It doesn't seem like he really is criticizing the free market here, rather the aspect behind the current corporatist system, where the producers are bailed out for their mistakes. Somehow, its beyond Chomsky in realizing that this is the reason these same people behave recklessly.
@FletchforFreedom..I am not going to provide you with even more statistics about the widening gap between mega rich and poor. You can find them easily enough anyway. Whatever happened to that 'trickle down' effect anyway? Oh yeah, I think it got blocked up with credit. One of the first books I read as an adolescent was "The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists" by Robert Tressell. I really enjoyed the chapter called "The Great Money Trick". I suggest you read it - if you want to understand what I a
@Fletchforfreedom..why should people have to beg for help from charity? Even though some people need charity to meet their needs, do you realise how degrading that can be for a person? In a socialist planned economy democracy would mean that people would make the decisions about how resources are distributed, Currently the government is making decisions in the interest of the markets not in the interests of people.
@OppressedAnarchist That statement si objectively false. Poverty rates have been much higher in the past. of course, were it not for the socialistic interventions in the economy that caused the meltdown, we wouldn't have that problem either.
@queenofshebalala Who said anything about "begging"?. In a socialist, planned economy (as has been proven both by economics and history), resource allocation is a disaster and the entire population is condemned to greater poverty and far fewer resources are available. This means that not only do more people require charity but there are fewer resources available to provide it.
@FletchforFreedom@FletchforFreedom ..What economy are you talking about? As far as I am aware no country in the world has ever had a democratically planned socialist economy. Currently, almost half the world’s population live on less than $2 a day; one-fifth on less than $1. Despite a global surplus of food, 84 million people are officially classified as malnourished, as they lack the money required to feed themselves. The USA alone has a huge polarisation between wealth and poverty.
@queenofshebalala That there is no perfect “democratically planned socialist economy” may well be true (depending upon where you set the bar for meeting that threshold) in much the same way that there are no orange-painted flying pigs (which are likewise impossible). But we do have examples of pigs and know that they can’t do calculus just as we have examples of socialism and know that planned economies are not viable.
@queenofshebalala Your figures are bogus. Roughly 850 million people (out of 7 billion) live in poverty – that’s a worldwide poverty rate of only 13% - HALVED in the last 40 years and it continues to fall (except, primarily, in countries where governments and socialistic policies have made escaping poverty all the more difficult), all according to official statistics (not biased websites). The “wealth gap” is a red herring based on nothing but envy (where are the wealthiest “poor” on earth).
Wow another typical capitalist response. What about the mentally and physically disabled who cannot work without assistance. What about the elderly who have become to old to work and can no longer be "productive". What about those who become injured in accidents. What about those born into poor or abusive families ?
Maximizing earning potential under a capitalist system doesn't work.
@OppressedAnarchist In the real world (something with which you have no familiarity), free individuals have already proved to be far superior to the state in meeting the needs of the mentally and physically disabled, the elderly and the unemployable. Capitalism has actually done a BETTER job than ANY socialist response along these lines (the notion that people were left in the lurch before public charity is a muyth).
@FletchforFreedom I don't know what world you live in but in Canada countless disabled people get 900 dollars a month from the government and live on the street because nobody helps them. Most disabled are cared for until they are 18 (from the government) and then are left on their own with no help.
You have no clue what happens to the disabled. You have probably never given anyone with a disability a second thought. Fuck you and your "real world" bullshit talk. You pro capitalists are insane.
@OppressedAnarchist You make my point for me. The incentives that work under normal circumstances that not only mitigate against such poverty but make the resources available to help them are crowded out (look up the basic economic concept of crowding out) by the governmental entree into the charity business. It is BECAUSE the state intervenes that there are not vastly more private resources available.
And I've been helping the disabled for decades - I'm not responsible for your ignorance.
@FletchforFreedom How did I make your point ? The only institution giving anything to the disabled is the government ! Getting rid of government and allowing businesses to do whatever they please will somehow magically create incentive for people to start giving more. Why should disabled have to hope someone might give them money ?
Simply giving people money isn't an answer. How about creating a society that is more than just maximizing profit and includes people that are disabled.
@OppressedAnarchist Countless private charities meet the needs of the disabled (and invariably do a better job than the government), so your premise is entirely false. We already live in the most generous society in history - eliminating government charity would free up the resources (and eliminate the disincentives) to provide considerably more.
Since society is not just about maximizing profit even under capitalism, and pretending that socialism creates a better society is absurd...
@FletchforFreedom Charity doesn't get to the root of the problems, it simply masks them. A society that sweeps the disabled under the rug and simply throws money at them is a ridiculous society. Capitalism is profit before people. Free Market capitalism does not work. It is time to start looking for solutions beyond economic policies.. People before Profit
Please tell me what is the "Real World"
You sound like the product of institutions like media and standardized education
@OppressedAnarchist Since, of course, society doesn't sweep anything under the rug, what do you suggest is the "root of the prblem". If the root of the problem is providing the resources to those who are most in need, then free market capitalism ahs already proven to be vastly superior than socialism in that regard. if the "problem" is that humans are self-interested beings, then the "problem" is human nature that cannot be changed and thus systems requiring that change are doomed to fail.
@FletchforFreedom.. A mere 500 multinational companies control 70% of all world trade. The US is only the leader in what is an international trend. In 2000 there were seven million people worldwide with liquid assets of more than $1 million - an increase of 18% in one year alone. In Britain the average income of a chief executive of a FTSE 100 company is a huge £643,000 a year. Capitalism is increasing poverty for most people and is incapable of taking society forward.
@queenofshebalala No one “controls” trade. Businesses REMIAN in business by providing the goods and services that people desire to give themselves a better life. As for those with more than $1 million – WHO CARES?!?! The simple fact is that NO ONE is poorer because they are wealthy and, in most cases, they GOT wealthy by providing goods and services (and jobs) that have made others better off. Capitalism has done more to reduce poverty than any other system. Do some research!
@FletchforFreedom This is kindergarden economics. These ideas have no application in the real world. And the reason is simple. Businesses have no interest in providing goods or services. They want to maximize profit. This eventually entails looting the public.
@annoyance13 Well, you are certainly correct that Chomsky is providing "kindergarten economics" with "no application in the real world". Of course, IN that real world, businesses have a HUGE interest in providing goods and services because that is precisely HOW they maximize profit and why the notion that corporations, for the most part (state intervention in the form of bailouts being a state-caused exception) virtually NEVER "loot the public".
@1019079 Since the 2008 recession was the result of monetary manipulation by the Federal Reserve (the government's central bank) and had nothing whatsoever to do with capitalism, I can't possibly "acknowledge" any such thing. The premise is absurd on its face.
@1019079 Not really. Private companies didn't CAUSE the crisis and the decision of government to take our money and pay handouts to cover up their own incomepetnce (the banks) or as a sop to their union supporters (the auto companies) was, again, an entirely state decision and hasn't anything whatsoebver to do with capitalism.
@1019079 Actually, by definition, capitalism has nothing to do with anyone "taking your money". The only way anyone can get your money under capitalism is via voluntary exchange for something you desire more than the money itself. The corporatism of which you speak (a form of socialism - not capitalism) is one of the problems associated with state power and its ability to manipulate the system. What has that to do with the free market (the definition of capitalism)?
@FletchforFreedom Its a free enterprise system. I'd also like to point out how everybody tries to use the federal reserve as some sort of scapegoat. There are thousands of banks in this country. So are you advocating dissolving the nation state system?
@1019079 The free enterprise system failed. That there are thoudands of banks in the country is irrelevant. Only the central bank (the Federal Reserve) is a governmnet monopoly that can manipulate the money supply. It's not scapegoating; it's recognizing economic reality.
My opinion of the abolition of the nation state has not come up. As private property and free trade preceed it by more than 20,000 years, capitalism can do just fine without it.
@1019079 The free enterprise system failed. That there are thoudands of banks in the country is irrelevant. Only the central bank (the Federal Reserve) is a governmnet monopoly that can manipulate the money supply. It's not scapegoating; it's recognizing economic reality.
My opinion of the abolition of the nation state has not come up. As private property and free trade preceed it by more than 20,000 years, capitalism can do just fine without it.
@annoyance13 and why do these ideas have no application in the real world? thats the point..... rape and pillage, thats our origin..... only way we know how to "live".... and i use that term loosely..... its an ideological arguement
I admire Chomsky for his knowledge in history, but he knows fuck all about economics. He lives in a fantasy world and has absolutely no real world experience. Right capitalism doesn't work (he said while covered with consumer products) but anarchic socialism will. Socialism didn't work the first million times so let's try it w/o a govt this time. B/c we all love each other so much we will produce and share the wealth. Pure utter retarded fantasy.
@tjohn1986 "Capitalism", as it exists today, is a system that has required it's operators to start foreign wars in order to line the profits of less than 1% of it's population with public money. Do you call this functional? It took less than 20 after the collapse of the USSR before America followed in it's wake. It's military is all it has left, and it will employ it without remorse. And how can someone understand history without understanding economics when the two are inexorably related?
@wakeb1444 Since, by definition, what you are describing (even if the 1% comment were not pure drivel) is SOCIALISM (as is all state action), not Capitalism and the problem that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union (and has caused the latest financial crisis) is the adoption of socialism, clearly the dysfunction of which you are speaking has NOTHING to do with capitalism.
You did say one thing correctly to tjohn - Chomsky is an historical ignoramus as well.
@tjohn1986 Chomsky has no real world experience? Really? On what grounds do you back up that statement? Do you really think he knows "fuck all" about economics? Your entire comment just wreaks of ignorance for so many reasons. I like it when people try and criticize Chomsky, and he is not to go without criticism, but you're just making it look like you spend too much time watching TV and not enough time reading. I may very well be wrong, but that's how it appears. Cheers mate.
How can people take this guy seriously? Reagan was hardly a libertarian. He was a sham. Gingrich is a joke and not a supporter of a free market . Chompsky uses personal attacks to promote his ramblings. So sad that these OWS kiddies listen to this drivel.
@zoozootaken No one can take Chomsky seriously who actually analyzes what he says. He's a sophist. He rambles on about free markets, capitalism, socialism, wage slavery, and gives you clues as to what he wants you to approve and disapprove. He rarely makes any distinctions, which are the basis for some kind of logical presentation of an argument from A to B. He simply spews out a string of his impressions mixed with facts, but without a logical connection being drawn.
1. He has over 100 books that show a deep knowledge of history.
2. Just because he doesn't subscribe to the same economic school you do does not make him an economic illiterate. No school of economics is the universally accepted truth in macroeconomics. They do not favor a Austrian or Monetarist over a Kensyan or Socialist.
@MsZeitgeist85 You're part right. That he disagrees does not, in and of itself, demonstrate that Chomsky is an economic illiterate. He's got, as you indicate, upwards of 100 books demonstrating precisely that. It isn't that he adopts a different theory of economics; he doesn't grasp the most basic aspects of economics and rpeatedly demonstrates a profound ignorance of the basics and the data.
@joezuu wow you can pick out a typo! go you! you must be just as brain dead at this fool is if you believe in any of the BS he spews... All gibberish fairy tale nonsense that could never work in reality.
Yes I can spot a typo, but apparently you cannot. In fact, I spotted another one; in your post. If you cannot even spell sentences correctly, especially considering all this technology that CORRECTS YOUR SPELLING FOR YOU, your opinions aren't even worth commenting on. Here's a suggestion: read a few books. Maybe some of Chomsky's because you obviously have no idea what he is talking about. I doubt you'd understand it but at least you might learn how to spell correctly.
