position of having to defend a thesis---i.e., the media is pro-corporation--in spite of incontrovertible evidence, which I carefully laid out for you, proving the opposite. I don't envy you.
ThrasybulusBrig 2 years ago
they are shills for their own corporations and advertisers but what you don't seem to understand is the limits it entails.
For instance SNL pulling "conspiracy theory rock" and Fox News censoring a story on BGH is different then an unbiased CNN article talking about a company committing crimes.
This isn't a corporate police state, news will inevitably break but the question is how much it is featured relative to it's importance.
Your only "evidence" is the CNN story I layed out.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
And I presume BBC is a shill for BBC? Does BBC routinely run stories criticizing its operations? Your argument is incredibly weak. Mainstream medi outlets ROUTINELY run stories that treat corporations unfavorably and in my opinion, unfairly. What don't you get about that???
ThrasybulusBrig 2 years ago
Except what you said isn't true. The media only runs stories about corporations screwing up if they aren't advertisers/are independent from the media (ie the CNN article on Exxon). Running stories about corporations only when they screw up isn't "unfavorable" it's just the news cycle and it's greatly under reported anyway.
Like I said before the BBC is an exception the "traditional" corporate structure because it abides by a charter forbidding it to do things like lobby and run ads etc.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
the BBC gets its revenue from listeners (and I'm sure massive government subsidies.) Guess where the NYT gets its revenues? You got it, its readers. You keep repeating the same untrue drivel, even in spite of the obvious fact tht the mainstream media portrays corporations unfavorably even when they have done NOTHING wrong. Anyway, we're arguing in circles. I'm done. Hopefully, one day you will mature enough to not become brainwashed by idiotic Chomskyite propaganda.
ThrasybulusBrig 2 years ago
Look I guess this is it, I'm going to stop arguing because you simply don't get it.
What you define as unwarranted criticism is basically any criticism (or basic news of corps. doing something bad) at all.
Your "evidence" of unwarranted criticism is negative reporting to conservative policies that don't have anything to do with corporations or even showing news of companies doing something wrong. (cont.)
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
Like I said before we don't live in some corporate police state but if news casts have to run a story about their parent company doing something wrong chances are thier going to self-censor as much as possible and that's been shown in tons of examples.
As far as the BBC goes for like SIXTH TIME it's forbidden by law to doing something biased like endorse a candidate or have ads, and no it's big enough to not get subsidies.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
"Guess where the NYT gets its revenues? You got it, its readers."
The New York Times gets its revenues from advertisers, unless you honestly believe they're able to run their business on people paying a few bucks for their paper. There's a reason why 60% of the Times is advertisements. The NYT is in the business of selling readers to advertisers. The more readers, the more money it can charge for ads.
Vaizard 2 years ago 14
And your point is what exactly? The NY Times generates ad revenue based on the number of readers who subscribe to its publication...That's pretty consistent with economic liberty--an anathema to the Chomskyite lunatics.
ThrasybulusBrig 2 years ago
@Vaizard
You're so right. Every front page of the NYT has an Exxon-Mobile ad. Total conflict of interest. And this is supposed to be a "liberal" paper? WTF!!
FaaarLeft 1 year ago
@ThrasybulusBrig still going with that chess analogy huh, douchebag
sleeperkickers 1 year ago
Oh cool the "anti-Chomsky Reader" was edited by David Horowitz a guy who literally made stuff up to prove his point of liberal bias in the University.
Note I'm not discrediting the book or even his overlying theory, just that he lied to prove a point.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
What did Horowitz lie about?
ThrasybulusBrig 2 years ago
He lied about some biology professor showing Fahrenheit 9/11 to his students to influence opinion for the 2004 election and lied about some Kid getting a failing grade for some political question.
That and judging by the chapter descriptions of the anti-Chomsky reader it looks like it's filled with nothing but straw-mans and other fallacies.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
The anti-Chomsky reader is filled with incontrovertible evidence debunking Chomsky's psychotic world view. I highly recommend it!
ThrasybulusBrig 2 years ago
yes his worldview is clearly just psychotic.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
You do however see blanket and economically ignorant attacks on excessive corporate profits, various corporate practices, calls for windfall profit taxes, etc. As a free market advocate, who understands how indispensible corporatons are to freedom and prosperity, I wish mainstream news outlets and popular culture were more balanced and less staunchly and blindly anti-corporation.
ThrasybulusBrig 2 years ago
You don't necessarily need corporations or other limited liability entities to have a free market.
