Noam Chomsky - Regan and Friedman Economics 3-6

[thusspokethompson]

It's too bad the audio on these videos is so terrible, but they're incredible tomes of knowledge and thanks very much for them!

[croppingbeef]

William F. Buckley disliked.



[anarchistory]

A gap exists between segments 2 and 3. Some lecture material is missing.

[Porojukaha]

Why didnt this wrinkly old bastard actually debate Friedman while he was alive? I guess he didnt want to get his ass whooped. anyway, what is a professor of LINGUISTICS doing talking about the economy. that should be your first red flag that he has no fucking idea about what hes talking about.

[agapeiron]

@Porojukaha Agreed. Fuck anyone who thinks about the world without having an economics degree. Leave the thinking to the sophisticated elites.

[rhth79]

@Porojukaha Linguistics is the foundation of philosophy and understanding. You can't express anything of meaning without logical use of language, no matter what the issue. Chomsky wrote the book on it, literally. That's not to say he's right on everything, but his assumptions are well founded and well researched.

[MsZeitgeist85]

@Porojukaha Because Milton knew his fallacy riddled arguments wouldn't stand a chance aginst the greatest linguist of the 20th century.

Milton also never debated Samuelson because Samuelson had history on his side.

[photek1944]

shang·hai (shng-h, shngh)

tr.v. shang·haied, shang·hai·ing, shang·hais

1. To kidnap (a man) for compulsory service aboard a ship, especially after drugging him.

[SIMKINETICS]

What happened to the missing segment?

[Questfortruth86]

England's economic troubles in the 1920's were primarily caused by debts incurred during world war one; as well as Churchill re-instating pre-war exchange rates at 1 pound=$4.88, which didn't reflect the true economic condition of England (causing a massive imbalance of payments). They have been heading down the socialist path ever since, resulting in dramatic economic declines. WW1 is responsible for the rise of socialism, and decline of capitalism, due to mistakes made by interventionists.

[bootleg42]

How the heck has England "been heading down the socialist path ever since"????

Socialism means workers directly controlling their own work within a democratic society. Bigger government spending has ZERO to do with socialism. England and most of the world is far away from socialism so please get your terms right.

[bootleg42]

That's stateism which exists and has existed in the majority of societies.

Socialism basically means workers owning their own work while society being in democracy (probably with no state existing). People like Mikhail Bakunin and George Owell have defended the word as such since it's misuse, much like the way people also misuse the word "capitalism".

[gunman806]

I must ask, do you believe that individuals should be granted the legal right to control plots of land? Also, do you see merit in the labour theory of value?

[direwolf661]

@bootleg42 thank you. Socialism also requires no private property. Its just a smear campaign. Also, he said "dramatic economic declines." Does this mean increases in things like starvation and homelessness, or decreased gross national income?

[shockwaveization]

@bootleg42 Socialism is an economic and political theory based on public ownership or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.[

[yrrmom]

There is a segment of this talk that is missing here. This segment ("part 3") does not pick up at the point where "part 2" left off. This, I think, must be what caused the poster to mislabel the segment that comes after this one as "part 5" instead of "part 4".

[IggyReed]

for whom?

[IggyReed]

My grammar is bad in the posts, my bad.

[IggyReed]

our connections to one another.

People should own and control what they produce, whoever creates costs (especially ecological costs) should be directly responsible (not have "limited liability"),democracies should not be controlled by investors and ecological information that is missing the capitalist system in prices, national indices and market economic theory has to be included in whatever system takes its place.

[IggyReed]

it has been a disaster.

The US only developed the middle class it did once the military, the largest socialist institution in the world, took over major parts of the economy. The costs of R & D socialized by society in public universities, NASA, private companies that exist only because of GOVERNMENT grants, etc.

All of the Asian countries we point to as far as "capitalist" development developed without exception along statist lines, more so than China today.

[IggyReed]

by capitalists wanting more and more for themselves, by monopolizing more and more of the commons, natural resources and the output of workers.

Like all systems that become outdated over time, capitalism has served its function in some ways. It has lead to development, but also to huge concentrations of wealth (where people like us consume five to six times more than people in poor countries), is destroying the environment, crusing democracy and undoing all of our social bonds...