@joezuu I am not in the mood to correct my typing, especially when talking to someone who listens to Noam Chomsky! LMAO!! hahahaha..I have every idea what he is talking about, and it is DUMB! ALL OF IT! None of it can work, none of it has ever worked, and he is closet commie.
@AroundSun Hmm, interesting. Ok then, maybe you should shut up then and keep your laziness, ignorance and baseless opinions to yourself. You've already proven your intellectual deficit. You don't need to embarrass yourself even further, but by all means, go ahead. It is a free country after all. Isn't it great?
@AroundSun That's redundant because anarcho-syndicalism and librarian-socialism two names for the same thing which is something you would know if you bothered to pay attention, but yes, that's what I said. Thanks for repeating it and proving it once again.
@AroundSun People work and buy things from corporations because they live in a Capitalist economy dumbass. Slaves ate the food their owners gave them, does that mean they were advocates or supporters of slavery?
@kingnat2 Yea, nice job comparing apples to oranges. Slaves weren't free you illiterate sack of shit. Slaves were called slaves for a reason, they were owned! They didn't have freedom of choice to buy goods and services from people who produced them. We do. People buy things because it makes their lives better. If it didn't, they wouldn't buy them! Nobody is forcing you to do business with a company, only the government can force you to buy things. And they do all the time.
@AroundSun No, the force to buy goods is incited by the instinct to live. When people have choices, but the choices are not very different, or very good; i.e., not real choices people will obviously buy them to survive. "People buy things because it makes their lives better." How so? Because it allows them to continue in the pattern of unesteemed living they are forced into via social constraints?
@kingnat2 "When people have choices, but the choices are not very different, or very good; i.e., not real choices people will obviously buy them to survive" Thanks for making the case for capitalism
People buy things because it makes their lives better, yes, or else they wouldn't buy them. Does your standard of living and quality of life NOT depend on many goods and services you have?
"Social Constraints" OK Al Sharpton.. What you trying to say here?
@AroundSun No, it simply makes them survive. My standard of living does indeed depend on the goods and services I have, but with Capitalism goods and services are whatever is produced by corporations. So if I need new shoes, and there are no shoe companies that are made in America, and thats what I want, then I have to make a sacrifice. I didn't get what I really wanted. So I didn't have a choice. I had a Hobson's choice. hobson being the corporation that makes decisons about how goods are made
@kingnat2 Under capitalism, goods and services are what are produced by those who meet a demand of consumers in society to an extent that consumers are willing to pay to have that need met. It, again, creates massively more choices than any other system. If enough consumers want shoes made in America and are willing to pay for that, shoes will be made in America. If the majority of consumers prefer the less expensive alternative, shoes will be made where they can be produced more efficiently.
@FletchforFreedom This is theoritcal capitalism, which is not real capitalism. When people are uneducated, lied to, and manipulated; or simply apathetic, then their choices will restrict my freedom. I want to buy shoes that are made in America, yet I cannot because of the choices of the mass of consumers. How is the rest of society making my economic choices any better than corporations or the government making them for me?
@kingnat2 Nothing I've said is even remotely just theoretical. It is demonstrable reality. When people are lied to, manipulated uneducated or simply apathetic they often turn to charlatans like Chomsky, which is why I try to impart basic economic and historical knowledge whenever possible. The choices are entirely your own. If YOU wish to spend enough for domestically produced shoes, YOU can. That you don't wish to spend that much is not an impairment of your choices.
@kingnat2 Again, if you do not possess the wages, that is not an impairment of youir freedom. In a free market, you have ample opportunity to get those wages and the opportunity to expend those resources any way you wish. That you can't sprout wings and fly (or buy a jet) is a manifestatation of reality and circumstance; it ha nothing to do with your freedom at all.
@FletchforFreedom But I don't have ample oppurtunity to get my desired wages. When I am unable to unionize, or search for a new job because of lack of skills or openings, my wages are set by minimum wage laws and what corporations think my wage should be(Someone else making my decisions i. e. not true freedom)
@kingnat2 Yes, in the real world, you DO have ample choices and, in fact, history demonmstrates that you have more choices and are most likely to achieve better wages and higher living standards wherever union presence is least felt. You are free to eductae yourself and acquire skills but you are not free to dictate to others what they will offer for employment. You are free to apply for countless job opportunities and they are free to offer you a market wage. That's freedom.
@FletchforFreedom What you are advocating is freedom of the will, which I do beleive in. However this and economic freedom are two different things. Some people lack the intelligence or creativity to learn skills beyond say janitorial work or housecleaning. In your system this means they are doomed to a life 9-5 drudgery and meager existence. This social Darwinism tactic has been a corporatist ply for years to fool many into beleiving that the only good such people porduce is equal to their wage
@kingnat2 There isn't the slightest difference between freedom of the will and economic freedom - or any other kind of freedom. That some people have more/less intelligence or more/less creativity or more/less skill is an expression of simple reality - not a pervesrion of the system or an example of social Darwinism. The fact is that opportunities exist for essentially anyone to improve their lot in life if they apply themselves.
@FletchforFreedom You've just demonstrated your lack of economic understanding. Unless you are reffering to Socialism's original context in politics. You're looking at Capitalism from a purely theoritical, scripted, classroom standpoint. As for my "pickiness" you seem to not understand what I'm trying to convey. Maybe that's my fault. Choice to you may mean being able to Buy Cheez Nips or Cheez-Its; Puma or Adidas; But this is not true freedom. Yes Capitalism has different brands I understand
@kingnat2 Again, I have been an economist for nearly three decades now. What I am describing of capitalism (unlike your story of the Third World) is not theoretical at all but real world activity. My point is that there are countless options available to you - that is choice. That you might want something not available would be the case under EVERY system. That you might want something not made by a corporation or with shareholder involvement is an irrelevancy with no bearing on choice.
@FletchforFreedom This is pure work ethic myth trash. So what you are saying is that those with low creativity or intelligence should just pull themselves up by their bootstraps or persish. Harsh, man.
@kingnat2 If you don't like it then stop spouting myth trash. What I am saying is that history demonstrates without exception that the free market system has permitted those with low creativity or intelligence to better themselves with little if any risk of "perishing" while the alternatives presented have always made it far more likely that poverty will remain far more likely.
@FletchforFreedom It doesn't though. What history demonstrates is massive poverty, imperialism, brutal labor struggles, meaningless living, and huge gaps between the rich and poor brought abut by both Capitalist, and State Capitalist regimes.
@kingnat2 History bears absolutely not even the slightest resemblance to what you have described. The fact is that capitalism is dircetly responsible for the massive improvement ion living standards, wages and working conditions, particularly for the poor and working people. over the last 300 years. No other force in human history has done a better job mitigating poverty. And those "gaps" are meaningless given that the "poor" live better where capitalism is adopted.
@FletchforFreedom But Capitalism is worldwide. Third world countries are just as much of Capitalism as the US is. They have been used for their natural resources by imperial powers such as China, Russia, and the US.
So while poverty in the US may be high quality living by world standards, Those in Third world poverty are still victims of Capitalism, they have just been victims of circumstance being from Resource countries and not imperial powers.
@kingnat2 While every country has elements of both capitalism and socialism, the notion that Third World countries are prdominantly capitalist is laughable. That they have been economically harmed by trading their natural resources is wholly and completely wrong - quite the opposite is the case. So your whole case against capitalism collapses against these two glaring factual inaccuracies.
@FletchforFreedom China buys oil from Sudan. The Sudanese government uses this capital from these sales to fund the Genocide of Nomadic peoples in Its land. How are those being slaughtered gaining from this free trade?
@kingnat2 Why must continue this ridiculous straw man festival? Free trade takes place between free actors in the marketplace. Governmnet purchases are socialistic and something else entirely (as is obvious to anyone with a grasp of these concepts).
@FletchforFreedom Since you seem to know so much about "the real world" could you please tell me what the purpose of life is ? It seems that most capitalists see the purpose of life as maximizing earning potential or he who has the most money wins... Is this what life amounts to in "the real world" ???
It would help me greatly because I have no idea what I should be living for... but Capitalists seem to have it all figured out ...
@OppressedAnarchist I couldn’t tell you what the purpose of your life is. Only a buffoon looks to economic systems for purpose (capitalists make no such claim). I can only state the purpose of my life, which is to improve the lives of myself, my loved ones and the world as a whole by being a productive, responsible individual and meeting the needs of others. Capitalism yields such results; socialism yields the opposite results making everyone worse off – which is why I advocate capitalism.
@kingnat2 Sweden is a hybrid market economy with elements of socialism (primarily the Welfare state) and capitalism (the embrace of which has resulted in their relative success after stagnating for decades under heavier unsustainable socialism). State activity is, by definition, socialistic. Therefore, state capitalism is, by definition, an oxymoron.
@kingnat2 Don't accuse me of not grasping these concepts when you clearly do not yourself. That corporations exist in Sweden is true. That those corporations can make capital gains is true. That this, in and of itself, makes the system as a whole capitalist is flatly NOT true. That it menas that Sweden's economy has ELEMENTS of capitalism (as does every other country), that is certainly the case, but is not the position being discussed.
@FletchforFreedom As you said, one can be an advocate of Capitalism or Socialism. I'm assuming you meant Socialism in its original context there. As elements of Socialism are used, Corporations and private ownership are still the basis of the country's economy; therefore it is a Capitalist economy.
@kingnat2 The definition of socialism is the exercise of the powers of ownership over the means of production, usually by the state. To the extent that any governmnet is excercising control over capital or capital goos it is engaging in socialism. The assertion that any country with a corporation in it is, by definition, a capitalist country demonstrates a glaring misunderstanding of the terms under discussion. Sweden is a hybrid economy and, arguably, predominantly socialist.
@FletchforFreedom The modern definition of Socialism is a form of Capitalism. I understand the term, it is simply a bad choice of title. Capitalism has many forms, as does Communism. Social Democracies are a formof Capitalism.
@kingnat2 No, the modern definition of socailism remains the antithesis of capitalism. They are polar opposites, The former is economic freedom - the free market - in which free individuals exercise the power of ownership over property. The latter is economic slavery, where property is controlled collectively by the state or some mythic societal utopia that can never be. Social Democracies are NOT a "form of capitalism - repeating such stupidity will not magically make it at all credible.
@FletchforFreedom The antithesis of Capitalism is Communism where a monetary system, corporations, and private property are all nonexistent. Socialism in it's modern context still allows all these things. It may be a welfare state(which it is) so it is still Capitalist. It may not be your idea of "true" Capitalism, but it is still a form of it.
@kingnat2 Again, I am not responsible for your misuse of terms. Capitalism is the antithesis of socialism. Communism is a particular form of socialism where private property has been completely abolished but that doesn't alter the well established dynamic. Governmnet action, the welfare state, nationalized industries - all are, by definition, acts of socialism, even if they make up part of a hybrid economy that retains a market system (in order to pay for those things). You are simply wrong.
@FletchforFreedom By definition they are examples of Socialism, a bastardized bit and piece of Communism tool for controlling Capitalism. You are right on its definition, what I am saying is that the definition is wrong. It's been mislabeled by incorrect terminology and laissez-faire hysteria.
@kingnat2 To the contrary, it is the correct definition because it is the only logical, rational way to view the alternatives. Communism is a pipe dream, an impossibility based on the debunked theories of a failed journalist. That socialism has been used as a tool for controlling capitilaism is certainly true and goes a long way to explaining why more socialist countries trail steadily behind more capitalist ones economically.
