How do you define "Free Market". You might want to Check Confederalsocialist Video: "I SUPPORT FREE MARKETS." If we blame free human interaction for this mess, We can't live in anarchy
Second. Could you enlighten me in the matter by pointing to the SPECIFIC regulation or lackthereof which created this market failiure you speak of. After all, it isn't like the "Market" Anarchists haven't pointed to SPECIFIC regulations and blamed them for the mess.
What is it that you are trying to get at in this video? If it is that not all deregulations are necessarily a good thing, then you have it. To set up a system that allows central banks, creditors, & organizations like the IMF to dominate markets and then remove the laws that hamper them from engaging in predatory activity is a dangerous thing to do.
But, before the IMF food riots start here in North America, perhaps you could explain how we can get people to give up their statism if there lives are dependent upon the state?
Still waiting on the impressive list of economic journals you've been published in....LOL Oh and those "credentials" that would put Chomsky to shame. LOL. You're a sad little person. Anybody can make empty claims. You seem to have mastered the art. Good for you! Perhaps you haven't noticed but aside from your empty rhetoric you haven't backed up a single statement you've made. That's funny. You are a joke: a sad pathetic joke. Thanks for the laughs
Funny, as "illiterate" as they are you have yet to post one substantive critical remark. All you've done is claim that you're a better authority on this topic than Chomsky or anyone else. Despite the fact that it's a logical fallacy (authority proves nothing) I've given you ample opportunity to prove your credentials. But you have none. You're a fake, a liar, and a complete moron. Now please go away.
"you have yet to post one substantive critical remark"
Untrue. Perhpas you missed the significance of my earlier criticisms, but tha's your failing, not mine.
Nor did I claim to be the Great Oz of Economics. I just pointed out that *any* economist has better training in economics than Chomsky because he has none.
Why do you keep lying about this point?
If authority proves nothing, as you say, why do you quote a non-economist like Chomsky as an authority on economics?
In fact, quoting someone who is an authority in Field X as support for a claim made in Field Y is the very definition of the fallacious appeal to authority.
Don't lecture on logic me when you clearly don't understand it.
The economy is regulated by the state. The market was never free, it's a state-enforced credit monopoly run by Central Banks. The state gives special privalege to limited-liability corporations which externalize risk more. Regulation of the financial system by the market would overturn the imbalances caused by state-enforced fiat currency and credit monopolies.
Read 'Socialism' and 'Human Action' by Ludwig von Mises. Then read anything by Murray Rothbard that you can find.
I read it to the tune of the Wizard of Oz, and it was still stupid and unfunny.
Who does not regard Chomsky as a nutcase? Well, to be acknowledged as the most cited author on the planet, you'd have to at least have a FEW people thinking you're not a nutcase!
The New York Times is a totally centrist paper with a slight conservative bias. But then, the term 'conservative' is subjective in this case.
Oh, you want me to list all the publications he's cited in? No thanks. Just search 'most cited author on the planet' on Google, I'm sure you'll find something.
He was ranked as the most cited author in the Arts and Humanities Citation Index. He is ranked among Marx, Lenin, Shakespeare, Aristotle, the Bible, Plato, Freud, Chomsky, Hegel and Cicero.
There must be a lot of Marxist English professors then!
You don't get up there, amongst the Bible and Shakespeare, by being quoted by an English teacher. You have to have widespread academic credibility.
Question Chomsky's knowledge of economics all you want, but don't call him a 'nutcase', because you make yourself look like a fool. And I honestly doubt that you know more about economics than Chomsky, or are 'more qualified' as you have said.
Obvious logical fallacy. [P implies Q] does not imply [Q implies P]. Great minds are frequently cited, yes, but so are ideological monsters like Marx & Lenin. And Chomsky.
Again, stop being an arrogant idiot. Think what you want about Marx and Lenin, but they were two extremely historically relevant people.
Chomsky is an 'ideological monster' far less than you are an asshole who uses economics acronyms to make himself look clever. We are not economists, so using economics acronyms (HUD mandates, AER, JPE) and speak English.
the notion of anti americanism (or anti-statism in general) is one that only exists in totalitarian societies, like Brazil under military junta, Nazi Germany or the USSR. You like spouting dumb shit like their commissars? Fine, go live in a totalitarian state. Terrorists huh? Too bad the US is THE ONLY COUNTRY to be found guilty of the International Terrorism by the world court. The whole world is anti-Israel, the little zionist spartan state is only a military arm of the American Empire. Fail
BTW: How does training in linguistics make one qualified as an authority on economics?
Economics is the most mathematically & statistically sophisticated of the social sciences. (Citations records for economic journals are found in the Social Science Citation Index, not the AHCI. Even there, a known bias exists in favor of left-wing publications.) What training in mathematics & statistics does he have? What training does he have in economics?
Why are your panties in a bunch about Chomsky? I still haven't heard you critique a single thing he said. All you've done is rant and cry about how he's not an authority. Well if he's not an authority and you know so much more about economics, please show us where Doctor Chomsky went wrong in his analysis. Please. Pretty please.
The idea that the modern economy has been radically deregulated is false.
The idea that the current financial troubles were caused by deregulation is false. Over-regulation was much more harmful. HUD mandates & the CRA created the Alt-A market & reduced documentation loans.
Has Chomsky ever published in the AER? (No.) The JPE? (No.) The QJE? (No.) In any mainstream, peer-reviewed economics journal? Not as far as I know...
What makes him an authority on economics? Being cited by art historians & experts in French literature? Saying things that crackpot lefties want to hear?
Funny, you still haven't emailed me your CV. I'm sure you must have amazing credentials. If you bothered to click the link in the sidebar you'll find 16 links only one of which is to an interview with Chomsky. And if you are so hip to the world of economics we certainly aren't in disagreement and you readily admit that the efficient market hypothesis is, at best, on shaky ground, and the growing consensus among economists is that markets are, in fact, inefficient.
Markets *are* quite efficient -- compared to the alternatives.
The effificient market hypotheses (there are at least three) involve the incorporation of information into financial prices. They are not a litmus test for themarket system as a whole.
Have YOU ever published in the AER? The JPE? The QJE? In an mainstream, peer-reviewed economics journal? Of course not. You are not an 'authority on economics' either. So shut up.