[ronpaulfreedomforall]

I agree that people live more extravagant lives than they perhaps should, but I don't think that is a problem of capitalism. Capitalism is not an inherently materialistic theory. It does not make claims as to how people should live.

[IggyReed]

I disagree (I appreciate that you being polite even though at times I'm not, sorry). Look at your own economists. They have this thing called the "subjectivist theory of value". Basically, nothing in the world has any value, there is no commons and nothing has inherent value, unless there is a commercial demand for it. So a forest doesn't have value by itself, even though it has endless positive externalities and is needed for life to flourish. It can only have value to us if we want...

[ronpaulfreedomforall]

People have the ability to determine their own price values for anything. That is a basic tenet of capitalism, but that doesn't mean that it is a tenet of materialism. Often immaterial objects have the highest subjective value. Sentimental value is immaterial and yet very powerfull. I believe that we must recognize the utility value of sentimental investements and create a change in our way of thinking. We must see how charity and non-governmental nature preservation are good investments.

[Questfortruth86]

brilliant.

[ronpaulfreedomforall]

I don't believe that Argentina has a strong law system, therefore there is not a guarantee that wealth will be distributed fairly according to the tenets of capitalism.

As for Iraq, I cannot see how that could possibly be considered a free market as the law system was disintigrated. The chaos that 'capitalism' aroused was a result of private contractors working with government. Other turmoil was a result of complicated ideological wars that took precedence over free and peacefull trade.

[ronpaulfreedomforall]

I watched a documentary that discussed South America in the 70's. If you're talking about the Milton Friedman supported US engagement in South and Latin America, then that is far from free market capitalism. Truly free markets cannot include government interference except in enforcing laws. I believe that capitalism was used as a rallying cry for imperialists to exercise their authority.

[ronpaulfreedomforall]

I don't think that there have been many examples of capitalism in action. The Italian city states were free for a while, as was Rome, but in each of these events governments have toppled the capitalist products of the populace. I believe that America's downfall came in the robber barron days. In the degressive era, big business in America got in bed with government. The two formed an alliance in which they monopolized and crushed healthy competition. This opened pandora's box for gov. expansion.

[ronpaulfreedomforall]

The principles of capitalism do not funnel the wealth of many down to the few. It is possible that this may have occured, but that is the fault of government's distortion of capitalism. Capitalism is inherently non discriminating. It provides an equal market for anyone who has a novel idea that they would like to sell.

The government supported class system denegrated people so that the wealth of the many was stolen for the profit of the few. That is a problem with society, not capitalism.

[IggyReed]

Libertarianism is something that belongs in a classroom discussion. It is the only place where the ideas have any relavence, where you can argue philisophically about economics under IDEAL conditions which never have or will exist.

I'd recommned giving Robin Hahnel or Karl Polanyi a read. Even if you disagree you might allow some nuance in your thought process, instead of the secular religion of "libertarianism".

[IggyReed]

the countries with the highest profits are those that are going quickest to ruin. If a capitalist made a profit, it was justified only if they invested it into something producting, like building a factory and creating jobs.

The financial markets have grown far, far to quickly, and wealth is being gained in too few of sectors, for this to be the case any longer. The monetary system and financial markets are growing now far quicker than the real economy and this is happening...

[IggyReed]

To own it or consume its resources, by doing things like making tables and paper. That logic is inherently materialistic. Or think about how capitalist economists define "rational" beings. They claim that if a person is not acting in their own "enlightened" self interest they are not acting rationally. So if I take part in economic activity that is consciously good for the collective (which by definition might include the environment), but against my own ability to consume more THINGS...

[ronpaulfreedomforall]

Redistribution of wealth is legislated theft. The original acquisition of that wealth very well may have been theft, but the old maxim still holds true: two wrongs don't make a right.

We must instead direct our attention to the future. We must learn from the mistakes of the past and create a fair justice system in order to end the inequities of the class system. We must right the wrongs of the past through charity rather than theft.