@FletchforFreedom You've either just: A) Denied facts or B) advocated seperatism. And Communism is not just a pipe dream, it is the way many species thrive in nature and it has never been debunked. It has been falsified and bastarized by those who don't understand it and those who wish to see it fail. The pipe dream is the system where utilitarian prposes will be acheived by competition and class division. Capitalism in itself is hypocritical.
@kingnat2 I am statinmg only facts. That you are not aware that communism has never even come close to existinmg and was thooroughly debunked long ebfore you were born is not a failing on my part. It's underlying premises (labor theory of value, surplus value, compression of wages by capitalism, the viability of a system without prices) were all proven complete bunkum and discarded with good reason. Even the whole cMarxian class nonsense has always been laughable.
@FletchforFreedom Facts are facts okay? You're denying biology and using "facts" that are actually critiques written by free market theorists, an obviously biased source. Capitalism and Communism by definiton are both utilitarian systems, are they not? One has been around for centuries without acheiving its goal, and one has been around for sligghtly over a century without ever being put into true practice by man
@kingnat2 I haven't denied any facts (only fallacies). Nor have I denied biology. E. O. Wilson famously noted that socialism was impossible for human beings but worked fine for ants (his speciality). I imagine if we were hive creatures, it might not have been debunked, but...
All economic systems are designed for use. That has no bearing on anything. To the extent capitalism has been embraced, it has worked beautifully. The underlying premises of Marxism have been disproved.
@FletchforFreedom So what you are saying is that you don't beleive in freedom to change, or the freedom of will and you are actually not arguing economics, but some sort of odd scientific determinism.
When you built the puzzle with your child, did you communicate with them? how did you go about assembling this puzzle?
@kingnat2 I believe completely in the freedom to change and individuals do it all the time. What cannot cahneg is human natire and THAT is what Marxism would require (even if it had not been disproved on countless other grounds).
@kingnat2 I'm not sure where you are going with the puzzle analogy, but I can guess. Before you get into trouble, the essence of capitalism is free assocaition and cooperation. It imposes force upon no one. Socialism on the other hand cannot exist without coercion.
@FletchforFreedom So you actually are a Communist. If you are an advocate of a cooperative society, then why hinder it with a monetary system, wages, heiarchy and not just skip ahead to voluntary cooperation? When you made the puzzle with your children, I'm assuming you didn't make your child fill out a form, wait three weeks, and interveiw before laying down a piece. I'm assuming you let him lay it down where he/she saw it fit without giving them too much shit
@kingnat2 Communism has nothing to do with cooperation - capitalism does. And, again, the monetary system is perhaps man's most beneficial technological achievement. Wages are voluntary and hierarchy is not necessarily harmful. And I let my children use some of my property and prevent them using other property. I manage their use of certain property for their own safety and to protect my things and if they set up a puzzle in the middle of the floor, they'll be told to move.
@kingnat2 Your puzzle analogy about cooperation was utterly and completely useless as it had no connection with reality.
Communism is that most extreme form of socialism in which private (bourgeois) property has been abolished (objectively impossible), property and economic decisions are controlled by the society as a whole (objectively impossible) in the absence of prices (disproved) such that the state, which exists as an interim measure, withers away (laughable).
@FletchforFreedom My puzzle analogy made perfect sense. When you made the puzzle, you used cooperation and communication to solve it. What you didn't do was tell your child all the pieces were yours to distribute, tell your child how and when to use the piece, and deny them the using of certain pieces all together. If you did, the puzzle never would have been completed. When this cooperative model of human effeciency is applied to a large scale, it is Communism.
@kingnat2 It made perfect sense. It is perhaps the most laughably ridiculous analogy I have ever come across. In order to apply to theoretical communism, you have to allow for the neighbor taking the puzzle pieces for kindling (no private property rights). To apply to applied communism, the child is held at gunpoint to create the puzzle the state demands. It also leaves all the allocation issues (under which communism fails spectacularly and is grossly inefficient) completely unaddressed.
@FletchforFreedom Once again, you think anything left of laissez-faire capitalism is Stalinism or state Marxism. You lack a basic comprehension of the economic and politcal spectrum.
@kingnat2 Once again you demonstrate that, since you have not a single valid argument to make, you think that completely mischaracterizing mine serves some purpose other than demonstrating your own dishonesty and the bankruptcy of youir position.
You are, of course, wrong - as anyone who isn't intellectual dishonest can see.
@kingnat2 To clarify, such notables as Bohm-Bawerk, Mises and Hayek have disproved the labor tyheory of value (and by extension the Marxian theory of exploitation), the notion that capitalism compresses wages (historically destroyed), the Marxian concept of historical materialism based as it is on surplus value which cannot exist (part of the debunked LTV). The theory has been disproved and implementation attempts have been disastrous. Marx is dead; Marxism even more so.
When corporations are made utterly free to reign, wages will be fixed and the heads of such corporations will inevitably cooperate to fix wages, prices, and resource allocation, i.e. forming a centralized form of fixed command and heiarchy. Corporations have demonstrated this as their goal for as long as they have been in existence. Those economists haven't disproved anything, they have only critiqued his work with textbook capitalism and a mathemnatical and unrealistic veiw of man
@kingnat2 Your position is idiotically disconnected from reality. Wages cannot be fixed. Business compete fopr labor. This is has been demonstrated by history. If your assessment were correct, no one could get an entry level job above the legal minimum and moving up would be practically impossible, but, in the real world, entry level positions routinely pay more even during a recession and moving up is by far the norm.
You have contradicted yourself in this post. Is Capitalism based around competition or by cooperation? you have stated it is driven by both. These are mutually exclusive terms. And I never denied anyone can move through entry level positions, but to rise to the upper class from an underclass and resourceless background is nearly impossible and impossible for the entire population since capitalism needs heirarchy to survive and thus could not have all of man grasp his greatest material potential
@kingnat2 No, I never contradicted myself. The fact is that competition and cooperation are NOT mutually exclusive in action and literally all of human action has aspects of both. Capitalism is driven by both; communism by neither. People work together to create things to meet consumer needs and compete with others in the marketplace simultaneously. It drives production, efficiency, technological development, etc.
@kingnat2 That you never overtly argued it is irrelevant. The assumption that moving up from the entry level is impossible is inherent in your position. Even if it were even remotely true that capitalism requires hierarchy (not even remotely), you proceed from the absurd and unsupported premise that hierarchy is inherently detrimental or hinders the achievement of the greatest material potential (which is obviously false).
@kingnat2 I am not responsible for your ignorance. Marxism is based on an unrealistic (actually childish and foolish) view of man that is so obviously contrary to reality one wonders why anyone would be so deluded as to belivee it. The labor theory of value was never credible. It has been disproven because it flatly cannot work and bears no resemblance to what actually occurs in the real world. It has been abandoned in favor of marginal utility because THAT works.
@FletchforFreedom Capitalism is the childish position. Anyone thinking that heirarchy and society driven by mass greed are what will provide humanitarian and utilitarian results is denying the reality of Capitalism and of human nature. You say that your system has worked, which it has for few. but it has not reached nearly what could be acheived using mass cooperation. Increased standards of living in imperial nations is not justification for Capitalism. In fact just the oppostie.
@kingnat2 His talk is gibberish. Noam advocates anarcho syndicalism which is so absurd and ridiculous because it is contradictory in every sense. He favors a vague and ill defined form of collectivism in which workers will just take control of production somehow....He is a historic and economic illiterate who should stick to linguistics.
@MsZeitgeist85 Nahh, Chomsky favors a vague and ill defined form of collectivism that the workers will figure out as they fumble and stumble along bankruptcy LoL...Syndicalism is so absurd that nobody has ever wrote clearly in its favor...
@AroundSun He has given examples of his form of collectivism that is in use today. Particularly in countries like Denmark and Norway where a significant amount of GDP labor has the collectivism. You don't have to look that far to realize that those countries are doing quite well right now
@kingnat2 Capitalism is the position based upon actual reality – real human behavior in real world situations. It doesn’t ignore historical failures and logical inconsistencies inherent in the socialist/Marxist paradigm. That you wish to use loaded terms like “mass greed” so that you can pretend that simple self-interest is the driver of human behavior cannot alter the fact that it IS human nature. Mass cooperation of the type you espouse is empirically impossible, and obviously so.
@FletchforFreedom This is the largest load of irrational, mind numbing idiocy I have ever read. The fact that you cannot distinguish Marxists from Social Democrats vastly decreases your crediblity.
@kingnat2 The fiorst sentence describing Chomsky is quite accurate. As, of course, I am fully versed in the differences between Marxists and Social Democrats, I am also aware that the economic positions of BOTH have been universal failures, whic obliterates your own credibility (for the umpteenth time).
@kingnat2 Capitalism has been directly responsible for the massive increase in living standards the world over during the last 300 years (and not just in “imperial countries” – a red herring), making more goods and services available to more people at lower cost (and at less labor effort), particularly for the poor (which live at vastly higher living standards than did the rich historically except where the implementation of capitalism has been impaired.
And labors value is relative depending on wokers and employers. If hierarchy is used in favor of employers(which it is) then workers are one of two things a) left without work and resources due to lack of pay b) robbed of their freedom to negotiate their own wages and must sacrafice their ideal of their labors worth for their employers. When employers own the land and resources(which they do) They haave no need for competition as the workers must use Corporate resources or infringe on law
@kingnat2 Labor’s value is relative in the marketplace. But the notion of disproportionate power has been completely disproved. Were it the case, no one could EVER find work at above the legal minimum, nor could anyone move up. If people EVER achieve better than that, competition for labor must exist and the power you attribute to employers cannot. THAT is mutually exclusive. Employers own the land/resources they purchase, just as I do – it has no bearing on competition at all.
@FletchforFreedom Dispropartionate power? Disproved? I don't know why I haven't stopped arguing with you by now, but anyone with a goddamn brain can look at the real world and see that EMPLOYERS HAVE HIRING POWER AND IMMEDIATE CONTROL OVER PRICES. Also the claim that Capitalism doesnt require heiarchy is the most unrealistic load of bullshit I've ever heard. you are obviously blind.
@kingnat2 Yes, your position that "EMPLOYERS HAVE HIRING POWER AND IMMEDIATE CONTROL OVER PRICES" has been completely and repeatedly disproved. Only the utterly ignorant adhere to that intellectually bankrupt position. Again, if it were true, getting a job paying higher than the legal minimum and/or moving up from that level over time is logically IMPOSSIBLE.
And, since you have no garsp of what capitalism actually is, your stance deserves the consideration of any other fertilizer.
@FletchforFreedom And once again you argue with a position I am not a part of. Objects have no inherent value but what one man perceives them as. Therefore value is relative and has no true definiton. Value to corporations and value to workers are to different things. When heirarchy is emposed, employers will undoubtedly impose their definition of value on workers. When value is different to every individual the market will remain unstable and fluncuate constantly therefore cooperation is needed
@kingnat2 Value IS relative (and Marxism/communism is ENTIRELY based on a contrary position and must be discarded) but that is not the same thing as being without "true definition". While everyone may value things differently, the objective value is that at which something can be exchanged. There is no such thing as a separate "use value" that can be compared to the exchange value to determine exploitation. Nothing is "imposed" on anyone. And hierarchy demonstrably doesn't cause instability.
@kingnat2 Several fallacies in your argument - reality is not "force". And, in fact, the free market (even with corporations) provides more choice than under any other system becasue those that best meet consumer needs and desires prosper and those that do not fail. That you choose to disagree with the choices that other consumers make is irrelevant and worthless, Your fantasy of sociali constrainst has no bearing on the perfectly legitimate choices of others.