In fact corporations are pretty detrimental to a free market because their considered "people" under the law (Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad) and are allowed to have political influence without the shareholders being responsible etc.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
You're terribly misinformed, my friend. Corporations are former small businesses that became big corporations because they provided a highly valuable service or product to the consumer (Microsoft, Walmart, et al.). The corporations that became big because of govt subsidies aren't legitimate private entities (Fannie Mae); they are the manifistation of socialist policies. Most corporations don't seek political favors, and began defensive lobbying only after the statists came after them.
ThrasybulusBrig 2 years ago
I know how the free market works buddy, and I don't hold some socialist agenda,
but what's uneeded is the limited liability law and corporations having political influence as a constitutional right.
To put it simply, when a corporation does something bad, the government can't punish the people behind the decision, but they can punish the "corporation" for it (ie Walmart has to give a million dollars).
You can look up Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad if your interested.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
Um, you are aware that if a corporate executive breaks the law, he is generally indicted and prosecuted, right? You know about Exxon, Tyco, World Com, etc. right?
ThrasybulusBrig 2 years ago
You do realize if HE (emphasis on he) breaks the law he is indited.
If a company does something like break regulations and pollute in public water or something the company needs to pay the million dollar fine not the people who decided to do it.
There's a difference between an exec cheating on taxes and a company breaking anti-trust laws.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
Once again, you're deeply confused. If a company unknowningly violates some vague or contradictory regulation (as most regulations are) it pays a massive fine. If an executive knowingly breaks the law, e.g. Enron (I said Exxon before; I mispoke) CEO cooking the books, HE goes to jail. Executives don't usually "decide" to pollute the water or intentionally violate a regulation; when they do, they are held accountable.
ThrasybulusBrig 2 years ago
You might want to look into limited liability law because that's not true. You can't legally sue the boss of some company for something the "company" did, even if it was his decision to do it.
In the case of Enron, Lay and Skilling personally commited fraud insider trading, and laundering etc. which is why they went to prison.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
Why would you want to sue the CEO directly? The company's treasury has a lot more resources than the individual executive, and the greedy trial lawyers have a better chance of settling with a company than if they ambulance chased a single person. On the other hand, if an executive knowingly broke a federal statute (not violated some vague regulations) HE is held accountable by fedearl prosecutors.
ThrasybulusBrig 2 years ago
If you sue the CEO/people behind the decision the company would find a new one which will hopefully make better decisions.
If you just sue the company then they can perpetually make bad decisions if they have a good revenue.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
If the CEO makes bad decisions, the company DOES lose money. Do you think companies profit from bad PR and having to pay out millions of dollars in frivolous lawsuits? Boards hold their CEO's accountable for bad decisions. Most CEO's ar extremely talented, often brilliant, hard working men and women with families, not the inhuman villains the socialists make them out to be. Moreover, no one would dare start a business, if they knew they would be personally liable for every workplace accident.
ThrasybulusBrig 2 years ago
Ok so? It's not like CEOs are automatically fired and recycled if the company has to pay a large fine.
Well not every business is a limited liability firm so I'm pretty sure that's not quite true.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
If human beings were perfectly rational machines weighing risk, profit, and other factors even just reasonably well, the "gaming" (read: gambling) industry would not be worth billions today. CEOs make bad decisions, despite the risk of having to answer for them, because they minimize the consequences of bad behavior in their minds in favor of an addict's iron focus on profit potential. This fits the institutional model as well -- the board wants to hear about profits, not whining about bad PR.
ShahidMiller 2 years ago
This is mindless Chomskite drivel. Bad PR has a direct effect on profits, which is why corporations invest milllions of dollars in PR. Corporations make a profit by creating VALUE for you, the consumer. You like your YouTube, don't you? How about your iphone, ipod, and PC?
ThrasybulusBrig 2 years ago
I am not a "Chomsky-ite", firstly. Second I am aware of the salient fact that most corporations try to provide things people "want" in order to make money. What's your point? MY point was that corporations need to create "value" for shareholders, and sometimes this objective blinds them to making bad decisions -- ever heard of Enron? It is also true that the interests of many stakeholders don't factor much compared to shareholders, except in so far as "bad PR" may go, which is very debatable.
ShahidMiller 2 years ago
Enron executives committed massive fraud and went to prison. Enron is an anomaly. 99.99% of businesses don't commit fraud; they create value for shareholders by creating value for the consumer.