[IggyReed]

ronpaulfreedomforall, what nonsense, "two rights don't make a wrong". ALL investors are thieves. They increase their wealth without worknig themselves or adding anything to society. You want to look past that theft, and to the future.

How cute. Since you're ok with this theft, which causes one person and class to exploit another, would you accept that as a general principal? If I stole from your kid's college fund, decreasing your wealth and increasing mine without adding anything to..

[ronpaulfreedomforall]

I don't understand the zero sum gain theory of investing. It seems to me as though that is the justification for considering investment theft. My view is that barring some illegal action, investment and consumption are generally beneficial to all parties concerned. Trade is an action of mutual consent, so I don't see how anyone is being 'robbed'. Look towards taxes if you want to see people's money being confiscated without technical consent.

[IggyReed]

It isn't theory. You have money, you invest, the investment gains wealth for you. How did you gain wealth? Did YOU produce anything? No, someone else did, you as an investor simply monopolized the value of what they produced.

Most economists, the first that I know of is Adam Smith, said that profits had to have a social function. A capitalist doesn't have the right to make a profit for the sake of making a profit, and as Smith said...

[IggyReed]

or company to court to recoup the costs. Not only is that unrealistic and immoral, it denies personal responsibility and socializing COSTS. Socialization isn't bad for most libertarians, just as long as it's the COST and not the benefits that are socialized. Also, because of the way the monetary system works, it's ok if we socialize the debt to private actors and allow them to undermine democracy. I understand that there are ideals that attract you, like notions of freedom, the question is..

[ronpaulfreedomforall]

Socializing costs is both unconstitutional and a deep seeded root of many evils.

The general welfare clause of the constitution has been interpreted far too loosely and is now justified by precedent rather than intent.

The evil that has been caused by government subsidies should be readily visible by the number of lobyists in Washington. Big business is in bed with the government.

Libertarians are strictly opposed to the illegality and coercive tendencies of socialization of costs.

[patient0Studios]

Hey Ron Paul"freedomforall"; with you little hypothesis there you are refuting Ron Pauls own platform. He wants to maintain the socialism of protection and security industry( industries that historically have served businesses) so he wants to make the COST of protecting Private Power PUBLIC but the BENEFITS to be held and enjoyed PRIVATELY. Also, what makes you think everyone in your Utopian vision wants to be flipping the bill for protection, what if I someone decides they dont need protection

[ronpaulfreedomforall]

In my freshman gov class we took a survey on what students believed should be the top function of government. Security came in first by a long shot. I'm not saying that I support the military industrial complex, I disagree with the notion of a large standing army, but I do understand that a huge portion of Americans want protection. How we provide that protection is the matter of debate. I know that private contractors are seen as corrupt, but they may be necessary in a world of complex warfare

[IggyReed]

society, should we just "look past this" and to the future? Give me a break.

No country in modern times has developed without massive state development. Not a single one. Some people will point to countries like Chile as an example, ignoring that the country relied on its state controlled copper company to function. To this day the country relies on state industry (the copper company preventing a major recession a couple years ago). Every time your philosophy has been put into practice..

[ronpaulfreedomforall]

What markets have there been that have been unaffected by governments? There aren't any. I don't claim that free market theory has been justly put into use. I believe that government interference has devalued the theories, yet there are many signs of progress that have occured because of the free market.

[IggyReed]

I am not rational. Or look at "libertarian" environmental policy. Libertarians don't deny that capitalism creates endless negative externalities (which also shows that the market could never be as perfect or efficient as they claim). What do libertarians want to do about that? Should they do what they'd expect on a personal level, that the capitalists who create the costs should be made to pay for the costs? No, because that would require government. Instead, you have to take the person...

[ronpaulfreedomforall]

The basic natural law protects individual rights. No person or entity has the right to significantly interfere with another person or entity. This is what our current law code is based upon. Externalities either do or don't affect people in enough quantity for reimbursment. If it is deemed that the person's well being has been interfered with, then there must be equal reprocussions. If this is not the case in the status quo, then it is the fault of our judicial system, not capitalist theory.

[bootleg42]

1. When it comes to actual human behavior, THERE ARE NO NATURAL LAWS. Human behavior is not a constant like a math equation.