@AroundSun "They didn't have freedom of choice to buy goods and services from people who produced them." Now this is just a lie. When I purchase goods I mainly supply profit to shareholders and executives. Are the goods the fruits of their "labor" or the workers? Well, the workers of course. But when Capitalism is in effect the producers of goods i.e. the workers, are exploited by executives and those who have contributed to a company by none other than sharing an imaginary piece of it
You already lose, thanks for playing! You have shown your ignorance and are among the type of people that think If I own a deli, and I hire a 14 year old cashier that simply 'needs a job' for the summer, he is now entitled to half of my deli You are a joke
@AroundSun Not what im saying at all. But when Nike rakes in billions a year, makes it into the Forbes 500 and pays sweatshop labor pennies a day, it fits the definition of exploitation perfectely. You can try to make me into some liberal hippie all you want, that's not me.
lolz at calling me Al Sharpton, a perfect capitalist.
@kingnat2 People are leaving the battlefields in other countries to go work. I think they know a little bit more about their own interests than you or Nancy Pelosi does. You think the federal government is this utopia in which all good things come from. You are living in a land of oz pal. Typical liberal with typical liberal arguments. It is easy to comprehend liberal market principle but it takes true intelligence to understand how basic functions of a society can be provided otherwise
@kingnat2 Ok, lets just unemploy all of those people and put them back into worse poverty.
Oh, you are one of these people that hates the government and hates capitalism too LMAO. Not much area left since capitalism is the absence of economic systems and central planning by the government. You don't know what you believe. You have no real beliefs, or philosophy. Nor do you have a backbone.
@kingnat2 In fact, the people most vehemtly opposed to the closing of "swetshops" are those employed in them. The simple, inescapable fact is that the employer/employee relationship is ALWAYS mutually beneficial. No "exploitation" is taking place as both parties are made better off. [The issue is not whether you are a "liberal hippie" - the issue is that this is Econ 101 and basic reality of which you are grossly misinformed.] The ONLY alternative to the sweatshop is always greater poverty.
@kingnat2 When you buy goods you generate a return for those that produced those goods which are the fruits of the application of capital, resources and labor (that has typically received an agreed upon wage without the risk associated with the possibility that the final good will not sell and in a timely manner typically before the good is sold). Both the notion that only labor generates value and the notion of Marxian exploitation have been completely refuted.
@FletchforFreedom Yes I do. But I don't agree with the fraction of my payment that goes to stockholders. This goes back to the Hobsons choice. Thats not true freedom. I don't beleive my money should go to them, yet it does. And as for the "agreed upon wage" argument, I have to make the case for wage negotiation. Why do many corporations export their production to third world countries? Because they can set wages with little or no resistance from uneducated foreigners in poverty.
@kingnat2 No such Hobson's choice exists. If you are willing to pay enogh, someone will happily make a pair of shoes for you by hand. That you are unwilling to pay that price is not the absence of alternatives. And it is not up to you what shareholders EARN. You have the option of purchasing any of countless goods avaialble in the marketplace. Whether you don;t want your wages to go to someone is not a sunjetc either under your control or any of your business.
@FletchforFreedom So then you have just admitted that Capitalism is not truly economic freedom. And as for unwiling to pay the price' do you understand that some people live in poverty? Say I am living in poverty and want these shoes. It is up to the producer o accept or deny my offers. When they set wages, which businesses do, then I am left with no such choice.
@kingnat2 Okay, that's a lie. Capitalism has been the ghreatest anti-poverty engine ever conceived by the mind of Man. If you are living in poverty and want to buy domestically produced shoes, you can try to save enough for them or you can make another choice. You are confusing freedom and means. Freedom is the absence of constraint by others. If you lack the means to buy something, that hasn't the slightest thing to do with your freedom. They are entirely different things.
@FletchforFreedom They aren't though. When my wages are set by governments and corporations(which they are) I have no choice. And Freedom and means are deeply connected. If I need the shoes now, but have to save to acquire the American made pair then my choice is nonexistent. So in Capitalism it is a fight between needs and wants. If I am imporvished, I am left with no choices.
@kingnat2 Yes, they are. Your wages are determined by the interaction of supply and demand. You can not achieve higher than market wages and businesses cannot pay lower than market wages. The negotiation takes place among millions of actors in the marketplace, so your presumption of a lack of choice is entirely baseless. You are confusing an unwillingness on your part to accept the choices available to you with a lack of choices. Your self-limitation is entirely invalid.
@FletchforFreedom Yes, but as stated before, If I make a choice and the mass of consumers do not share the choice, I am left with no option but what the market has chosen. Its a dictatorship of the ignorant and ipso facto the market. I am a slave to the market by your theory
@kingnat2 The notion that it is a dictatorship is absurd on its face. It is impossible for there to exist a system that will supply you with goods or services as you like when they are radically different from what everyone else likes. That is a ridiculous demand on your part and a perversion of the term slavery. No one has impaired your freedom. If you want domestically made shoes, make them yourself. You do not have the right to impair the freedoms of others to meet outrageous demands.
@FletchforFreedom But if I am also making my own food, housing, plumbing, heating, and electricity I am not able to make shoes by my own hand. Therefore i am left to buy what corporations have to offer. If I like nothing they offer, or choose not to support their practices, I am left without the choice I want and/or without shoes.
@kingnat2 And "state capitalism" is an oxymoron. It's just a name for another form of socialism. Again, the pretense that your choices are limited because the countless optio ns avaialbale to you are provided by corporations is ridiculous. Your position is completely untenable. No option available in reality offers more choices to you than capitalism (including things offered by corporations). You are pretending that your pickiness is a lack of choice. You can;t be taken seriously.
@kingnat2 Corporations choose to employ labor in third world countries because it is cost effective to do so resulting in less expensive products in this country and a higher return to the producer. Fortunately, the same procwess results in MORE and HIGHER PAYING jobs being INsourced into the US. The effect is that living standards rise in BOTH countries and everyone is better off.
@FletchforFreedom What such jobs exist? And lead poisining and shoes that tear the first day I wear them are not high quality products. And if standards of living in these sweatshops are so great, why do businesses feel the need to put nets around the top floor of their sweatshop facilities?
@kingnat2 Plenty of jobs exist. And neither lead posoning or shoes that tear the first day are real material risks in the current marketplace. And the only nets being put around top floors of such facilities are mosquito netting. The notion that those working in "sweatshops" would flee at the first opportuinity is pure bovine fecal matter.
@FletchforFreedom And as much of an effort you make to say "bullshit" in some sophisticated, Friedman-like manner, the fact remains that the nets are above the first floor. Mosquitos can also fly in three-dimensions,FYI
@kingnat2 I never argued that mosquitoes cannot fly in three dimentions. If you wish me to be completely blunt about it, anyone spreading the tale that "sweatshops" put up nets to keep workers from fleeing is purveying pure unadulterated, unforgivable bullshit. It is a lie, plain and simple.
@FletchforFreedom Anyone purveying the myth that everyone can rise through the ranks and become Steve Jobs with simple elbow grease is talking pure, unadultered bullshit.
@kingnat2 Another straw man. I never argued that everyone can become Steve Jobs. Everyone in a free market system can obtain employment and better their lot in life and, has been unconditionally demonstrated by history, that is EXACTLY what has happened where capitalism has been most embraced.
@FletchforFreedom This is a complete lie. Military industry has started wars to boost profits resulting in the death of millions. Starvation occurs when government funds are used to bail out Corporations instead of being given to foreign aid. Roads have been sold to private corporatiions and turned into toll roads costing civilians millions in dollars and minutes of time. Corporations are benefeited by their own free reign. Average man isnt
@kingnat2 Sigh. Why when the ignorance of socialists is exposed do they debase themselves with obviously false cries of "lie!". Military action is by definition socialistic. Starvation occurs when governmnets intervene in the lives of the citizenry and foreign aid is the taking from poor people in rich countries to give to rich people in poor countries. Toll roads have saved taxpayers countless billions because they are run more efficiently than by government. Socialism harms the avg man.
It doesn't seem like he really is criticizing the free market here, rather the aspect behind the current corporatist system, where the producers are bailed out for their mistakes. Somehow, its beyond Chomsky in realizing that this is the reason these same people behave recklessly.
AccumulatedKnowledge 3 days ago
@FletchforFreedom..I am not going to provide you with even more statistics about the widening gap between mega rich and poor. You can find them easily enough anyway. Whatever happened to that 'trickle down' effect anyway? Oh yeah, I think it got blocked up with credit. One of the first books I read as an adolescent was "The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists" by Robert Tressell. I really enjoyed the chapter called "The Great Money Trick". I suggest you read it - if you want to understand what I a
queenofshebalala 2 months ago
@Fletchforfreedom..why should people have to beg for help from charity? Even though some people need charity to meet their needs, do you realise how degrading that can be for a person? In a socialist planned economy democracy would mean that people would make the decisions about how resources are distributed, Currently the government is making decisions in the interest of the markets not in the interests of people.
queenofshebalala 2 months ago
@queenofshebalala We also have more poverty than we have ever had ....
OppressedAnarchist 2 months ago
@OppressedAnarchist That statement si objectively false. Poverty rates have been much higher in the past. of course, were it not for the socialistic interventions in the economy that caused the meltdown, we wouldn't have that problem either.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@queenofshebalala Who said anything about "begging"?. In a socialist, planned economy (as has been proven both by economics and history), resource allocation is a disaster and the entire population is condemned to greater poverty and far fewer resources are available. This means that not only do more people require charity but there are fewer resources available to provide it.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom @FletchforFreedom ..What economy are you talking about? As far as I am aware no country in the world has ever had a democratically planned socialist economy. Currently, almost half the world’s population live on less than $2 a day; one-fifth on less than $1. Despite a global surplus of food, 84 million people are officially classified as malnourished, as they lack the money required to feed themselves. The USA alone has a huge polarisation between wealth and poverty.
queenofshebalala 2 months ago
@queenofshebalala That there is no perfect “democratically planned socialist economy” may well be true (depending upon where you set the bar for meeting that threshold) in much the same way that there are no orange-painted flying pigs (which are likewise impossible). But we do have examples of pigs and know that they can’t do calculus just as we have examples of socialism and know that planned economies are not viable.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@queenofshebalala Your figures are bogus. Roughly 850 million people (out of 7 billion) live in poverty – that’s a worldwide poverty rate of only 13% - HALVED in the last 40 years and it continues to fall (except, primarily, in countries where governments and socialistic policies have made escaping poverty all the more difficult), all according to official statistics (not biased websites). The “wealth gap” is a red herring based on nothing but envy (where are the wealthiest “poor” on earth).
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
Wow another typical capitalist response. What about the mentally and physically disabled who cannot work without assistance. What about the elderly who have become to old to work and can no longer be "productive". What about those who become injured in accidents. What about those born into poor or abusive families ?
Maximizing earning potential under a capitalist system doesn't work.
OppressedAnarchist 2 months ago
@OppressedAnarchist In the real world (something with which you have no familiarity), free individuals have already proved to be far superior to the state in meeting the needs of the mentally and physically disabled, the elderly and the unemployable. Capitalism has actually done a BETTER job than ANY socialist response along these lines (the notion that people were left in the lurch before public charity is a muyth).
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom I don't know what world you live in but in Canada countless disabled people get 900 dollars a month from the government and live on the street because nobody helps them. Most disabled are cared for until they are 18 (from the government) and then are left on their own with no help.
You have no clue what happens to the disabled. You have probably never given anyone with a disability a second thought. Fuck you and your "real world" bullshit talk. You pro capitalists are insane.