Well, since Chomsky apparently doesn't know anything, feel free to tell us where he erred. Maybe you're not an authority on authority! If you are an authority on authority please tell me about your extensive credentials. I'm sure your academic achievements far outweigh those of Doctor Chomsky.
Atualy, yeah, I *do* have better credentials than Chomsky -- if we are discussing economics.
Again, real-world markets are not perfectly efficient. So what? Who ever claimed that they were?
Always compare the real with the real. Real-world alternatives to markets are terribly inefficient. Regulatory schemes are often higly counter-productive.
You can find peer-reviewed examples in the JPE, the AER, or the QJE.
Failed. You can email me your CV, until then I'll assume you're full of shit. Nobody is talking about perfect efficiency. Try to pay attention. BTW, saying I could find examples isn't "showing me examples." Also, you failed to utter one relevant criticism of Chomsky other than to say you have better credentials. By all means show us where Chomsky erred. I'm waiting.
Oh so Chomsky is 'widely regarded as an anti-American, anti-Western nutcase'? By whom exactly? I seem to remember him being the number one most cited intellectual on the planet, and the second most cited intellectual in history, second to none other than Plato.
Please. Who does not regrad Chomsky as a nutcase? Here's a lunatic who thinks the New York Times has a conservative bias. How deep into the whack-job left do you have to be to think they're conservative?
I'd be interested to see proof of one Austrian economist who was predicting the housing bubble and coming recession before 2002. I'm talking specifically. Not just someone saying the system is going to collapse at time in the future. If you have that information let me know.
Cool, me too. I want to someone who predicted a housing bubble before 2002. With some quick searches these pull up for me 2002 lewrockwell. com/north/north96. html 2003 mises. org/story/1177 2003 lewrockwell. com/orig2/french3. html 2004 mises. org/freemarket_detail. aspx?control=500 Every author different. All free market economics.
That would be pretty impressive to see, especially considering that the federal reserve didn't even begin to start fueling the housing bubble until about 2001-2002.
The reason free market economists couldn't predict the bubble prior to 2002-2004, is because it wasn't forming yet.
If you have a link that shows a pre-2002 prediction of the housing bubble that would be great. I'll be sure to check out some info on Dean. thanks
Dean Baker of the Center for Economic Policy Response said the recent run-up in housing prices most likely is the result of investment moving out of the stock market into housing after the stock market bubble burst last year. He said the housing market may be in an unsustainable bubble.
This is supposedly from Patrice Hill at the Wash Times in 2001, haven´t doublechecked sources though
Exactly, Bretton Woods, before and after, was the exact OPPOSITE of deregulation. It is government/military enforced monopolization of the US currency by a private corporation.
The US hasn't had a free market currency since 1913 when the Fed Reserve was created.
Free speech is very efficient for conveying the things you need to convey. You seem a little confused. Efficiency is a good thing. If you can walk from point A to point B in a straight line you do so because it's the most efficient way to get there. An economic system should be efficient. I can't imagine efficiency is even debatable. You're essentially saying you'd like to waste more?
Again, I think you're confused. Where do you get that Nazi Germany was the most efficient society that ever existed? Based on what? Are you hell bent on making "efficiency" bad? Why? Our society is anything but efficient. Nearly everything we produce is waste. Take a look at any sector of society. It's waste. Food? Don't even get me started. It's not a bad thing to want to lower waste and make things efficient. But I'm having a hard time understanding why you think it is.
The Nazis went from absolute economic collapse to being a world leader in about a decade. That's pretty efficient. Besides, they were very efficient at exterminating Jews, weren't they?
Who decides what is efficiently pursued? When you take away freedom out of the equation, the government will very efficiently oppress you and others.
Lets say that the government organizes an efficient economy. What do you do with people who don't take part? Jail? Gas chambers?
No, that's not efficient. I'm really surprised by how superficial your arguments are. "Efficient at killing Jews"? Are you kidding? Focus. Economics is about the allocation of goods and resources, right? A "good" economic system would allocate those goods and services in as an efficient manner as possible. And why are you bringing the government into any of this? You need to slow down and think through this a little better. All you're doing is confusing yourself.
The point is that efficiency is still subjective. You're talking about efficiently allocating goods and services. How so? Would a complete egalitarian system where everybody has the same amount of stuff be the most "efficient" way of doing things? How do you plan on accomplishing this?
Efficiency is not subjective. But it is something I think we should strive for in an economic system. Look were basically talking about limiting waste. That's a good thing. And, no, I'm not talking about us all having the same stuff. If you want a decent approximation of what I'm talking about you could look to the Spanish Revolution of 1936 or the theoretical work of Michael Albert on Participatory Economics. Actually I have some links to this in the sidebar if you hit that Sqworl link. Check
Efficient: : productive of desired effects ; especially : productive without waste. Murdering 6 million humans is wasteful and certainly not productive. I won't even get into the rest of the waste but Nazi Germany was anything but efficient.
Efficiency is a good thing. I promise. You don't go wasting your time and money unnecessarily do you?
"You don't go wasting your time and money unnecessarily do you? "
No, I don't. I have the FREEDOM to waste time and money if I wanted to, though. If you can come up with a more efficient way of doing things without the need for government agents to use violence to enforce said efficiency, I'm all for it, but governments are inherently violent. If you use government to enforce efficiency, you are using VIOLENCE.
Good news! I have come up with a more efficient way of doing things without the need for government agents to use violence! You do know I'm an Anarchist, right?
I'm an Anarchist, too. What's your plan? Or, are you just kidding and think that government violence is justified when talking about your "efficient" system?
No, I'm not kidding. I'd disagree with you that "efficiency" is subjective. I mean if we're talking about economics at least. I mean you can and have used the term in some convoluted ways, but deciding which method of farming or production is more efficient isn't that difficult, nor need it be subjective.
If you're interested in my "plan" a good example of it would be the Spanish Revolution of 1936.
"deciding which method of farming or production is more efficient isn't that difficult, nor need it be subjective."
We're not talking about methods of farming or production. That is how a company operates, not an economy. We're talking about distribution or resources. In this context, the GOAL is subjective. What should we efficiently do? Who decides? What happens to those that disagree?
What do you think of "Economics", BTW? The cirriculum as it's taught in most classes is so structurally flawed. It makes so many assumptions about human nature and doesn't consider that people act certain ways in certain environments - tit for tat. If one accepts all the bullshit taught as the foundation of Economics, market anarchism should be the only logical prescriptive conclusion.