2. Plenty of capitalist theorists have admitted about the negative affects of externalities and claim nothing can be done about it (the reasons different from theorist to theorist). It's also just an effect. You can sell me a car for a great price were you got good money and I got the cheaper price than other cars but what is never taken into account is the pollution, etc

[Questfortruth86]

"1. When it comes to actual human behavior, THERE ARE NO NATURAL LAWS. Human behavior is not a constant like a math equation."

Wrong, there's the pleasure principle; it guides human action, but manifests itself in different ways.

Those externalities you speak of are meaningless, no actual economist would waste time with "pollution," everything is a trade off. Pollution will be dealt with by the market when people decide it needs to be dealt with. That time has not come.

[bootleg42]

""1. When it comes to actual human behavior, THERE ARE NO NATURAL LAWS. Human behavior is not a constant like a math equation."

Wrong, there's the pleasure principle; it guides human action, but manifests itself in different ways. "

If this is true then you would be able to predict human behavior ALL THE TIME. I don't think you'd try to claim that, nor would any "libertarian".

And the externalities are important. Take the car deal again, our deal caused pollution, gas price increase, etc.

[Questfortruth86]

"if this is true then you would be able to predict human behavior."

No, because people have different desired ends, different goals, and they value things differently. All I know for sure is that people will try to better themselves and improve their own situation, and again, that will manifest itself in different ways for different people. This is the nature of economics, and this is why central planning is impossible.

[gunman806]

Human behaviour is highly dynamic, however the fundamental sources of motivation are not. It's reasonable to generalize that humans agents strive to minimize pain while maximizing pleasure. We're hedonistic. Basic sources of pleasure might include sex, altruistic acts, power, fame, et cetera. Highly accurate predictions are difficult to generate due to the enumerable variables present in the enumerable contexts in which individuals find themselves.

[gunman806]

It almost sounds as if you subscribe to tabula rasa, the debunked blank slate hypothesis of the human mind.

[d3p3ch3mod3]

non localized pollution is the achilles heal of libertarianism

[nammoo89]

Not if the pollution is harmful?

[ronpaulfreedomforall]

I think that we are in basic agreement about how people should act, we are simply in disagreement about how to bring that about. I see a "system that encourages moral behavior" as sugarcoated way of saying government force in deciding how people should act. I don't believe that I have the right to tell anybody else how they should live unless they are infringing on others people's rights. Therefore I would set up a just law system that protects individual rights in order to cause moral behavior.

[ronpaulfreedomforall]

I watched the first section of the corporation. The main question that came out of it for me was whether it is immoral to be driven by annual returns, becuase that is the nature of capitalism, a profit driven machine. The conclusion that I came to is the opposite of that voiced by Noam Chomsky. He essentially claims that the capitalist system is evil. That is a nice notion, because it preserves the thought that people are basically good, but I disagree with it, because businesses are not poeple.

[ronpaulfreedomforall]

My limited knowledge on business' manipulation of consumers leads me to believe that corporations do not have the ability to force people to buy anything. They can show their banner as many times as they want, but the ability to coerce is reserved for the government. Business is a reflection of humanity, but humanity is perhaps a reflection of government.

[ronpaulfreedomforall]

If the corporations are truly manipulating peoples' minds with their advertising, then it should be made illegal. They don't have the right to point a gun at somebody and tell them to buy their product. This is already the case though. Subliminal messaging was made illegal because its coercive. Using sex to sell something may be immoral, but that doesn't make it illegal. Marketing does not directly force people to buy 'crap they don't need'. Our materialistic society causes that.

[ronpaulfreedomforall]

It is an interesting thought that businesses manipulate consumers instead of the other way around. I'm sure that it's possible, but who is that really speaking badly of? We're not sheep, we have the ability to turn the tv off or complain if there's cigarette advertising directed at kids. All individuals have the moral obligation to stop immoral practices. If we were to fulfill that obligation then the government would no longer be a necessity in most aspects of immoral practices by business.