OppressedAnarchist 2 months ago
@OppressedAnarchist You make my point for me. The incentives that work under normal circumstances that not only mitigate against such poverty but make the resources available to help them are crowded out (look up the basic economic concept of crowding out) by the governmental entree into the charity business. It is BECAUSE the state intervenes that there are not vastly more private resources available.
And I've been helping the disabled for decades - I'm not responsible for your ignorance.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom How did I make your point ? The only institution giving anything to the disabled is the government ! Getting rid of government and allowing businesses to do whatever they please will somehow magically create incentive for people to start giving more. Why should disabled have to hope someone might give them money ?
Simply giving people money isn't an answer. How about creating a society that is more than just maximizing profit and includes people that are disabled.
OppressedAnarchist 2 months ago
@OppressedAnarchist Countless private charities meet the needs of the disabled (and invariably do a better job than the government), so your premise is entirely false. We already live in the most generous society in history - eliminating government charity would free up the resources (and eliminate the disincentives) to provide considerably more.
Since society is not just about maximizing profit even under capitalism, and pretending that socialism creates a better society is absurd...
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom Charity doesn't get to the root of the problems, it simply masks them. A society that sweeps the disabled under the rug and simply throws money at them is a ridiculous society. Capitalism is profit before people. Free Market capitalism does not work. It is time to start looking for solutions beyond economic policies.. People before Profit
Please tell me what is the "Real World"
You sound like the product of institutions like media and standardized education
OppressedAnarchist 2 months ago
@OppressedAnarchist Since, of course, society doesn't sweep anything under the rug, what do you suggest is the "root of the prblem". If the root of the problem is providing the resources to those who are most in need, then free market capitalism ahs already proven to be vastly superior than socialism in that regard. if the "problem" is that humans are self-interested beings, then the "problem" is human nature that cannot be changed and thus systems requiring that change are doomed to fail.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom.. A mere 500 multinational companies control 70% of all world trade. The US is only the leader in what is an international trend. In 2000 there were seven million people worldwide with liquid assets of more than $1 million - an increase of 18% in one year alone. In Britain the average income of a chief executive of a FTSE 100 company is a huge £643,000 a year. Capitalism is increasing poverty for most people and is incapable of taking society forward.
queenofshebalala 2 months ago
@queenofshebalala No one “controls” trade. Businesses REMIAN in business by providing the goods and services that people desire to give themselves a better life. As for those with more than $1 million – WHO CARES?!?! The simple fact is that NO ONE is poorer because they are wealthy and, in most cases, they GOT wealthy by providing goods and services (and jobs) that have made others better off. Capitalism has done more to reduce poverty than any other system. Do some research!
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom This is kindergarden economics. These ideas have no application in the real world. And the reason is simple. Businesses have no interest in providing goods or services. They want to maximize profit. This eventually entails looting the public.
annoyance13 4 weeks ago 2
@annoyance13 Well, you are certainly correct that Chomsky is providing "kindergarten economics" with "no application in the real world". Of course, IN that real world, businesses have a HUGE interest in providing goods and services because that is precisely HOW they maximize profit and why the notion that corporations, for the most part (state intervention in the form of bailouts being a state-caused exception) virtually NEVER "loot the public".
Take the silly blinders off.
FletchforFreedom 3 weeks ago
@FletchforFreedom So you don't acknowledge the 2008 recession as capitalism gone wrong?
1019079 2 weeks ago
@1019079 Since the 2008 recession was the result of monetary manipulation by the Federal Reserve (the government's central bank) and had nothing whatsoever to do with capitalism, I can't possibly "acknowledge" any such thing. The premise is absurd on its face.
FletchforFreedom 2 weeks ago
@FletchforFreedom Not really. Still private companies taking our money, so its still capitalism.
1019079 2 weeks ago
@1019079 Not really. Private companies didn't CAUSE the crisis and the decision of government to take our money and pay handouts to cover up their own incomepetnce (the banks) or as a sop to their union supporters (the auto companies) was, again, an entirely state decision and hasn't anything whatsoebver to do with capitalism.
FletchforFreedom 2 weeks ago
@1019079 Actually, by definition, capitalism has nothing to do with anyone "taking your money". The only way anyone can get your money under capitalism is via voluntary exchange for something you desire more than the money itself. The corporatism of which you speak (a form of socialism - not capitalism) is one of the problems associated with state power and its ability to manipulate the system. What has that to do with the free market (the definition of capitalism)?
FletchforFreedom 2 weeks ago
@FletchforFreedom Its a free enterprise system. I'd also like to point out how everybody tries to use the federal reserve as some sort of scapegoat. There are thousands of banks in this country. So are you advocating dissolving the nation state system?
1019079 2 weeks ago
@1019079 The free enterprise system failed. That there are thoudands of banks in the country is irrelevant. Only the central bank (the Federal Reserve) is a governmnet monopoly that can manipulate the money supply. It's not scapegoating; it's recognizing economic reality.
My opinion of the abolition of the nation state has not come up. As private property and free trade preceed it by more than 20,000 years, capitalism can do just fine without it.
FletchforFreedom 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1019079 The free enterprise system failed. That there are thoudands of banks in the country is irrelevant. Only the central bank (the Federal Reserve) is a governmnet monopoly that can manipulate the money supply. It's not scapegoating; it's recognizing economic reality.
My opinion of the abolition of the nation state has not come up. As private property and free trade preceed it by more than 20,000 years, capitalism can do just fine without it.
FletchforFreedom 2 weeks ago
@annoyance13 and why do these ideas have no application in the real world? thats the point..... rape and pillage, thats our origin..... only way we know how to "live".... and i use that term loosely..... its an ideological arguement
irishjuwan 2 weeks ago
The term 'owned' was invented for this guy. Chuck Norris would agree.
katrastrophy 2 months ago in playlist Noam Chomsky
I admire Chomsky for his knowledge in history, but he knows fuck all about economics. He lives in a fantasy world and has absolutely no real world experience. Right capitalism doesn't work (he said while covered with consumer products) but anarchic socialism will. Socialism didn't work the first million times so let's try it w/o a govt this time. B/c we all love each other so much we will produce and share the wealth. Pure utter retarded fantasy.
tjohn1986 2 months ago 2
@tjohn1986 "Capitalism", as it exists today, is a system that has required it's operators to start foreign wars in order to line the profits of less than 1% of it's population with public money. Do you call this functional? It took less than 20 after the collapse of the USSR before America followed in it's wake. It's military is all it has left, and it will employ it without remorse. And how can someone understand history without understanding economics when the two are inexorably related?
wakeb1444 2 months ago
@wakeb1444 Since, by definition, what you are describing (even if the 1% comment were not pure drivel) is SOCIALISM (as is all state action), not Capitalism and the problem that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union (and has caused the latest financial crisis) is the adoption of socialism, clearly the dysfunction of which you are speaking has NOTHING to do with capitalism.
You did say one thing correctly to tjohn - Chomsky is an historical ignoramus as well.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@tjohn1986 Chomsky has no real world experience? Really? On what grounds do you back up that statement? Do you really think he knows "fuck all" about economics? Your entire comment just wreaks of ignorance for so many reasons. I like it when people try and criticize Chomsky, and he is not to go without criticism, but you're just making it look like you spend too much time watching TV and not enough time reading. I may very well be wrong, but that's how it appears. Cheers mate.
wakeb1444 2 months ago 2
Noam predicted the future!
kakashi76767 2 months ago in playlist kakashi76767's favorites
How can people take this guy seriously? Reagan was hardly a libertarian. He was a sham. Gingrich is a joke and not a supporter of a free market . Chompsky uses personal attacks to promote his ramblings. So sad that these OWS kiddies listen to this drivel.
zoozootaken 2 months ago
@zoozootaken
Your biography, thanks!
dihydrohydroxycodein 2 months ago
@zoozootaken No one can take Chomsky seriously who actually analyzes what he says. He's a sophist. He rambles on about free markets, capitalism, socialism, wage slavery, and gives you clues as to what he wants you to approve and disapprove. He rarely makes any distinctions, which are the basis for some kind of logical presentation of an argument from A to B. He simply spews out a string of his impressions mixed with facts, but without a logical connection being drawn.
MillionthUsername 2 months ago
@zoozootaken You got it all figured out don't you.... Very convincing argument with zero arguments LOL
OppressedAnarchist 2 months ago
@AroundSun this is addressing your claims below.
1. He has over 100 books that show a deep knowledge of history.
2. Just because he doesn't subscribe to the same economic school you do does not make him an economic illiterate. No school of economics is the universally accepted truth in macroeconomics. They do not favor a Austrian or Monetarist over a Kensyan or Socialist.
MsZeitgeist85 3 months ago
@MsZeitgeist85 You're part right. That he disagrees does not, in and of itself, demonstrate that Chomsky is an economic illiterate. He's got, as you indicate, upwards of 100 books demonstrating precisely that. It isn't that he adopts a different theory of economics; he doesn't grasp the most basic aspects of economics and rpeatedly demonstrates a profound ignorance of the basics and the data.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
Chomsky can be summed up and refuted in a few sentances. He is a joke...
AroundSun 3 months ago
@AroundSun Haha. Your idiocy was evident even before I finished your "sentance". Poor sod.
joezuu 3 months ago
@joezuu wow you can pick out a typo! go you! you must be just as brain dead at this fool is if you believe in any of the BS he spews... All gibberish fairy tale nonsense that could never work in reality.
AroundSun 3 months ago
Yes I can spot a typo, but apparently you cannot. In fact, I spotted another one; in your post. If you cannot even spell sentences correctly, especially considering all this technology that CORRECTS YOUR SPELLING FOR YOU, your opinions aren't even worth commenting on. Here's a suggestion: read a few books. Maybe some of Chomsky's because you obviously have no idea what he is talking about. I doubt you'd understand it but at least you might learn how to spell correctly.
joezuu 3 months ago
@joezuu I am not in the mood to correct my typing, especially when talking to someone who listens to Noam Chomsky! LMAO!! hahahaha..I have every idea what he is talking about, and it is DUMB! ALL OF IT! None of it can work, none of it has ever worked, and he is closet commie.
AroundSun 3 months ago
@AroundSun Hmm, interesting. Ok then, maybe you should shut up then and keep your laziness, ignorance and baseless opinions to yourself. You've already proven your intellectual deficit. You don't need to embarrass yourself even further, but by all means, go ahead. It is a free country after all. Isn't it great?
joezuu 3 months ago
@joezuu "You've already proven your intellectual deficit"
Said the anarcho-syndicalist libertarian-socialist LMAO!!!!!
AroundSun 3 months ago
@AroundSun That's redundant because anarcho-syndicalism and librarian-socialism two names for the same thing which is something you would know if you bothered to pay attention, but yes, that's what I said. Thanks for repeating it and proving it once again.
joezuu 3 months ago
@joezuu I know they are the same thing, but it is still a moronic idea. If you believe the nonsense he spews, then you probably are a syndicalist....
AroundSun 3 months ago
@AroundSun This was fun for a while, but making idiots unwittingly make fun of themselves gets old pretty quick.
joezuu 3 months ago
@joezuu No it was never fun, just pathetic that people listen to this drone...