Actually, the introductory Econ classes are intentionally simplified in order to help students grasp the basic concepts, largely in order to break down the biases students generally hold about economics. More advanced courses however do deal with these issues.
Assumptions are the key to seeing the fraud of neoclassical economics.
Accepting the ideological premises implicit in a laissez faire definition of "eficiency," according to standard neoclassical theory, markets are only efficient when there is/are:
1) perfect competition (i.e., no monopoly or oligopoly)
2) equilibrium
3) no externalties
which happens and has happened exactly never. Without those very precise conditions, any economist will tell you that markets are NOT efficient.
I think that free markets are more efficient than other economic models. But since central planning usually doesn't work very well most businesses should be run from the bottom up by the workers through some sort of mechanism such as voting. Where there is more of a consensus of decision making than in a top down hierarchal structure where the boss makes all of the decisions and efficiency is lost because of the bureaucracy that inherently goes along with top-down control.
The difference between variations can be huge. For example, Athens, Rome, Britain, & America are all, basically, democracies (& a republic is just a variation on a democracy). But the difference between them in results is profound nonetheless.
So saying that both free markets & corporatist markets are both, basically, capitalist doesn't cut it.
No. Having democratic institutions doesn't make one democratic. Democracy must have the institutions and a substantive outcome. In the case of Capitalism it really falls down to the who owns the means of production? In our case, the means of production are privately owned, as they are throughout the world, and that essentially makes it a capitalist system, albeit a state capitalist system.
Well, capitalism is only ONE of MANY prerequisites for a free market; capitalism by itself isn't sufficient. Also, libertarians place more emphasis on the free market aspect than the capitalist aspect.
Democracy boils down to voting. But if you want to argue that a system must have a "substantive outcome" in order to be a democracy, why can't I do that with free markets?
Also, just because it's become deregulated in some ways, doesn't mean it's become deregulated in total. A few laws here & there have been repealed, but you know those, essentially libraries, filled with regulations created by un-elected agencies?
Well, most of those regulations haven't been repealed, & they've been piling on every year.
What did I say? I think I made it quite clear that I was not claiming the market was free as you wish it to be. Didn't I say that? And if you can find one regulation larger than the Bretton Woods agreement that you'd like repealed let me know. As far as economics goes, there's nothing bigger and it completely changed the economy. The rest was small fries in comparison. And, in case you haven't noticed, real live capitalists are begging for regulation.
You said that it's not free, but that it's free-ER. Also, no single regulation may be larger than the BWA, but collectively, other regulations have outdone that. & Regulations are sort of like genes, they interact with the other ones.
Also, self-interested businesspeople who profit from regulations don't have much credibility in my view of things. They're just as much an enemy of free markets (the politically-active ones) as socialists.
in Hong Kong all the property was owned by the state and the majority of people lived in subsidised housing. The poverty increased from 11 to 13%.
Yeah, get rid of those damn regulations like minnimum wage, welfare, and foodstamps! Capitalism requires failure so Capitalism must require starvation!
Free markets motherfuckers!!! Me and all my white, suburban bourgeois teenage friends roll like that.
WAS owned. Key word. About fifty years ago, it was deregulated, & it went from dirt poor to filthy rich. Their wealth is still increasing very rapidly.
You must be an ignoramus if you seriously think that people are starving in Hong Kong.
Oh yeah, tell Thomas Sowell that he grew up a white suburban bourgeois teenager, & tell Paul Krugman that he's a capitalist pig for supporting sweat shops & opposing the minimum wage.
But seriously, grow up. Only an immature moron resorts to stereotypes.
Minimum Wage only drives the cost of living up; an after effect is less people have jobs.
3% of the population REFUSE to work and are able bodied... Why are we paying for that?
"Capitalism requires failure - starvation!"
Yep, you got me, what can I say! Capitalism was invented by the rich to take power over the poor and never let the poor rise above. Entrepreneurship is a lie! Capitalism is Satan's tool to control us!
BTW, Dixyhair, would you please, oh pretty please, debate me about anything, something, on You Tube? You're so full of yourself, make a video. Show the world what an ignorant maroon I am. Really. I beg of you. Pretty please? It would be so nice of you to show me the light.
I never called you a moron. Admittedly, I may come across as abrasive, & I'm sorry if I do, I actually like your videos most of the time.
But I'm a cheap asshole, I type better than I speak (& I'd hate to make people suffer through boring videos), so I don't plan on buying a camera just for one internet debate.
Fair enough. And your apology is accepted. You do come off as abrasive. I thank you for the honesty. Have a great night. BTW, it's my birthday so be nice!
Hmm. This is Luke and buddhagem's debate, but as a contribution to the comments, I would posit that markets may be inefficient today because of how big and global things have become. I hypothesize that they might work better at smaller eco-communal scales.
I definitely think there's merit to what you're saying. Whether we consider ourselves Capitalists or Socialists or something else all-together, questions of scale cannot be ignored. The problem it seems is that there's no nice way to talk about population reductions and little likelihood that any species would voluntarily curb reproduction. It all looks so messy, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be thinking about it. Still, I think we do have evidence that large-scale societies can work
Hmm! I didn't even think of the population factor! It's relevent, it just didn't occur to me. But about scale, my thought is maybe there's a scale range we can use where we can still have relatively big cities and such without going overboard. I'd just argue that if we're going to try, they probably can't be as big as they were anymore.
Well at least you've supplied one number. That's a start. Now we just gotta find out if it should be the 'min' or 'max' number and then calculate the other number.
He certainly intended that to be the upper limit. Not sure why, but that 1 idea and the context in which it was presented, which I no longer remember, had a substantial impact on my thinking for a long time. I'm actually no longer able to track that info down. I did find another standard set by Hippodamus, supposed inventor of city planning using the # 10,000. However, I also saw the following: The ancient ideal city typified by Athens in the 5th c. BC and imperial Rome was not planned.
Hmm. Well if we can determine that those are indeed sound numbers for the size range of a self-sustainable city, then I'd say we got an idea to work with. In fact, I'm gonna study those names you mentioned and find out if the idea is applicable to these times a little later. Thanks.
The market has become global, yes. And that's the entity I'm talking about shrinking and divying up. And I'm not advocating that 'communities' be isolated; I actually advocate that they be inder-dependent.