[ronpaulfreedomforall]

The consumer may not necessarily have the power to change the producer, but the consumer does have the power to make their own decisions. The competition of the market takes care of the rest. Companies want to capitalize on a product in high demand. If a flying car is what people actually want, it very well may take years to provide, but the first company to create that car will reap in all of the profits. Consumers indirectly control producers, but that power is omnipresent in the marketplace.

[ronpaulfreedomforall]

Changes to industry are not instantaneous. Right now, there is not a viable alternative to the combustion engine in mass production, but we see hybrids as well as future technologies rapidly ascending upon the market. People want alternative energy because of their moral imperative, but economics is the bottom line. Once a company can produce an alternative energy car that is cheaper and has other things that consumers want than gas driven vehicles, gas driven vehicles will drastically decrease.

[ronpaulfreedomforall]

Not everything is finite. Creative output is the finest example. For the duration that people continue to have novel ideas that can be capitalized upon, there will be an unending source of wealth. Considering natural resources as the only way to create wealth is untrue. Natural resources are important, and they allow the basic necessities of life to be met, but they do not create wealth. Wealth is effect of how we use the output of the human mind. Nobody need be poor once we discover that.

[ronpaulfreedomforall]

It is difficult to determine the actual causes of outcomes. The world is so complex and convoluted that it is difficult to pinpoint the actual source of anything. Scientists continue to try to find how it works though. Science must evolve in order to discover how some actions affect others. If entities are going to be held responsible for affecting others, then proof must be used to determine the case. Ownership of actions is the only way that the correct people will pay for the correct things.

[ronpaulfreedomforall]

There is no just way of determining prices other than through individual rights. Nobody has the right to seriously interfere with another person's well being. The level that one person's actions affect another is definite gray area though. Does second hand smoke affect others enough to declare smoking around others illegal? Will the car drivers and smoke stack users be responsible for treatment of others' skin cancer?

[ronpaulfreedomforall]

Demands will always be filled in the free market. In the event of a monopoly, small companies will seize upon the opportunity to create a product that has the demand of a lower price than that of the monopoly's. What's more, the companies themselves in the monopoly often continue to undercut each other. The possibility of increased profits drives companies. Profits are the sole reason for a company's existance. Some might consider it selfish, but I think that it is the fundamental human drive.

[ronpaulfreedomforall]

The theory of monopolization assertains that there must be a finite number of companies in the market. This can occur because it is expensive to create the product to be sold, but also because only a certain amount of companies are allowed into the market. Only government has the ability to create the latter of these two situations. Charters are not a good thing because they restrict the competition that drives down prices and keeps monopolies from being profitable.

[ronpaulfreedomforall]

Monopolies create artificial prices that are not based upon the consumer's demand. In a monopolized market, the basic premise of setting prices still exists though. The consumer still expects to benefit from the transaction no matter how disgruntled they may become. Until it is no longer beneficial to buy the product being sold, the consumer will pay the monopoly.

The question pertaining to a monopoly is how high the price can be raised. How long can a monopoly exist with an artificial price?

[ronpaulfreedomforall]

In any market, there exists a certain number of businesses that are all competing against one another. When one company tries to win over the consumers, they must undercut the prices of another company. This decreases the profits of the companies in whole. They decide that if they were to stop undercutting each other, then they could have increased profits, and that they could even increase prices. They form a monopoly amongst the major corporations and the consumer suffers.

[ronpaulfreedomforall]

I disagree. I don't think that the oil industry robs me (despite what filling up the tank might feel like). The companies are charging a higher price, and apparently that is the correct thing to do, because Americans are still buying gas. With the increase in prices comes the possibility of undercutting, and ultimately of replacement. If the higher prices are a bad investment, then others will find better ways to capitalize on fuel and the oil industry will be no more.

[ronpaulfreedomforall]

The idea that property is finite leads back to mercantilism. It is an outdated notion and was disproved by the theory of capitalism. Wealth is not in limbo with different parts of the population. Society advances as a whole as more people obtain wealth. Capitalism allows this to occur. Transactions are mutually beneficial. The two parties would not have entered the transaction if they expected to get the raw end of the deal. Buying and selling benefits not just the sellers, but the entire pop.