AroundSun 3 months ago
@AroundSun Besides, who ever said that I was an anarcho-syndicalist? I certainly never did. That's a big assumption that you made.
joezuu 3 months ago
Chomsky is a double talking liberal democract
AroundSun 3 months ago
@AroundSun People work and buy things from corporations because they live in a Capitalist economy dumbass. Slaves ate the food their owners gave them, does that mean they were advocates or supporters of slavery?
kingnat2 3 months ago
@kingnat2 Yea, nice job comparing apples to oranges. Slaves weren't free you illiterate sack of shit. Slaves were called slaves for a reason, they were owned! They didn't have freedom of choice to buy goods and services from people who produced them. We do. People buy things because it makes their lives better. If it didn't, they wouldn't buy them! Nobody is forcing you to do business with a company, only the government can force you to buy things. And they do all the time.
AroundSun 3 months ago
@AroundSun No, the force to buy goods is incited by the instinct to live. When people have choices, but the choices are not very different, or very good; i.e., not real choices people will obviously buy them to survive. "People buy things because it makes their lives better." How so? Because it allows them to continue in the pattern of unesteemed living they are forced into via social constraints?
kingnat2 3 months ago
@kingnat2 "When people have choices, but the choices are not very different, or very good; i.e., not real choices people will obviously buy them to survive" Thanks for making the case for capitalism
People buy things because it makes their lives better, yes, or else they wouldn't buy them. Does your standard of living and quality of life NOT depend on many goods and services you have?
"Social Constraints" OK Al Sharpton.. What you trying to say here?
AroundSun 3 months ago
@AroundSun No, it simply makes them survive. My standard of living does indeed depend on the goods and services I have, but with Capitalism goods and services are whatever is produced by corporations. So if I need new shoes, and there are no shoe companies that are made in America, and thats what I want, then I have to make a sacrifice. I didn't get what I really wanted. So I didn't have a choice. I had a Hobson's choice. hobson being the corporation that makes decisons about how goods are made
kingnat2 3 months ago
@kingnat2 Under capitalism, goods and services are what are produced by those who meet a demand of consumers in society to an extent that consumers are willing to pay to have that need met. It, again, creates massively more choices than any other system. If enough consumers want shoes made in America and are willing to pay for that, shoes will be made in America. If the majority of consumers prefer the less expensive alternative, shoes will be made where they can be produced more efficiently.
FletchforFreedom 3 months ago
@FletchforFreedom This is theoritcal capitalism, which is not real capitalism. When people are uneducated, lied to, and manipulated; or simply apathetic, then their choices will restrict my freedom. I want to buy shoes that are made in America, yet I cannot because of the choices of the mass of consumers. How is the rest of society making my economic choices any better than corporations or the government making them for me?
kingnat2 3 months ago
@kingnat2 Nothing I've said is even remotely just theoretical. It is demonstrable reality. When people are lied to, manipulated uneducated or simply apathetic they often turn to charlatans like Chomsky, which is why I try to impart basic economic and historical knowledge whenever possible. The choices are entirely your own. If YOU wish to spend enough for domestically produced shoes, YOU can. That you don't wish to spend that much is not an impairment of your choices.
FletchforFreedom 3 months ago
@FletchforFreedom But not if I do not posses the wages, I cant buy them. It's not that hard.
kingnat2 3 months ago
@kingnat2 Again, if you do not possess the wages, that is not an impairment of youir freedom. In a free market, you have ample opportunity to get those wages and the opportunity to expend those resources any way you wish. That you can't sprout wings and fly (or buy a jet) is a manifestatation of reality and circumstance; it ha nothing to do with your freedom at all.
FletchforFreedom 3 months ago
@FletchforFreedom But I don't have ample oppurtunity to get my desired wages. When I am unable to unionize, or search for a new job because of lack of skills or openings, my wages are set by minimum wage laws and what corporations think my wage should be(Someone else making my decisions i. e. not true freedom)
kingnat2 3 months ago
@kingnat2 Yes, in the real world, you DO have ample choices and, in fact, history demonmstrates that you have more choices and are most likely to achieve better wages and higher living standards wherever union presence is least felt. You are free to eductae yourself and acquire skills but you are not free to dictate to others what they will offer for employment. You are free to apply for countless job opportunities and they are free to offer you a market wage. That's freedom.
FletchforFreedom 3 months ago
@FletchforFreedom What you are advocating is freedom of the will, which I do beleive in. However this and economic freedom are two different things. Some people lack the intelligence or creativity to learn skills beyond say janitorial work or housecleaning. In your system this means they are doomed to a life 9-5 drudgery and meager existence. This social Darwinism tactic has been a corporatist ply for years to fool many into beleiving that the only good such people porduce is equal to their wage
kingnat2 3 months ago
@kingnat2 There isn't the slightest difference between freedom of the will and economic freedom - or any other kind of freedom. That some people have more/less intelligence or more/less creativity or more/less skill is an expression of simple reality - not a pervesrion of the system or an example of social Darwinism. The fact is that opportunities exist for essentially anyone to improve their lot in life if they apply themselves.
FletchforFreedom 3 months ago
@FletchforFreedom I beleive that no man is to be controlled by another man. That is what every bit of my philosophy is based on.
kingnat2 3 months ago
@kingnat2 No one is controlled by any one else in a free market. What you are describing is every version of socialism that has ever existed.
FletchforFreedom 3 months ago
@FletchforFreedom I'm not a socialist.
kingnat2 3 months ago
@kingnat2 Then what are you? In basic socio-economic parlance, one can either be an advocate of capitalism or an advocate of socialism. Pick a side.
FletchforFreedom 3 months ago
@FletchforFreedom You've just demonstrated your lack of economic understanding. Unless you are reffering to Socialism's original context in politics. You're looking at Capitalism from a purely theoritical, scripted, classroom standpoint. As for my "pickiness" you seem to not understand what I'm trying to convey. Maybe that's my fault. Choice to you may mean being able to Buy Cheez Nips or Cheez-Its; Puma or Adidas; But this is not true freedom. Yes Capitalism has different brands I understand
kingnat2 3 months ago
@kingnat2 Again, I have been an economist for nearly three decades now. What I am describing of capitalism (unlike your story of the Third World) is not theoretical at all but real world activity. My point is that there are countless options available to you - that is choice. That you might want something not available would be the case under EVERY system. That you might want something not made by a corporation or with shareholder involvement is an irrelevancy with no bearing on choice.
FletchforFreedom 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kingnat2 "I beleive that no man is to be controlled by another man. That is what every bit of my philosophy is based on."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA YEA RIGHT!
AroundSun 3 months ago
@FletchforFreedom This is pure work ethic myth trash. So what you are saying is that those with low creativity or intelligence should just pull themselves up by their bootstraps or persish. Harsh, man.
kingnat2 3 months ago
@kingnat2 If you don't like it then stop spouting myth trash. What I am saying is that history demonstrates without exception that the free market system has permitted those with low creativity or intelligence to better themselves with little if any risk of "perishing" while the alternatives presented have always made it far more likely that poverty will remain far more likely.
FletchforFreedom 3 months ago
@FletchforFreedom It doesn't though. What history demonstrates is massive poverty, imperialism, brutal labor struggles, meaningless living, and huge gaps between the rich and poor brought abut by both Capitalist, and State Capitalist regimes.
kingnat2 3 months ago
@kingnat2 History bears absolutely not even the slightest resemblance to what you have described. The fact is that capitalism is dircetly responsible for the massive improvement ion living standards, wages and working conditions, particularly for the poor and working people. over the last 300 years. No other force in human history has done a better job mitigating poverty. And those "gaps" are meaningless given that the "poor" live better where capitalism is adopted.
cont
FletchforFreedom 3 months ago
@FletchforFreedom But Capitalism is worldwide. Third world countries are just as much of Capitalism as the US is. They have been used for their natural resources by imperial powers such as China, Russia, and the US.
So while poverty in the US may be high quality living by world standards, Those in Third world poverty are still victims of Capitalism, they have just been victims of circumstance being from Resource countries and not imperial powers.
kingnat2 3 months ago
@kingnat2 While every country has elements of both capitalism and socialism, the notion that Third World countries are prdominantly capitalist is laughable. That they have been economically harmed by trading their natural resources is wholly and completely wrong - quite the opposite is the case. So your whole case against capitalism collapses against these two glaring factual inaccuracies.
FletchforFreedom 3 months ago
@FletchforFreedom China buys oil from Sudan. The Sudanese government uses this capital from these sales to fund the Genocide of Nomadic peoples in Its land. How are those being slaughtered gaining from this free trade?
kingnat2 3 months ago
@kingnat2 Why must continue this ridiculous straw man festival? Free trade takes place between free actors in the marketplace. Governmnet purchases are socialistic and something else entirely (as is obvious to anyone with a grasp of these concepts).
FletchforFreedom 3 months ago
@FletchforFreedom Since you seem to know so much about "the real world" could you please tell me what the purpose of life is ? It seems that most capitalists see the purpose of life as maximizing earning potential or he who has the most money wins... Is this what life amounts to in "the real world" ???
It would help me greatly because I have no idea what I should be living for... but Capitalists seem to have it all figured out ...
OppressedAnarchist 2 months ago
@OppressedAnarchist I couldn’t tell you what the purpose of your life is. Only a buffoon looks to economic systems for purpose (capitalists make no such claim). I can only state the purpose of my life, which is to improve the lives of myself, my loved ones and the world as a whole by being a productive, responsible individual and meeting the needs of others. Capitalism yields such results; socialism yields the opposite results making everyone worse off – which is why I advocate capitalism.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom And state capitalism is not a misnomyr. Have you ever heard of Social Democracies? Like Sweden?
kingnat2 3 months ago
@kingnat2 Sweden is a hybrid market economy with elements of socialism (primarily the Welfare state) and capitalism (the embrace of which has resulted in their relative success after stagnating for decades under heavier unsustainable socialism). State activity is, by definition, socialistic. Therefore, state capitalism is, by definition, an oxymoron.
FletchforFreedom 3 months ago
@FletchforFreedom Corporations exist in Sweden. And they make CAPITAL gains. It is therefore a Capitalist system.
kingnat2 3 months ago
@kingnat2 Don't accuse me of not grasping these concepts when you clearly do not yourself. That corporations exist in Sweden is true. That those corporations can make capital gains is true. That this, in and of itself, makes the system as a whole capitalist is flatly NOT true. That it menas that Sweden's economy has ELEMENTS of capitalism (as does every other country), that is certainly the case, but is not the position being discussed.
FletchforFreedom 3 months ago
@FletchforFreedom As you said, one can be an advocate of Capitalism or Socialism. I'm assuming you meant Socialism in its original context there. As elements of Socialism are used, Corporations and private ownership are still the basis of the country's economy; therefore it is a Capitalist economy.
kingnat2 3 months ago
@kingnat2 The definition of socialism is the exercise of the powers of ownership over the means of production, usually by the state. To the extent that any governmnet is excercising control over capital or capital goos it is engaging in socialism. The assertion that any country with a corporation in it is, by definition, a capitalist country demonstrates a glaring misunderstanding of the terms under discussion. Sweden is a hybrid economy and, arguably, predominantly socialist.
FletchforFreedom 3 months ago
@FletchforFreedom I left out the trem "collectively" in the definition.
FletchforFreedom 3 months ago
@FletchforFreedom The modern definition of Socialism is a form of Capitalism. I understand the term, it is simply a bad choice of title. Capitalism has many forms, as does Communism. Social Democracies are a formof Capitalism.
kingnat2 3 months ago
@kingnat2 No, the modern definition of socailism remains the antithesis of capitalism. They are polar opposites, The former is economic freedom - the free market - in which free individuals exercise the power of ownership over property. The latter is economic slavery, where property is controlled collectively by the state or some mythic societal utopia that can never be. Social Democracies are NOT a "form of capitalism - repeating such stupidity will not magically make it at all credible.