I just don't see how that is possible, since all markets will necessarily interact, along with the communities. For example, there is a market for fresh air, which is shared by all communities.
Expanding the division of labor makes things more efficient, & since efficiency translates to lower costs, global trade is apparently much more efficient than having everything made locally.
Expanding the division of labor simply makes it easier and more profitable to exploit labor. It does nothing for efficiency. Because you move manufacturing to a third world country with a brutal dictator that kills any worker who tries to organize and form unions doesn't mean it's more efficient. Try and think before you post a comment, please. It would be a really nice change.
False dichotomy. The process is far from perfect, but it does increase efficiency. Take it up with the pro-regulation crusader Paul Krugman if you think that this message is devoid of thought.
Also, please stop being a dick. You really are capable of providing a good dialogue, & you used to be very polite, & as such, made me & others more open-minded towards your ideas. This new trend of being a total condescending dick however will get you nowhere.
Well I'm not advocating for totally ending global trade in this model of markets I'm describing, but I would advocate that such trade be fair trade as it's called. 'Locals' should have just as much a chance at trade as 'neighbors'.
'Market failures', but whenever they fail they get bailed out by the state rather than being allowed to fail
dubified89 1 year ago
Markets are efficient when it comes to sustaining capitalist class power. So in a way, yes. I guess markets are efficient.
DonJack1776 2 years ago
Wha? Did my post make it through?
LiberalofLiberty 2 years ago
Guess not.
Two things Buddhagem.
How do you define "Free Market". You might want to Check Confederalsocialist Video: "I SUPPORT FREE MARKETS." If we blame free human interaction for this mess, We can't live in anarchy
Second. Could you enlighten me in the matter by pointing to the SPECIFIC regulation or lackthereof which created this market failiure you speak of. After all, it isn't like the "Market" Anarchists haven't pointed to SPECIFIC regulations and blamed them for the mess.
LiberalofLiberty 2 years ago
What is it that you are trying to get at in this video? If it is that not all deregulations are necessarily a good thing, then you have it. To set up a system that allows central banks, creditors, & organizations like the IMF to dominate markets and then remove the laws that hamper them from engaging in predatory activity is a dangerous thing to do.
Harpakhrad11 3 years ago
Comment removed
Harpakhrad11 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
But, before the IMF food riots start here in North America, perhaps you could explain how we can get people to give up their statism if there lives are dependent upon the state?
Harpakhrad11 3 years ago
Oh no. I don't know how to spell "economics." Oh no, I've been exposed.
[satire of other morons]
fiercegallantry 3 years ago
Yes, Cefuroxx & Dan Chorin are morons. And jerks.
fiercegallantry 3 years ago
Ignoramus.
Don't lecture anyone on "the more prevailing theory in eocnomics." You don't know anything about the field.
fiercegallantry 3 years ago
Still waiting on the impressive list of economic journals you've been published in....LOL Oh and those "credentials" that would put Chomsky to shame. LOL. You're a sad little person. Anybody can make empty claims. You seem to have mastered the art. Good for you! Perhaps you haven't noticed but aside from your empty rhetoric you haven't backed up a single statement you've made. That's funny. You are a joke: a sad pathetic joke. Thanks for the laughs
buddhagem 3 years ago
Where are *your* credentials? I'm not the one posting illiterate videos on YouTube.
fiercegallantry 3 years ago
Funny, as "illiterate" as they are you have yet to post one substantive critical remark. All you've done is claim that you're a better authority on this topic than Chomsky or anyone else. Despite the fact that it's a logical fallacy (authority proves nothing) I've given you ample opportunity to prove your credentials. But you have none. You're a fake, a liar, and a complete moron. Now please go away.
buddhagem 3 years ago
"you have yet to post one substantive critical remark"
Untrue. Perhpas you missed the significance of my earlier criticisms, but tha's your failing, not mine.
Nor did I claim to be the Great Oz of Economics. I just pointed out that *any* economist has better training in economics than Chomsky because he has none.
Why do you keep lying about this point?
If authority proves nothing, as you say, why do you quote a non-economist like Chomsky as an authority on economics?
fiercegallantry 3 years ago
In fact, quoting someone who is an authority in Field X as support for a claim made in Field Y is the very definition of the fallacious appeal to authority.
Don't lecture on logic me when you clearly don't understand it.
fiercegallantry 3 years ago
The economy is regulated by the state. The market was never free, it's a state-enforced credit monopoly run by Central Banks. The state gives special privalege to limited-liability corporations which externalize risk more. Regulation of the financial system by the market would overturn the imbalances caused by state-enforced fiat currency and credit monopolies.
Read 'Socialism' and 'Human Action' by Ludwig von Mises. Then read anything by Murray Rothbard that you can find.
podrag 3 years ago
a markets effiency ... ? to what purpose
its earinings? which whch is only to the super elite... the more efficent a capitalist
market he higher the earnings for the rich
and the more shitty jobs for the poor.
yikeswood 3 years ago
Ummm... no
podrag 3 years ago
Because
Because
Because
Because
Because
Because of the lunatic things he says!
fiercegallantry 3 years ago
Wow, you're a douche. You actually wrote 'because' 5 times, and it wasn't funny.
DANxCHORIN 3 years ago
You have to read it to the tune of that song from the Wizard of Oz.
...Obviously...
[rolls eyes]
fiercegallantry 3 years ago
I read it to the tune of the Wizard of Oz, and it was still stupid and unfunny.
Who does not regard Chomsky as a nutcase? Well, to be acknowledged as the most cited author on the planet, you'd have to at least have a FEW people thinking you're not a nutcase!
The New York Times is a totally centrist paper with a slight conservative bias. But then, the term 'conservative' is subjective in this case.
DANxCHORIN 3 years ago
Compared to the American public, the New York Times is a *liberal* paper. ("Liberal" in the American sense.) Welcome to Earth.
The most cited? In which publications? Not in economic journals, I can assure you.
fiercegallantry 3 years ago
Oh, you want me to list all the publications he's cited in? No thanks. Just search 'most cited author on the planet' on Google, I'm sure you'll find something.
DANxCHORIN 3 years ago
He was ranked as the most cited author in the Arts and Humanities Citation Index. He is ranked among Marx, Lenin, Shakespeare, Aristotle, the Bible, Plato, Freud, Chomsky, Hegel and Cicero.