ThrasybulusBrig 2 years ago
Well, that's just flatly false. If you ignore the banking industry, which nearly destroyed our economy (with acts that the FBI's white collar department describes as mostly fraudulent), the top defense contractors have defrauded the government hundreds of times for tens of billions of dollars over the last decade.
But I'm sure you have a source for that 99.9% number...
TBlake34 2 years ago 2
@ThrasybulusBrig thats a fake statistic. you have no idea what businesses do
sleeperkickers 1 year ago
Re: ThrasybulusBrig's comment "mindless Chomskite drivel." I assume he meant "Chomskyite?" This from the same you-tuber who thought Dershowitz "won" the debate with Chomsky. And that Dershowitz is a "scholar." LOL!!
SweetDissident 2 years ago
You're implying that these things can only exist in the system we have now, and every other system would eliminate them. That's completely untrue. And of course corporations invest millions in PR, they have to make themselves look good especially while committing horribly immoral acts. Instead of talking trash, like "Chomskite divel", how about you present an argument. Those mindless put downs don't belong in intelligent discussion.
oli90 2 years ago
Well, it's rather difficult to hold an intelligent discussion with someone who is fundamentally unintelligent. In the absense of entrepreneurs, innovators, and investors who would create the goods and services that even the psychotic Chomskyites treasure? Please, I would love for you to tell me the marvelous inventions and innovations that have come from Cuba, North Korea or the former Soviet Union.
ThrasybulusBrig 2 years ago
Once again, you're arguing with me while sticking to the pretense that innovators, and inventors cannot exist unless there is capitalism. Psychotic? Chomsky's intellectual achievements are astounding in the field of linguistics, so please stop your ignorant put downs. Umm.. who was the first to put a man into space? Soviet Russia maybe? That's just one example, and either way the Soviet regime was horrible, and I don't support it at all, and neither does Chomsky. Get your facts straight.
oli90 2 years ago
The Soviet Union did put a man into space, yet the SU was unable to manufacture the microwave oven. This is because a government monopoly, while perfectly capable of building superior military capabilities, is utterly incapable of sustaining a broad base of innovation and progress. You might want to read Ludwig Von Mises, Ayn Rand, F.A. Hayek, or Milton Friedman among countless other, to get an idea of why capitalism is the only economic system that spawns unlimited human progress.
ThrasybulusBrig 2 years ago
@ThrasybulusBrig there is no such thing as unlimited human progress. and capitalism definitely does not encourage that, unless you're talking about just making a shitload of stuff.
sleeperkickers 1 year ago
Seems like you are fundamentally intelligent, or just plain ignorant to well established facts.
oli90 2 years ago
@ThrasybulusBrig USSR- spirograph, ice climbing cam, 3-color tv pigment system,naval nuclear reactors, AK-47, arc welding, chanel no 5, first tracked vehicle, first rocket powered fighter plane, lollipop making machine, particle collider, first space station, sugar synthesis, holograms, first deep column metro station,first monorail, first tandem rotor helicoptor, black plague vaccination, diode laser, graphene, vodka, first nonsteril hybrid created from crossbreeding, underwater welding...
sleeperkickers 1 year ago
Your ridiculous comment also seems to imply that corporations are abstract entities, somehow removed from human nature entirely. Corporations are originated, organized and run by talented, hard working, innovative and in many cases brilliant men who create millions of jobs for obese trolls like you, as well as the goods and services that you use to disparage them (e.g. software, email, etc.).
ThrasybulusBrig 2 years ago
Clearly you don't understand that its your comment which is completely ridiculous. The legal obligation of a corporation is to create and maximize profit. To act otherwise would be illegal. So no there is no moral factor behind a corporation, and it has nothing to do with the people who run the company because they are legally obligated to make money, not to have morals, and they'll be the first to tell you that. And all of those things once again could have been achieved without corporations.
oli90 2 years ago
Interesting, because Amazon was losing money for years. tens of thousands of businesses lose money every year. Some go under, other survice. Are these businesses "breaking the law?" Your ignorance is stunning...You keep repeating the platitude that "these things" are possible in the absense of capitalism. Please, give me a concrete example of a socialist country that has spawned the kinds of goods and services that have been the hallmarks of capitalism.