FletchforFreedom 3 months ago
@FletchforFreedom The antithesis of Capitalism is Communism where a monetary system, corporations, and private property are all nonexistent. Socialism in it's modern context still allows all these things. It may be a welfare state(which it is) so it is still Capitalist. It may not be your idea of "true" Capitalism, but it is still a form of it.
kingnat2 3 months ago
@kingnat2 Again, I am not responsible for your misuse of terms. Capitalism is the antithesis of socialism. Communism is a particular form of socialism where private property has been completely abolished but that doesn't alter the well established dynamic. Governmnet action, the welfare state, nationalized industries - all are, by definition, acts of socialism, even if they make up part of a hybrid economy that retains a market system (in order to pay for those things). You are simply wrong.
FletchforFreedom 3 months ago
@FletchforFreedom By definition they are examples of Socialism, a bastardized bit and piece of Communism tool for controlling Capitalism. You are right on its definition, what I am saying is that the definition is wrong. It's been mislabeled by incorrect terminology and laissez-faire hysteria.
kingnat2 3 months ago
@kingnat2 To the contrary, it is the correct definition because it is the only logical, rational way to view the alternatives. Communism is a pipe dream, an impossibility based on the debunked theories of a failed journalist. That socialism has been used as a tool for controlling capitilaism is certainly true and goes a long way to explaining why more socialist countries trail steadily behind more capitalist ones economically.
FletchforFreedom 3 months ago
@FletchforFreedom You've either just: A) Denied facts or B) advocated seperatism. And Communism is not just a pipe dream, it is the way many species thrive in nature and it has never been debunked. It has been falsified and bastarized by those who don't understand it and those who wish to see it fail. The pipe dream is the system where utilitarian prposes will be acheived by competition and class division. Capitalism in itself is hypocritical.
kingnat2 3 months ago
@kingnat2 I am statinmg only facts. That you are not aware that communism has never even come close to existinmg and was thooroughly debunked long ebfore you were born is not a failing on my part. It's underlying premises (labor theory of value, surplus value, compression of wages by capitalism, the viability of a system without prices) were all proven complete bunkum and discarded with good reason. Even the whole cMarxian class nonsense has always been laughable.
FletchforFreedom 3 months ago
@FletchforFreedom Facts are facts okay? You're denying biology and using "facts" that are actually critiques written by free market theorists, an obviously biased source. Capitalism and Communism by definiton are both utilitarian systems, are they not? One has been around for centuries without acheiving its goal, and one has been around for sligghtly over a century without ever being put into true practice by man
kingnat2 3 months ago
@kingnat2 I haven't denied any facts (only fallacies). Nor have I denied biology. E. O. Wilson famously noted that socialism was impossible for human beings but worked fine for ants (his speciality). I imagine if we were hive creatures, it might not have been debunked, but...
All economic systems are designed for use. That has no bearing on anything. To the extent capitalism has been embraced, it has worked beautifully. The underlying premises of Marxism have been disproved.
FletchforFreedom 3 months ago
@FletchforFreedom So what you are saying is that you don't beleive in freedom to change, or the freedom of will and you are actually not arguing economics, but some sort of odd scientific determinism.
When you built the puzzle with your child, did you communicate with them? how did you go about assembling this puzzle?
kingnat2 3 months ago
@kingnat2 I believe completely in the freedom to change and individuals do it all the time. What cannot cahneg is human natire and THAT is what Marxism would require (even if it had not been disproved on countless other grounds).
FletchforFreedom 3 months ago
@kingnat2 I'm not sure where you are going with the puzzle analogy, but I can guess. Before you get into trouble, the essence of capitalism is free assocaition and cooperation. It imposes force upon no one. Socialism on the other hand cannot exist without coercion.
FletchforFreedom 3 months ago
@FletchforFreedom So you actually are a Communist. If you are an advocate of a cooperative society, then why hinder it with a monetary system, wages, heiarchy and not just skip ahead to voluntary cooperation? When you made the puzzle with your children, I'm assuming you didn't make your child fill out a form, wait three weeks, and interveiw before laying down a piece. I'm assuming you let him lay it down where he/she saw it fit without giving them too much shit
kingnat2 3 months ago
@kingnat2 Communism has nothing to do with cooperation - capitalism does. And, again, the monetary system is perhaps man's most beneficial technological achievement. Wages are voluntary and hierarchy is not necessarily harmful. And I let my children use some of my property and prevent them using other property. I manage their use of certain property for their own safety and to protect my things and if they set up a puzzle in the middle of the floor, they'll be told to move.
FletchforFreedom 3 months ago
@FletchforFreedom you completely missed the puzzle analogy. And what is your definition of Communism?
kingnat2 3 months ago
@kingnat2 Your puzzle analogy about cooperation was utterly and completely useless as it had no connection with reality.
Communism is that most extreme form of socialism in which private (bourgeois) property has been abolished (objectively impossible), property and economic decisions are controlled by the society as a whole (objectively impossible) in the absence of prices (disproved) such that the state, which exists as an interim measure, withers away (laughable).
FletchforFreedom 3 months ago
@FletchforFreedom My puzzle analogy made perfect sense. When you made the puzzle, you used cooperation and communication to solve it. What you didn't do was tell your child all the pieces were yours to distribute, tell your child how and when to use the piece, and deny them the using of certain pieces all together. If you did, the puzzle never would have been completed. When this cooperative model of human effeciency is applied to a large scale, it is Communism.
kingnat2 3 months ago
@kingnat2 It made perfect sense. It is perhaps the most laughably ridiculous analogy I have ever come across. In order to apply to theoretical communism, you have to allow for the neighbor taking the puzzle pieces for kindling (no private property rights). To apply to applied communism, the child is held at gunpoint to create the puzzle the state demands. It also leaves all the allocation issues (under which communism fails spectacularly and is grossly inefficient) completely unaddressed.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom Once again, you think anything left of laissez-faire capitalism is Stalinism or state Marxism. You lack a basic comprehension of the economic and politcal spectrum.
kingnat2 2 months ago
@kingnat2 Once again you demonstrate that, since you have not a single valid argument to make, you think that completely mischaracterizing mine serves some purpose other than demonstrating your own dishonesty and the bankruptcy of youir position.
You are, of course, wrong - as anyone who isn't intellectual dishonest can see.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@kingnat2 To clarify, such notables as Bohm-Bawerk, Mises and Hayek have disproved the labor tyheory of value (and by extension the Marxian theory of exploitation), the notion that capitalism compresses wages (historically destroyed), the Marxian concept of historical materialism based as it is on surplus value which cannot exist (part of the debunked LTV). The theory has been disproved and implementation attempts have been disastrous. Marx is dead; Marxism even more so.
FletchforFreedom 3 months ago
When corporations are made utterly free to reign, wages will be fixed and the heads of such corporations will inevitably cooperate to fix wages, prices, and resource allocation, i.e. forming a centralized form of fixed command and heiarchy. Corporations have demonstrated this as their goal for as long as they have been in existence. Those economists haven't disproved anything, they have only critiqued his work with textbook capitalism and a mathemnatical and unrealistic veiw of man
kingnat2 3 months ago
@kingnat2 Your position is idiotically disconnected from reality. Wages cannot be fixed. Business compete fopr labor. This is has been demonstrated by history. If your assessment were correct, no one could get an entry level job above the legal minimum and moving up would be practically impossible, but, in the real world, entry level positions routinely pay more even during a recession and moving up is by far the norm.
You are clearly in denial of the real world.
FletchforFreedom 3 months ago
You have contradicted yourself in this post. Is Capitalism based around competition or by cooperation? you have stated it is driven by both. These are mutually exclusive terms. And I never denied anyone can move through entry level positions, but to rise to the upper class from an underclass and resourceless background is nearly impossible and impossible for the entire population since capitalism needs heirarchy to survive and thus could not have all of man grasp his greatest material potential
kingnat2 3 months ago
@kingnat2 No, I never contradicted myself. The fact is that competition and cooperation are NOT mutually exclusive in action and literally all of human action has aspects of both. Capitalism is driven by both; communism by neither. People work together to create things to meet consumer needs and compete with others in the marketplace simultaneously. It drives production, efficiency, technological development, etc.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@kingnat2 That you never overtly argued it is irrelevant. The assumption that moving up from the entry level is impossible is inherent in your position. Even if it were even remotely true that capitalism requires hierarchy (not even remotely), you proceed from the absurd and unsupported premise that hierarchy is inherently detrimental or hinders the achievement of the greatest material potential (which is obviously false).
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@kingnat2 I am not responsible for your ignorance. Marxism is based on an unrealistic (actually childish and foolish) view of man that is so obviously contrary to reality one wonders why anyone would be so deluded as to belivee it. The labor theory of value was never credible. It has been disproven because it flatly cannot work and bears no resemblance to what actually occurs in the real world. It has been abandoned in favor of marginal utility because THAT works.
FletchforFreedom 3 months ago
@FletchforFreedom Capitalism is the childish position. Anyone thinking that heirarchy and society driven by mass greed are what will provide humanitarian and utilitarian results is denying the reality of Capitalism and of human nature. You say that your system has worked, which it has for few. but it has not reached nearly what could be acheived using mass cooperation. Increased standards of living in imperial nations is not justification for Capitalism. In fact just the oppostie.
kingnat2 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kingnat2 His talk is gibberish. Noam advocates anarcho syndicalism which is so absurd and ridiculous because it is contradictory in every sense. He favors a vague and ill defined form of collectivism in which workers will just take control of production somehow....He is a historic and economic illiterate who should stick to linguistics.
AroundSun 3 months ago
@AroundSun The only history illiterate is you.
MsZeitgeist85 3 months ago
@MsZeitgeist85 Nahh, Chomsky favors a vague and ill defined form of collectivism that the workers will figure out as they fumble and stumble along bankruptcy LoL...Syndicalism is so absurd that nobody has ever wrote clearly in its favor...
AroundSun 3 months ago
@AroundSun He has given examples of his form of collectivism that is in use today. Particularly in countries like Denmark and Norway where a significant amount of GDP labor has the collectivism. You don't have to look that far to realize that those countries are doing quite well right now
MsZeitgeist85 3 months ago
@kingnat2 Capitalism is the position based upon actual reality – real human behavior in real world situations. It doesn’t ignore historical failures and logical inconsistencies inherent in the socialist/Marxist paradigm. That you wish to use loaded terms like “mass greed” so that you can pretend that simple self-interest is the driver of human behavior cannot alter the fact that it IS human nature. Mass cooperation of the type you espouse is empirically impossible, and obviously so.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom This is the largest load of irrational, mind numbing idiocy I have ever read. The fact that you cannot distinguish Marxists from Social Democrats vastly decreases your crediblity.
kingnat2 2 months ago
@kingnat2 The fiorst sentence describing Chomsky is quite accurate. As, of course, I am fully versed in the differences between Marxists and Social Democrats, I am also aware that the economic positions of BOTH have been universal failures, whic obliterates your own credibility (for the umpteenth time).