DANxCHORIN 3 years ago
IOW, he is the guy most likely to be cited by a Marxist English professor who wants to pretend he knows something about politics or economics.
fiercegallantry 3 years ago
There must be a lot of Marxist English professors then!
You don't get up there, amongst the Bible and Shakespeare, by being quoted by an English teacher. You have to have widespread academic credibility.
Question Chomsky's knowledge of economics all you want, but don't call him a 'nutcase', because you make yourself look like a fool. And I honestly doubt that you know more about economics than Chomsky, or are 'more qualified' as you have said.
DANxCHORIN 3 years ago
Oh please.
Any list with Marx & Lenin can't be all good.
fiercegallantry 3 years ago
Oh yeah? What about Shakespeare, Plato, Cicero, Aristotle?
DANxCHORIN 3 years ago
Obvious logical fallacy. [P implies Q] does not imply [Q implies P]. Great minds are frequently cited, yes, but so are ideological monsters like Marx & Lenin. And Chomsky.
fiercegallantry 3 years ago
Again, stop being an arrogant idiot. Think what you want about Marx and Lenin, but they were two extremely historically relevant people.
Chomsky is an 'ideological monster' far less than you are an asshole who uses economics acronyms to make himself look clever. We are not economists, so using economics acronyms (HUD mandates, AER, JPE) and speak English.
DANxCHORIN 3 years ago
*stop using economics acronyms
DANxCHORIN 3 years ago
Chomsky consistently sides with anti-American, anti-Western, anti-democratic, anti-Israeli terrorists. How is he not a monster?
fiercegallantry 3 years ago
you´re a fuckin idiot
Cefuroxx 3 years ago
the notion of anti americanism (or anti-statism in general) is one that only exists in totalitarian societies, like Brazil under military junta, Nazi Germany or the USSR. You like spouting dumb shit like their commissars? Fine, go live in a totalitarian state. Terrorists huh? Too bad the US is THE ONLY COUNTRY to be found guilty of the International Terrorism by the world court. The whole world is anti-Israel, the little zionist spartan state is only a military arm of the American Empire. Fail
Cefuroxx 3 years ago
Couldn't have said it better.
DANxCHORIN 3 years ago
So, you hate America, too?
What a surprise.
Your contempt says more about you than it does about the US.
fiercegallantry 3 years ago
"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
- Samuel Johnson
Cefuroxx 3 years ago
Comment removed
mikajd12 3 years ago
Anti-Americanism is the *first* refuge of many scoundrels today.
fiercegallantry 3 years ago
But most of the world's contempt says something about the US.
anavarre 3 years ago
It tells us who you listen to: Thugs, tyrants, and loonies. I.e., your closest kin.
fiercegallantry 3 years ago
Nope, I'm talking about CIA polls. Check out the most recent CIA world fact book.
anavarre 3 years ago
You're right, he's a monster! He violates party discipline by criticizing the motherland and our dear leader!
DANxCHORIN 3 years ago
Very mature.
fiercegallantry 3 years ago
Comment removed
mikajd12 3 years ago
BTW: How does training in linguistics make one qualified as an authority on economics?
Economics is the most mathematically & statistically sophisticated of the social sciences. (Citations records for economic journals are found in the Social Science Citation Index, not the AHCI. Even there, a known bias exists in favor of left-wing publications.) What training in mathematics & statistics does he have? What training does he have in economics?
fiercegallantry 3 years ago
Why are your panties in a bunch about Chomsky? I still haven't heard you critique a single thing he said. All you've done is rant and cry about how he's not an authority. Well if he's not an authority and you know so much more about economics, please show us where Doctor Chomsky went wrong in his analysis. Please. Pretty please.
buddhagem 3 years ago
The idea that the modern economy has been radically deregulated is false.
The idea that the current financial troubles were caused by deregulation is false. Over-regulation was much more harmful. HUD mandates & the CRA created the Alt-A market & reduced documentation loans.
fiercegallantry 3 years ago
Has Chomsky ever published in the AER? (No.) The JPE? (No.) The QJE? (No.) In any mainstream, peer-reviewed economics journal? Not as far as I know...
What makes him an authority on economics? Being cited by art historians & experts in French literature? Saying things that crackpot lefties want to hear?
fiercegallantry 3 years ago
Funny, you still haven't emailed me your CV. I'm sure you must have amazing credentials. If you bothered to click the link in the sidebar you'll find 16 links only one of which is to an interview with Chomsky. And if you are so hip to the world of economics we certainly aren't in disagreement and you readily admit that the efficient market hypothesis is, at best, on shaky ground, and the growing consensus among economists is that markets are, in fact, inefficient.
buddhagem 3 years ago
Markets *are* quite efficient -- compared to the alternatives.
The effificient market hypotheses (there are at least three) involve the incorporation of information into financial prices. They are not a litmus test for themarket system as a whole.
fiercegallantry 3 years ago 2
Have YOU ever published in the AER? The JPE? The QJE? In an mainstream, peer-reviewed economics journal? Of course not. You are not an 'authority on economics' either. So shut up.
DANxCHORIN 3 years ago
Stop being an arrogant idiot.
DANxCHORIN 3 years ago
Except without Chomsky in that list.
DANxCHORIN 3 years ago
The New York Times is a centrist paper, with conservative leanings.
DANxCHORIN 3 years ago
Noam Chomsky is *not* an economist. He is not a historian of economic thought. He is not an authority on *anything* outside of linguistics.
Quotin him on as an authority on economics is a good way to lose all credibility.
fiercegallantry 3 years ago
Well, since Chomsky apparently doesn't know anything, feel free to tell us where he erred. Maybe you're not an authority on authority! If you are an authority on authority please tell me about your extensive credentials. I'm sure your academic achievements far outweigh those of Doctor Chomsky.
buddhagem 3 years ago
Atualy, yeah, I *do* have better credentials than Chomsky -- if we are discussing economics.
Again, real-world markets are not perfectly efficient. So what? Who ever claimed that they were?
Always compare the real with the real. Real-world alternatives to markets are terribly inefficient. Regulatory schemes are often higly counter-productive.
You can find peer-reviewed examples in the JPE, the AER, or the QJE.
fiercegallantry 3 years ago
Failed. You can email me your CV, until then I'll assume you're full of shit. Nobody is talking about perfect efficiency. Try to pay attention. BTW, saying I could find examples isn't "showing me examples." Also, you failed to utter one relevant criticism of Chomsky other than to say you have better credentials. By all means show us where Chomsky erred. I'm waiting.
buddhagem 3 years ago
Any economist has better economic credentials than Chomsky. Even me.