ThrasybulusBrig 2 years ago
Your ignorance is stunning. A true socialist democratic state has not yet been given a chance to be implemented or flourish. I've read Freedman, his economic ideas when implemented have caused utter starvation and terror abroad. That's a known fact. If there's any platitude being consistently mentioned here is your ignorantly narrow-minded idea that the only way to do things is the current way. And once again there read up on some facts. A corporation is legally bound to maximize profits.
oli90 2 years ago
What would this magical "socialist democratic" paradise look like. Please describe its central features. Really, you've read Friedman? Based on yur absurd drivel, I find it hard to believe. Wherever the power of capitalism has been unleashed, freedom and prosperity have followed. People starved in the SU and the former Eastern Bloc, and people starve and die en masse in NK and Cuba. Look at the phenomenal increase in prosperity over the last twenty years in eastern Europe, to cite just 1 ex.
ThrasybulusBrig 2 years ago
A corporation is "legally bound" to maximize profits? Again, this is nonsensical drivel, but the essential point is that entrepreneurs and businesses maximize profits by creating tremendous wealth for society. Where would an obese troll like you be without your gmail, DVD player or blender?
ThrasybulusBrig 2 years ago
And moron this "nonsensical drivel" is the truth. Anyone in their right mind knows a corporation is legally bound to maximize profits, and you're going to attempt to argue against me without knowing this basic fact? Good luck.
oli90 2 years ago
Sometimes things go wrong and that has nothing to do with ethics. Then their share value drops, and shareholders get pissed. You're trying to give me a lecture without knowing basic economics.
And who says that SU wasn't able to create a microwave oven? Not to mention that the microwave oven is another example of corporations not caring about public health, because food cooked in a microwave oven has been proven unhealthy many times in many ways.
oli90 2 years ago
I lived in the SU until I was 9 and my family suffered under the socialist worker's paradise for decades. The SU could not manufacture basic goods that capitalist countries take for granted. Anyone who has read a basic history book would know this. Compare the destitute and despotism in East Germany (enslaved by the SU) to the prosperity and freedom of West Germany (in the sphere of influence of the United States) during the Cold War. So you think microwaves are evil? I'm not surprised. LOL.
ThrasybulusBrig 2 years ago
Microwaves are evil. Who said anything about evil. So i see now, your reasoning behind everything is so simple its all about good vs evil. That's not how the world works. Do you even know how a microwave works? Maybe you should learn some science. Yes, SU couldn't manufacture them, but for completely different reasons than what you're suggesting. Obviously you're the one who hasn't read enough on the topic. Arguing with you is a joke you sound like a high school kid.
oli90 2 years ago
And unfortunately you still don't realize that real socialism and totalitarian communist states don't go hand in hand. Wake up.
oli90 2 years ago
@ThrasybulusBrig Did you consider the fact that the SU had nothing to with anything socialism actually stands for, and that maybe the term was used to exploit its support in the working class
wolfetho 1 year ago
Yes, I considered this particular cliche, and mocked it as I have mocked any idiotic leftist defense of socialism.
ThrasybulusBrig 1 year ago
@ThrasybulusBrig socialism is just a word for government mandated social responsibility. it's the counter-force to darwinist economics, which are dangerous. all your bullshit in this discussion is not talking about what socialism actually is. all you're doing is talking about how kick-ass capitalism is. aren't you just jerking off? capitalism doesnt need you to hold its balls
sleeperkickers 1 year ago
Your indoctrinated garbage can maybe dissuade someone who has no idea about past issues, but any semi intelligent person can see you're full of it.
oli90 2 years ago
Also you know nothing about my physique.All you do is make baseless assumptions, about me and about every argument you have presented. Intelligent people don't need to use insults to get their point across.
oli90 2 years ago
@ThrasybulusBrig we don't owe them anything. they make more from us than we do of them, they dont need charity
sleeperkickers 1 year ago
@ThrasybulusBrig advertising creates demand
sleeperkickers 1 year ago
@ThrasybulusBrig i'm pretty sure they do decide to pollute the water
sleeperkickers 1 year ago
"Most corporations don't seek political favors, and began defensive lobbying only after the statists came after them. "
Your ignorance is outstanding. You've obviously never even heard of Corporatism.
SIavicgrils 2 years ago
@SIavicgrils everybody tries real hard to talk like grown-ups under a chomsky video. it's pathetic. i've never seen the phrase "your ignorance is..." so many times in my life. we all think we are smart and important.
sleeperkickers 1 year ago
@ThrasybulusBrig all the killings he talks about actually happened.
sleeperkickers 1 year ago
@ThrasybulusBrig you talk like a douchebag
sleeperkickers 1 year ago
@ThrasybulusBrig liberal is too vague of a word for these types of analyses
sleeperkickers 1 year ago
@ThrasybulusBrig there is no such thing as an objective study, and i think that's not true anyway
sleeperkickers 1 year ago