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@kingnat2 Capitalism has been directly responsible for the massive increase in living standards the world over during the last 300 years (and not just in “imperial countries” – a red herring), making more goods and services available to more people at lower cost (and at less labor effort), particularly for the poor (which live at vastly higher living standards than did the rich historically except where the implementation of capitalism has been impaired.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
And labors value is relative depending on wokers and employers. If hierarchy is used in favor of employers(which it is) then workers are one of two things a) left without work and resources due to lack of pay b) robbed of their freedom to negotiate their own wages and must sacrafice their ideal of their labors worth for their employers. When employers own the land and resources(which they do) They haave no need for competition as the workers must use Corporate resources or infringe on law
kingnat2 3 months ago
@kingnat2 Labor’s value is relative in the marketplace. But the notion of disproportionate power has been completely disproved. Were it the case, no one could EVER find work at above the legal minimum, nor could anyone move up. If people EVER achieve better than that, competition for labor must exist and the power you attribute to employers cannot. THAT is mutually exclusive. Employers own the land/resources they purchase, just as I do – it has no bearing on competition at all.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom Dispropartionate power? Disproved? I don't know why I haven't stopped arguing with you by now, but anyone with a goddamn brain can look at the real world and see that EMPLOYERS HAVE HIRING POWER AND IMMEDIATE CONTROL OVER PRICES. Also the claim that Capitalism doesnt require heiarchy is the most unrealistic load of bullshit I've ever heard. you are obviously blind.
kingnat2 2 months ago
@kingnat2 Yes, your position that "EMPLOYERS HAVE HIRING POWER AND IMMEDIATE CONTROL OVER PRICES" has been completely and repeatedly disproved. Only the utterly ignorant adhere to that intellectually bankrupt position. Again, if it were true, getting a job paying higher than the legal minimum and/or moving up from that level over time is logically IMPOSSIBLE.
And, since you have no garsp of what capitalism actually is, your stance deserves the consideration of any other fertilizer.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom And once again you argue with a position I am not a part of. Objects have no inherent value but what one man perceives them as. Therefore value is relative and has no true definiton. Value to corporations and value to workers are to different things. When heirarchy is emposed, employers will undoubtedly impose their definition of value on workers. When value is different to every individual the market will remain unstable and fluncuate constantly therefore cooperation is needed
kingnat2 3 months ago
@kingnat2 Value IS relative (and Marxism/communism is ENTIRELY based on a contrary position and must be discarded) but that is not the same thing as being without "true definition". While everyone may value things differently, the objective value is that at which something can be exchanged. There is no such thing as a separate "use value" that can be compared to the exchange value to determine exploitation. Nothing is "imposed" on anyone. And hierarchy demonstrably doesn't cause instability.
FletchforFreedom 3 months ago
@kingnat2 Several fallacies in your argument - reality is not "force". And, in fact, the free market (even with corporations) provides more choice than under any other system becasue those that best meet consumer needs and desires prosper and those that do not fail. That you choose to disagree with the choices that other consumers make is irrelevant and worthless, Your fantasy of sociali constrainst has no bearing on the perfectly legitimate choices of others.
FletchforFreedom 3 months ago
@AroundSun "They didn't have freedom of choice to buy goods and services from people who produced them." Now this is just a lie. When I purchase goods I mainly supply profit to shareholders and executives. Are the goods the fruits of their "labor" or the workers? Well, the workers of course. But when Capitalism is in effect the producers of goods i.e. the workers, are exploited by executives and those who have contributed to a company by none other than sharing an imaginary piece of it
kingnat2 3 months ago
@kingnat2 "exploited"
You already lose, thanks for playing! You have shown your ignorance and are among the type of people that think If I own a deli, and I hire a 14 year old cashier that simply 'needs a job' for the summer, he is now entitled to half of my deli You are a joke
AroundSun 3 months ago
@AroundSun Not what im saying at all. But when Nike rakes in billions a year, makes it into the Forbes 500 and pays sweatshop labor pennies a day, it fits the definition of exploitation perfectely. You can try to make me into some liberal hippie all you want, that's not me.
lolz at calling me Al Sharpton, a perfect capitalist.
kingnat2 3 months ago
@kingnat2 People are leaving the battlefields in other countries to go work. I think they know a little bit more about their own interests than you or Nancy Pelosi does. You think the federal government is this utopia in which all good things come from. You are living in a land of oz pal. Typical liberal with typical liberal arguments. It is easy to comprehend liberal market principle but it takes true intelligence to understand how basic functions of a society can be provided otherwise
AroundSun 3 months ago
@AroundSun Your arguments are merely insults and you lack a basis for anything. What war are chinese sweatshop laborers leaving to work?
I also despise federal governments, nearly as much as I do big business. Nice try though. Sorry I do not fit your stereotype mold.
kingnat2 3 months ago
@kingnat2 Ok, lets just unemploy all of those people and put them back into worse poverty.
Oh, you are one of these people that hates the government and hates capitalism too LMAO. Not much area left since capitalism is the absence of economic systems and central planning by the government. You don't know what you believe. You have no real beliefs, or philosophy. Nor do you have a backbone.
AroundSun 3 months ago
@kingnat2 In fact, the people most vehemtly opposed to the closing of "swetshops" are those employed in them. The simple, inescapable fact is that the employer/employee relationship is ALWAYS mutually beneficial. No "exploitation" is taking place as both parties are made better off. [The issue is not whether you are a "liberal hippie" - the issue is that this is Econ 101 and basic reality of which you are grossly misinformed.] The ONLY alternative to the sweatshop is always greater poverty.
FletchforFreedom 3 months ago
@kingnat2 When you buy goods you generate a return for those that produced those goods which are the fruits of the application of capital, resources and labor (that has typically received an agreed upon wage without the risk associated with the possibility that the final good will not sell and in a timely manner typically before the good is sold). Both the notion that only labor generates value and the notion of Marxian exploitation have been completely refuted.
FletchforFreedom 3 months ago
@FletchforFreedom Yes I do. But I don't agree with the fraction of my payment that goes to stockholders. This goes back to the Hobsons choice. Thats not true freedom. I don't beleive my money should go to them, yet it does. And as for the "agreed upon wage" argument, I have to make the case for wage negotiation. Why do many corporations export their production to third world countries? Because they can set wages with little or no resistance from uneducated foreigners in poverty.
kingnat2 3 months ago
@kingnat2 No such Hobson's choice exists. If you are willing to pay enogh, someone will happily make a pair of shoes for you by hand. That you are unwilling to pay that price is not the absence of alternatives. And it is not up to you what shareholders EARN. You have the option of purchasing any of countless goods avaialble in the marketplace. Whether you don;t want your wages to go to someone is not a sunjetc either under your control or any of your business.
FletchforFreedom 3 months ago
@FletchforFreedom So then you have just admitted that Capitalism is not truly economic freedom. And as for unwiling to pay the price' do you understand that some people live in poverty? Say I am living in poverty and want these shoes. It is up to the producer o accept or deny my offers. When they set wages, which businesses do, then I am left with no such choice.
kingnat2 3 months ago
@kingnat2 Okay, that's a lie. Capitalism has been the ghreatest anti-poverty engine ever conceived by the mind of Man. If you are living in poverty and want to buy domestically produced shoes, you can try to save enough for them or you can make another choice. You are confusing freedom and means. Freedom is the absence of constraint by others. If you lack the means to buy something, that hasn't the slightest thing to do with your freedom. They are entirely different things.
FletchforFreedom 3 months ago
@FletchforFreedom They aren't though. When my wages are set by governments and corporations(which they are) I have no choice. And Freedom and means are deeply connected. If I need the shoes now, but have to save to acquire the American made pair then my choice is nonexistent. So in Capitalism it is a fight between needs and wants. If I am imporvished, I am left with no choices.
kingnat2 3 months ago
@kingnat2 Yes, they are. Your wages are determined by the interaction of supply and demand. You can not achieve higher than market wages and businesses cannot pay lower than market wages. The negotiation takes place among millions of actors in the marketplace, so your presumption of a lack of choice is entirely baseless. You are confusing an unwillingness on your part to accept the choices available to you with a lack of choices. Your self-limitation is entirely invalid.
FletchforFreedom 3 months ago
@FletchforFreedom Yes, but as stated before, If I make a choice and the mass of consumers do not share the choice, I am left with no option but what the market has chosen. Its a dictatorship of the ignorant and ipso facto the market. I am a slave to the market by your theory
kingnat2 3 months ago
@kingnat2 The notion that it is a dictatorship is absurd on its face. It is impossible for there to exist a system that will supply you with goods or services as you like when they are radically different from what everyone else likes. That is a ridiculous demand on your part and a perversion of the term slavery. No one has impaired your freedom. If you want domestically made shoes, make them yourself. You do not have the right to impair the freedoms of others to meet outrageous demands.
FletchforFreedom 3 months ago
@FletchforFreedom But if I am also making my own food, housing, plumbing, heating, and electricity I am not able to make shoes by my own hand. Therefore i am left to buy what corporations have to offer. If I like nothing they offer, or choose not to support their practices, I am left without the choice I want and/or without shoes.
kingnat2 3 months ago
@kingnat2 And "state capitalism" is an oxymoron. It's just a name for another form of socialism. Again, the pretense that your choices are limited because the countless optio ns avaialbale to you are provided by corporations is ridiculous. Your position is completely untenable. No option available in reality offers more choices to you than capitalism (including things offered by corporations). You are pretending that your pickiness is a lack of choice. You can;t be taken seriously.
FletchforFreedom 3 months ago
@kingnat2 Corporations choose to employ labor in third world countries because it is cost effective to do so resulting in less expensive products in this country and a higher return to the producer. Fortunately, the same procwess results in MORE and HIGHER PAYING jobs being INsourced into the US. The effect is that living standards rise in BOTH countries and everyone is better off.
FletchforFreedom 3 months ago
@FletchforFreedom What such jobs exist? And lead poisining and shoes that tear the first day I wear them are not high quality products. And if standards of living in these sweatshops are so great, why do businesses feel the need to put nets around the top floor of their sweatshop facilities?
kingnat2 3 months ago
@kingnat2 Plenty of jobs exist. And neither lead posoning or shoes that tear the first day are real material risks in the current marketplace. And the only nets being put around top floors of such facilities are mosquito netting. The notion that those working in "sweatshops" would flee at the first opportuinity is pure bovine fecal matter.
FletchforFreedom 3 months ago
@FletchforFreedom And as much of an effort you make to say "bullshit" in some sophisticated, Friedman-like manner, the fact remains that the nets are above the first floor. Mosquitos can also fly in three-dimensions,FYI
kingnat2 3 months ago
@kingnat2 I never argued that mosquitoes cannot fly in three dimentions. If you wish me to be completely blunt about it, anyone spreading the tale that "sweatshops" put up nets to keep workers from fleeing is purveying pure unadulterated, unforgivable bullshit. It is a lie, plain and simple.
FletchforFreedom 3 months ago
@FletchforFreedom Anyone purveying the myth that everyone can rise through the ranks and become Steve Jobs with simple elbow grease is talking pure, unadultered bullshit.
kingnat2 3 months ago
@kingnat2 Another straw man. I never argued that everyone can become Steve Jobs. Everyone in a free market system can obtain employment and better their lot in life and, has been unconditionally demonstrated by history, that is EXACTLY what has happened where capitalism has been most embraced.
FletchforFreedom 3 months ago
@FletchforFreedom This is a complete lie. Military industry has started wars to boost profits resulting in the death of millions. Starvation occurs when government funds are used to bail out Corporations instead of being given to foreign aid. Roads have been sold to private corporatiions and turned into toll roads costing civilians millions in dollars and minutes of time. Corporations are benefeited by their own free reign. Average man isnt
kingnat2 3 months ago
@kingnat2 Sigh. Why when the ignorance of socialists is exposed do they debase themselves with obviously false cries of "lie!". Military action is by definition socialistic. Starvation occurs when governmnets intervene in the lives of the citizenry and foreign aid is the taking from poor people in rich countries to give to rich people in poor countries. Toll roads have saved taxpayers countless billions because they are run more efficiently than by government. Socialism harms the avg man.
FletchforFreedom 3 months ago