He is a linguist, and respected as a linguist. But outside linguistics he has no special expertise or training. Certainly not in economics.
He is widely regarded an an anti-American, anti-Western nutcase.
Why?
Well, Dorothy, because of the lunatic things he says...
Because of the lunatic things he says...
Because of the lunatic things he says...
fiercegallantry 3 years ago
Oh so Chomsky is 'widely regarded as an anti-American, anti-Western nutcase'? By whom exactly? I seem to remember him being the number one most cited intellectual on the planet, and the second most cited intellectual in history, second to none other than Plato.
Is he really a 'nutcase'?
DANxCHORIN 3 years ago
Please. Who does not regrad Chomsky as a nutcase? Here's a lunatic who thinks the New York Times has a conservative bias. How deep into the whack-job left do you have to be to think they're conservative?
fiercegallantry 3 years ago
People like Thomas Friedman are pretty conservative on most issues.
DANxCHORIN 3 years ago
Oh...
Not talking about perfect efficiency? Then what *do* you mean?
fiercegallantry 3 years ago
I doubt someone who spells like that has better credentials than Dr Chomsky.
'Atualy'?
DANxCHORIN 3 years ago
Don't confuse typing with spelling, moron.
fiercegallantry 3 years ago
Don't confuse typing with spelling? You idiot. If you make a spelling mistake, it's a spelling mistake, whether or not it's typed out.
DANxCHORIN 3 years ago
Ah. So your theory is that having a degree in economics should make me immune to tyopgraphical errors?
Moron.
I can probably spell better than you. I sepll better than most people. But I don't always type well. Do my fingers make me stupid or ignorant?
No.
But your comments make you look like a jackass.
fiercegallantry 3 years ago
Oh, so you can probably 'sepll' better than most people?
DANxCHORIN 3 years ago
Again typing, not spelling. Spelling is cognitive in nature. Typing erros don't mean that I can't spell.
But, hey, if you you want to make fun of dyslexics & bad typists, go ahead. After all, you *are* a jackass.
fiercegallantry 3 years ago
"I sepll better than most people"
Fail
Cefuroxx 3 years ago
markets are bad.
nuclearnight 3 years ago
Other free market advocates that have been predicting this for years: Jim Rogers, Marc Faber, Ron Paul, and just about every Austrian economist.
Sepero1 3 years ago 2
I'd be interested to see proof of one Austrian economist who was predicting the housing bubble and coming recession before 2002. I'm talking specifically. Not just someone saying the system is going to collapse at time in the future. If you have that information let me know.
buddhagem 3 years ago
Sepero1 3 years ago
Dean Baker predicted it in 01 (I THINK), not a free marketeer
Cefuroxx 3 years ago
That would be pretty impressive to see, especially considering that the federal reserve didn't even begin to start fueling the housing bubble until about 2001-2002.
The reason free market economists couldn't predict the bubble prior to 2002-2004, is because it wasn't forming yet.
If you have a link that shows a pre-2002 prediction of the housing bubble that would be great. I'll be sure to check out some info on Dean. thanks
Sepero1 3 years ago 3
Dean Baker of the Center for Economic Policy Response said the recent run-up in housing prices most likely is the result of investment moving out of the stock market into housing after the stock market bubble burst last year. He said the housing market may be in an unsustainable bubble.
This is supposedly from Patrice Hill at the Wash Times in 2001, haven´t doublechecked sources though
Cefuroxx 3 years ago
Exactly, Bretton Woods, before and after, was the exact OPPOSITE of deregulation. It is government/military enforced monopolization of the US currency by a private corporation.
The US hasn't had a free market currency since 1913 when the Fed Reserve was created.
Sepero1 3 years ago
Is free speech efficient? Wouldn't it be more efficient if government controlled what we can and can not say?
somecomputergeek 3 years ago
Free speech is very efficient for conveying the things you need to convey. You seem a little confused. Efficiency is a good thing. If you can walk from point A to point B in a straight line you do so because it's the most efficient way to get there. An economic system should be efficient. I can't imagine efficiency is even debatable. You're essentially saying you'd like to waste more?
buddhagem 3 years ago
Nazi Germany was one of the most efficient societies that ever existed. I'm all in favor of efficiency, but not at the price of freedom.
somecomputergeek 3 years ago
Again, I think you're confused. Where do you get that Nazi Germany was the most efficient society that ever existed? Based on what? Are you hell bent on making "efficiency" bad? Why? Our society is anything but efficient. Nearly everything we produce is waste. Take a look at any sector of society. It's waste. Food? Don't even get me started. It's not a bad thing to want to lower waste and make things efficient. But I'm having a hard time understanding why you think it is.
buddhagem 3 years ago
The Nazis went from absolute economic collapse to being a world leader in about a decade. That's pretty efficient. Besides, they were very efficient at exterminating Jews, weren't they?
Who decides what is efficiently pursued? When you take away freedom out of the equation, the government will very efficiently oppress you and others.
Lets say that the government organizes an efficient economy. What do you do with people who don't take part? Jail? Gas chambers?
somecomputergeek 3 years ago
No, that's not efficient. I'm really surprised by how superficial your arguments are. "Efficient at killing Jews"? Are you kidding? Focus. Economics is about the allocation of goods and resources, right? A "good" economic system would allocate those goods and services in as an efficient manner as possible. And why are you bringing the government into any of this? You need to slow down and think through this a little better. All you're doing is confusing yourself.
buddhagem 3 years ago
The point is that efficiency is still subjective. You're talking about efficiently allocating goods and services. How so? Would a complete egalitarian system where everybody has the same amount of stuff be the most "efficient" way of doing things? How do you plan on accomplishing this?
somecomputergeek 3 years ago
Efficiency is not subjective. But it is something I think we should strive for in an economic system. Look were basically talking about limiting waste. That's a good thing. And, no, I'm not talking about us all having the same stuff. If you want a decent approximation of what I'm talking about you could look to the Spanish Revolution of 1936 or the theoretical work of Michael Albert on Participatory Economics. Actually I have some links to this in the sidebar if you hit that Sqworl link. Check
buddhagem 3 years ago
"were basically talking about limiting"
behavior... through violence. There is no way around it.