[ronpaulfreedomforall]

The basic disagreeance that our two principles seem to have is upon the right to property. Marxists abandon the right to capital completely with a communist utopia while adherents of Austrian Economics take property rights as the utmost issue pertaining to the liberty of man.

Assuming that we do not live in a utopia, property is synonymous with liberty. Generally, oppressed populations are poor. If there is economic gain to be had, then self interest prevails over hate.

[ronpaulfreedomforall]

We shouldn't underestimate the power of the individual in speaking out. People may have been isolated and powerless in previous times, but the advent of the internet has changed all of that. Rapid mobilization and action can occur from anywhere. Each consumer has the power to change the producer, because the consumer is ultimately the reason for the producer's existance. We see (some) of the junk food practices of food chains being curved as well as companies advertising their ecofriendliness.

[ronpaulfreedomforall]

As I have said, monopolies would be far more unlikely in a truly free market. This is because of the nature of Corpmerica. Business and government interlock through lobyists and politicians. This dispicable practice gives business a bad rap, but the root cause of coercive business is not the evil bourgeousie. The problem is that a coercive agent of government exists that will carry out the destructive natural tendencies of man to compete.

[ronpaulfreedomforall]

Personally, I haven't had any truly bad experiences with business. I'm sure that immoral practice does occur within corporations, and in no way do I discount the terrible deeds of Enron and the like, but I am somewhat hesitant in placing total responsibility of checking business on the government. Firstly, I believe that the basic reason for immoral business practice is government. Only government obtains the ability of coercion. This allows unfair advantage in the market place.

[ronpaulfreedomforall]

I believe that government is generally an unnecessary actor in the coercive use of rules, but I certainly believe that those basic rules of protecting life, liberty, and property are certainly necessary. Whether we use excommunication, corporate arbitrators, or our standing constitution is a matter of specifics. The basic element is that individuals have fundamental rights that must be protected.

[ronpaulfreedomforall]

The distinction between personal and corporate rights is difficult to make because the right of a business is essentially the right of the individual. It is the individual's right to create mutual CONTRACTS with others and to claim OWNERSHIP and use OF their CAPITAL. Individuals use their rights with the purpose of serving a function that will benefit both them and society. This mutually beneficial institution is an inherent right of man and in no way needs to be given permission to exist.

[ronpaulfreedomforall]

The state's interference caused the system to break down and higher prices to result. Everybody in the country pays a toll to the state for the use of roads this time of year despite their actual usage. This price is in all likelihood much more than it would be if we were to actually pay each time we pull out of our driveway as you suggest.

[ronpaulfreedomforall]

The electricity example actually does show me the beauty of the market. The areas of greatest demand and potential profit were first served, but the intricacies of the electric market provided many niche markets to rural areas. If the government hadn't stepped in, then competition would have provided electricity to everyone for the best price a company could offer.

[ronpaulfreedomforall]

The federal reserve was created in 1913. This institution took us off of the gold reserve for all practical purposes. Throughout WWI (the money stock doubled) and the 1920's, rampant inflation occured as the newly formed fed printed money endlessly. The people invested all of the new money in the stock market only to find that they were vastly overinvested and that the little money remaining was worth less. I believe that going off of the gold standard was the cause for the great depression.

[ronpaulfreedomforall]

Business facilitates itself through the use of government just like people do. Chaos exists in a society without rules, therefore we use coercion in order to secure our fundamental rights to life, liberty, and property. The basic premise behind this system of governance is the thought that we are granting the government momentary power. That which can be given can be taken away, so we need to take very carefull note that it is citizens who grant rights to government and not the other way around.

[ronpaulfreedomforall]

Government is largely unnecessary in creating infrastructure. Before our transportation system was monopolized by the government, toll roads existed that used innovative techniques and entrepreneurial spirit in order to provide a common demand of transportation. The private sector creates the true infrastructure through job creation and innovation. The basic function of creating a supply for a demand continually betters peoples' lives and builds public infrastructure.