I've read about the Spanish Revolution as Chomsky talks about it a lot. I'll look into Michael Albert.
somecomputergeek 3 years ago
Efficient: : productive of desired effects ; especially : productive without waste. Murdering 6 million humans is wasteful and certainly not productive. I won't even get into the rest of the waste but Nazi Germany was anything but efficient.
Efficiency is a good thing. I promise. You don't go wasting your time and money unnecessarily do you?
buddhagem 3 years ago
"Efficient: : productive of desired effects"
Yes, DESIRED effects. Whose desire?
"You don't go wasting your time and money unnecessarily do you? "
No, I don't. I have the FREEDOM to waste time and money if I wanted to, though. If you can come up with a more efficient way of doing things without the need for government agents to use violence to enforce said efficiency, I'm all for it, but governments are inherently violent. If you use government to enforce efficiency, you are using VIOLENCE.
somecomputergeek 3 years ago
Good news! I have come up with a more efficient way of doing things without the need for government agents to use violence! You do know I'm an Anarchist, right?
buddhagem 3 years ago
I'm an Anarchist, too. What's your plan? Or, are you just kidding and think that government violence is justified when talking about your "efficient" system?
somecomputergeek 3 years ago
No, I'm not kidding. I'd disagree with you that "efficiency" is subjective. I mean if we're talking about economics at least. I mean you can and have used the term in some convoluted ways, but deciding which method of farming or production is more efficient isn't that difficult, nor need it be subjective.
If you're interested in my "plan" a good example of it would be the Spanish Revolution of 1936.
buddhagem 3 years ago
"deciding which method of farming or production is more efficient isn't that difficult, nor need it be subjective."
We're not talking about methods of farming or production. That is how a company operates, not an economy. We're talking about distribution or resources. In this context, the GOAL is subjective. What should we efficiently do? Who decides? What happens to those that disagree?
somecomputergeek 3 years ago
much money can come through killing. didntcha know
seigneurvoland666 3 years ago
I like to see videos done like this one. Professional, polite, and well-spoken.
Barmyleatherhead 3 years ago
Is sqworl efficient? great links by the way.
AllieCaulfield 3 years ago
excellent video.
shameoncanada 3 years ago
I'll make a video response tomorrow, happy birthday in 5 minutes!
Luke12000 3 years ago
tone was lovely by the way
Luke12000 3 years ago
What do you think of "Economics", BTW? The cirriculum as it's taught in most classes is so structurally flawed. It makes so many assumptions about human nature and doesn't consider that people act certain ways in certain environments - tit for tat. If one accepts all the bullshit taught as the foundation of Economics, market anarchism should be the only logical prescriptive conclusion.
jtr3030 3 years ago
Actually, the introductory Econ classes are intentionally simplified in order to help students grasp the basic concepts, largely in order to break down the biases students generally hold about economics. More advanced courses however do deal with these issues.
DixyHair 3 years ago
So more advanced courses don't assume people will always (short-sightedly IMO, according to the common definition) work in self-interest?
jtr3030 3 years ago
That's right.
DixyHair 3 years ago
Assumptions are the key to seeing the fraud of neoclassical economics.
Accepting the ideological premises implicit in a laissez faire definition of "eficiency," according to standard neoclassical theory, markets are only efficient when there is/are:
1) perfect competition (i.e., no monopoly or oligopoly)
2) equilibrium
3) no externalties
which happens and has happened exactly never. Without those very precise conditions, any economist will tell you that markets are NOT efficient.
jianenohashi 3 years ago 2
Starw Man.
No, real-world markets are not perfectly efficient. But they are amazingly efficient compared to the alternatives.
Minimum-wage laws increase teen unemployment. Rent control causes housing shortages. Price controls cause commodity shortages. I could go on...
...but you wouldn't listen.
fiercegallantry 3 years ago
Don't disregard "apples and carrots" thought experiments. They can show what is logical and ethical. They are as important as application.
jtr3030 3 years ago
What is meant by "efficient"?
xwlerer 3 years ago
What's your opinion on Stodles and his restrictive covenants? Have you seen the debates between him and Brainpolice?
atypicalguy 3 years ago
I think that free markets are more efficient than other economic models. But since central planning usually doesn't work very well most businesses should be run from the bottom up by the workers through some sort of mechanism such as voting. Where there is more of a consensus of decision making than in a top down hierarchal structure where the boss makes all of the decisions and efficiency is lost because of the bureaucracy that inherently goes along with top-down control.
clearthedecks 3 years ago
I don't really like the question because efficiency doesn't impact my anarchism whatsoever. Hitler was efficient in certain areas.
FistsoFuckinFreedom 3 years ago
So are you in agreement that markets are inefficient?
buddhagem 3 years ago
Not at all, but even if they were it wouldn't matter in the slightest.
FistsoFuckinFreedom 3 years ago
The difference between variations can be huge. For example, Athens, Rome, Britain, & America are all, basically, democracies (& a republic is just a variation on a democracy). But the difference between them in results is profound nonetheless.
So saying that both free markets & corporatist markets are both, basically, capitalist doesn't cut it.
DixyHair 3 years ago
No. Having democratic institutions doesn't make one democratic. Democracy must have the institutions and a substantive outcome. In the case of Capitalism it really falls down to the who owns the means of production? In our case, the means of production are privately owned, as they are throughout the world, and that essentially makes it a capitalist system, albeit a state capitalist system.
buddhagem 3 years ago
Well, capitalism is only ONE of MANY prerequisites for a free market; capitalism by itself isn't sufficient. Also, libertarians place more emphasis on the free market aspect than the capitalist aspect.
Democracy boils down to voting. But if you want to argue that a system must have a "substantive outcome" in order to be a democracy, why can't I do that with free markets?
DixyHair 3 years ago
Also, just because it's become deregulated in some ways, doesn't mean it's become deregulated in total. A few laws here & there have been repealed, but you know those, essentially libraries, filled with regulations created by un-elected agencies?
Well, most of those regulations haven't been repealed, & they've been piling on every year.
DixyHair 3 years ago
What did I say? I think I made it quite clear that I was not claiming the market was free as you wish it to be. Didn't I say that? And if you can find one regulation larger than the Bretton Woods agreement that you'd like repealed let me know. As far as economics goes, there's nothing bigger and it completely changed the economy. The rest was small fries in comparison. And, in case you haven't noticed, real live capitalists are begging for regulation.
buddhagem 3 years ago
You said that it's not free, but that it's free-ER. Also, no single regulation may be larger than the BWA, but collectively, other regulations have outdone that. & Regulations are sort of like genes, they interact with the other ones.
Also, self-interested businesspeople who profit from regulations don't have much credibility in my view of things. They're just as much an enemy of free markets (the politically-active ones) as socialists.
DixyHair 3 years ago
Hong Kong
Singapore
Ireland
DixyHair 3 years ago
in Hong Kong all the property was owned by the state and the majority of people lived in subsidised housing. The poverty increased from 11 to 13%.
Yeah, get rid of those damn regulations like minnimum wage, welfare, and foodstamps! Capitalism requires failure so Capitalism must require starvation!
Free markets motherfuckers!!! Me and all my white, suburban bourgeois teenage friends roll like that.
jackriter 3 years ago
WAS owned. Key word. About fifty years ago, it was deregulated, & it went from dirt poor to filthy rich. Their wealth is still increasing very rapidly.
You must be an ignoramus if you seriously think that people are starving in Hong Kong.
Oh yeah, tell Thomas Sowell that he grew up a white suburban bourgeois teenager, & tell Paul Krugman that he's a capitalist pig for supporting sweat shops & opposing the minimum wage.
But seriously, grow up. Only an immature moron resorts to stereotypes.
DixyHair 3 years ago
Minimum Wage only drives the cost of living up; an after effect is less people have jobs.
3% of the population REFUSE to work and are able bodied... Why are we paying for that?
"Capitalism requires failure - starvation!"
Yep, you got me, what can I say! Capitalism was invented by the rich to take power over the poor and never let the poor rise above. Entrepreneurship is a lie! Capitalism is Satan's tool to control us!
SuperAtheistBrothers 3 years ago
BTW, Dixyhair, would you please, oh pretty please, debate me about anything, something, on You Tube? You're so full of yourself, make a video. Show the world what an ignorant maroon I am. Really. I beg of you. Pretty please? It would be so nice of you to show me the light.
buddhagem 3 years ago
I never called you a moron. Admittedly, I may come across as abrasive, & I'm sorry if I do, I actually like your videos most of the time.
But I'm a cheap asshole, I type better than I speak (& I'd hate to make people suffer through boring videos), so I don't plan on buying a camera just for one internet debate.
DixyHair 3 years ago
Fair enough. And your apology is accepted. You do come off as abrasive. I thank you for the honesty. Have a great night. BTW, it's my birthday so be nice!
buddhagem 3 years ago
Happy Birthday!
DixyHair 3 years ago
cheers comrad happy birthday!
AnarchistCommunity 3 years ago
Half way to 70 dude! Your gift is in the mail.
Chomskyan 3 years ago
Hmm. This is Luke and buddhagem's debate, but as a contribution to the comments, I would posit that markets may be inefficient today because of how big and global things have become. I hypothesize that they might work better at smaller eco-communal scales.
TheNeocatZone 3 years ago
I definitely think there's merit to what you're saying. Whether we consider ourselves Capitalists or Socialists or something else all-together, questions of scale cannot be ignored. The problem it seems is that there's no nice way to talk about population reductions and little likelihood that any species would voluntarily curb reproduction. It all looks so messy, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be thinking about it. Still, I think we do have evidence that large-scale societies can work
buddhagem 3 years ago
Hmm! I didn't even think of the population factor! It's relevent, it just didn't occur to me. But about scale, my thought is maybe there's a scale range we can use where we can still have relatively big cities and such without going overboard. I'd just argue that if we're going to try, they probably can't be as big as they were anymore.
TheNeocatZone 3 years ago
Archimedes said that 30,000 was the ideal size for a city-state. That seems pretty small. But he was right about a lot of stuff...
tangldmojo 3 years ago
Well at least you've supplied one number. That's a start. Now we just gotta find out if it should be the 'min' or 'max' number and then calculate the other number.
TheNeocatZone 3 years ago
He certainly intended that to be the upper limit. Not sure why, but that 1 idea and the context in which it was presented, which I no longer remember, had a substantial impact on my thinking for a long time. I'm actually no longer able to track that info down. I did find another standard set by Hippodamus, supposed inventor of city planning using the # 10,000. However, I also saw the following: The ancient ideal city typified by Athens in the 5th c. BC and imperial Rome was not planned.
tangldmojo 3 years ago
Hmm. Well if we can determine that those are indeed sound numbers for the size range of a self-sustainable city, then I'd say we got an idea to work with. In fact, I'm gonna study those names you mentioned and find out if the idea is applicable to these times a little later. Thanks.
TheNeocatZone 3 years ago
The market is global. I don't see how we can isolate small communities from the rest of the world.
ksol000 3 years ago
The market has become global, yes. And that's the entity I'm talking about shrinking and divying up. And I'm not advocating that 'communities' be isolated; I actually advocate that they be inder-dependent.
TheNeocatZone 3 years ago
I just don't see how that is possible, since all markets will necessarily interact, along with the communities. For example, there is a market for fresh air, which is shared by all communities.
ksol000 3 years ago
Expanding the division of labor makes things more efficient, & since efficiency translates to lower costs, global trade is apparently much more efficient than having everything made locally.
DixyHair 3 years ago
Expanding the division of labor simply makes it easier and more profitable to exploit labor. It does nothing for efficiency. Because you move manufacturing to a third world country with a brutal dictator that kills any worker who tries to organize and form unions doesn't mean it's more efficient. Try and think before you post a comment, please. It would be a really nice change.
buddhagem 3 years ago
False dichotomy. The process is far from perfect, but it does increase efficiency. Take it up with the pro-regulation crusader Paul Krugman if you think that this message is devoid of thought.
Also, please stop being a dick. You really are capable of providing a good dialogue, & you used to be very polite, & as such, made me & others more open-minded towards your ideas. This new trend of being a total condescending dick however will get you nowhere.
DixyHair 3 years ago
Well I'm not advocating for totally ending global trade in this model of markets I'm describing, but I would advocate that such trade be fair trade as it's called. 'Locals' should have just as much a chance at trade as 'neighbors'.
TheNeocatZone 3 years ago
it would be pretty neat if all discussions had this kind of tone, props on that note.
auamoti 3 years ago 5
Thanks. It's not always easy.
buddhagem 3 years ago