[ronpaulfreedomforall]

The contract that the state provides is usefull. I believe that one could claim legitimacy of the state and therefore dependence of the company on the state through this function, but that doesn't mean that the state grants a company its ability to exist. As long as we are under the basic Lockean principle that people create government as a common means to serve a purpose, we are assuming that companies also create government to function fairly and efficiently through contractual agreements.

[ronpaulfreedomforall]

In reality the state does take on the function of providing sound currency for secure investments. I won't deny its use, but that doesn't mean that the state is necessary. Money is nothing but a medium of barter. We don't need the state to set a currency. History has shown that humanity decided upon using gold and silver as relatively steady specie through a natural process of trial and error. Government's monopoly of printing money does nothing but destabilize currency.

[ronpaulfreedomforall]

If people create a contractual agreement in order to create a product, then they have created a company. The singular role that the state plays in that company is the enforcement of contracts. When this newly formed company becomes inefficient and therefore tries to buy out the competition with a monopoly, the only thing to stop entrepreneurial competition is unjust use of the state. The abstract idea of a free market is nothing more than collaborative efforts of individuals to serve a purpose.

[ronpaulfreedomforall]

Well, I can't say that i think that your argument is convincing. The East India Company was certainly not a free market endeavor. The East India Company is a great example of the only type of monopolies that can fare well for long. The only types of monopolies that will exist for extended periods of time are those that are backed by governments. In all other situations, competition and entrepeneurship will prove monopolies to be a flawed and inefficient thought.

[fedeman2]

where's part 4?

[ronpaulfreedomforall]

Chomsky says that the free market is just fine as long as you can assure its results, however it seems that it is really socialism that he should be speaking of. The beauty of the free market is that it acts upon natural laws that cannot be broken, therefore it is uncorruptable. It is collectivism (socialism) that must assure that everybody will buy into the system in order to work.

[Duckthunda]

I think you need to listen a little closer.

[fusionguitar]

Yeah, that's the theory of the free market, I agree. It sounds like a great system. I've read some Adam Smith. But the point is, where has that really functioned properly without being corrupted in the world? Like Milton Friedman says, "while staying within the rules of the game"?

[ronpaulfreedomforall]

I think that the best example is America. Our federal government was founded upon the principles of limited government intervention into economic and social affairs and we have been the global superpower for quite a while. The point that I would like to make is that it is not as though we need to completely abolish government and start fresh. We do need to give the free market the chance to take over the functions of the government, and if it works, then bravo, we have a system.

[4ourthofjuly]

we were founded in 1789 and have been the economic superpower since 1945, whats the connection to the founding? little. name a major sector of the economy that the govt isnt involved in.

[ronpaulfreedomforall]

When I said global superpower I didn't mean in an imperialist manor that began in 1945. I meant that we were originally formed with the intention of having a small government and the free market that ensues. I support Ron Paul because I agree that the gov. is far too involved in both civil and economic affairs and we need to return to a system that encourages individual growth and prosperity.

[deadlaughter2]

Thank god RuPaul is going away now. All these "Constitutionalists" and their rhetoric make me ill. THERE IS NO FREE MARKET.

Bunch of friggin eggheads being force-fed propaganda and nonsense by an old FOS dotard and "Rock the Vote" shenanigans.

I piss on the Constitution. DISCUSS REAL ISSUES.

That said, thank jesus fucking christ he's gone now. The fucking wanker

[ronpaulfreedomforall]

The unique thing about Ron Paul supporters is that we actually are not force fed any propaganda. I discovered his ideology and I have taken my own initiative to research and explore more economic and political theory. I have an opinion, and I have a basis for an opinion. I feel sorry for the blind sheep who follow the command of MTV. Their is an absolute conflict of interest when a clearly Democratic program encourages people to vote or die. I want to dismantle one sided propaganda schemes.

[dobtoronto]

I follow the command of MTV

[sullaofroma]

minimum goverment intervention? do you really believe that?

[ronpaulfreedomforall]

Of course. What context are you questioning minimum intervention in?

[sullaofroma]

You may disagree with what he says, but he say it in a polite manner. Dont down rate him for that.

The whole point of these videos is the fact that the free market is a myth. If there was a free market there would be chaos.