Thanks for posting

Avram Noam Chomsky is an American linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, historian, social critic, and political activist. Sometimes called "the father of modern linguistics" why is he talking about economics? and people buying him

@michaelsmith8665

3 жыл бұрын

"why is he talking about economics?" . . .. Because economics affects everyone. You don't have to be an economist to understand economics. It's not quantum physics.

@coreysheldon4332

2 жыл бұрын

Same reasons Albert Einstein wrote about economics (and his support of socialism)

@BuGGyBoBerl

Жыл бұрын

why not? if all you have to say about his arguments is an attack on his credentials, then you have nothing to say.

Totalitarian? The fuck? Sorry Noam if I'm not mistaken all these are voluntary transactions in which both parties benefit.

@ERRATICCHEESE2

6 жыл бұрын

Binary transaction fallacy. No transaction under capitalism affects only 2 players, much like all transactions under the Monopoly baordgame eventually leads to the exclusion of the majority. Under capitalism, all money itself enters the system as debt at interest, such that for every human to be out of debt, another must be in proportional debt. End result, what we see today: 80 percent of the planet in poverty.

@Playmnow

6 жыл бұрын

ERRATICCHEESE2 do you know what poverty is? It is no way near 80% lol

@ERRATICCHEESE2

6 жыл бұрын

The facts are as I stated them; 80 percent of the planet is in poverty (living on less than 10 dollars a day), with about 40 percent living on less than 1.90 a day. Roughly 80 percent of even a superpower like the US - which has the largest prison population in world history - live pay check to pay check. The reason why has been stated by countless economists; as all money under capitalism is itself a commodity issued as debt at interest, there is always less money in the system than debts owed. Thus, all profit must push anothe human being in proportional debt and so poverty. Read Einstein's writings on capitalism, as well as Herman Daly, Frederick Soddy and Georgesu Roegan.

@ClayShoaf

6 жыл бұрын

Our society does not work like the Monopoly board game. Now, if you wanna talk about getting rid of the fiat system, I'm all about that.

@ERRATICCHEESE2

6 жыл бұрын

Except every computer/AI/mathematical model of capitalist economies end up exactly like the Monopoly boardgame (cf Peter Victor, A. Yakovenko, Steve Keen, Satyajit Singh etc); that is, over 3/4 of your populace in poverty, wealth and land pooling in smaller and smaller clusters, followed by a full collapse of the ponzi (unless credit is extended, the poor are left to die, debts are pushed onto future generations, exploitation is jacked up etc etc). These models almost exactly mirror the world today; 80 percent living in poverty (less than 10 dollars a day), 40+ percent living on less than 1.25 a day.

@1:24 soudns more like the state. Competition makes giving the worse service possible, almost impossible.

@BollocksUtwat

8 жыл бұрын

_Monopoly of one kind or another, indeed, seems to be the sole engine of the mercantile system._ -Adam Smith Monopoly being the answer to the problem of competition, something not easily avoided without state intervention, barring total economic collapse and even then....

@BuGGyBoBerl

Жыл бұрын

you maybe have competition, but you can undercut it by monopoly. also while you have competition, you also have profit maximizing which means that via competition you get worse service possible.

"financial crises since Reagan and Thatcher..." booms and busts have been happening all the time and is part of a typical economic cycle under ANY system. "..Deregulation of the financial system means that the people who run them..." contradiction right there. if the markets are free no one runs them.

@subpointproductions

7 жыл бұрын

the markets arent free thats the point

@mAgoo9999

7 жыл бұрын

you missed the point.

@subpointproductions

7 жыл бұрын

Your point was so petty I didn't bother addressing it I was only referring to you saying that it's a contraction to suggest that the free market is run by individuals. As for your point about Thatcher and Reagan while this is true of any CAPITALIST economy it's basically economics 101 that deregulation results in more severe, more frequent financial crises. Which is why your point which I initially didn't even bother with is simply imbecilic.

@mAgoo9999

7 жыл бұрын

individuals participate in free markets, they don't run them. Still wondering why this is so hard for you to understand why what he said was a contradiction. so i assume you are proposing that its only capitalist economies that have ups and downs? fluctuations are inevitable in any economy and that massive amounts of regulation only stifles growth and innovation which then creates stagnation and decay. Because the markets are made up of PEOPLE PARTICIPATING IN THEM, you cant RUN a market (sorry no underline here, so using caps). more regulation will only decentivize people from participating at any level simply because it makes it harder to compete and get involved! To argue otherwise is simply imbecilic. Also provide any evidence that more regulation reduces the amount of frequent downturns in an economy instead of just saying its econ 101, what a lazy argument. We've had heavily regulated markets for more than 60 years and there has been plenty of busts.

@subpointproductions

7 жыл бұрын

Well firstly we simply disagree on whether people run markets or participate in them so I won't bother continuing there but I suggest you do some research on the matter. Secondly in the 21st century while I will admit that there can be downturn in other economic systems, thanks to societies incredible ability to produce in the masses it is only possible that economic crises can come about through over production not through famine, (with the exception of natural disaster in which any system would face crisis) and a capitalist economy is the only one that can crash due to over production. Lastly it is so simply true that this is economics 101 that it wasn't even worth going into but since you insist the most obvious example to me is in the 2008 GFC Australia - one of the most heavily regulated markets in the world didn't even go into recession while Europe and America which are the least regulated suffered the most. It is also worth noting that as far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong with source) that socialist countries such as Cuba, Ecuador, Venezuela felt zero repercussions from the GFC.

listening to such an educated and brilliant mind of our time speak on a subject out of pure ignorance i find truly unnerving, especially considering the clout this man has with the public and leaders of our society. his arguments lack logic and depth into the subject at hand, not what you would expect from a revered intellectual... or perhaps its exactly what one would expect.

@BRIDGEBURNERSTV

7 жыл бұрын

Magoo9999 I agree; it's maddening. He speaks in circles, and he is, for some reason, intent on pushing an agenda of wealth redistribution.

@birthingcanary958

6 жыл бұрын

Magoo9999 Could you elaborate? Where exactly does he speak out of ignorance?

@wolframdebris8102

6 жыл бұрын

I agree, only an Intellectual could spout this drivel and all the "useful Idiots" swallow it too

@paifu.

3 жыл бұрын

Good thing you just did yourself in your critizism, empty words not attacking the arguments made. Maybe theyre just too complicated for you, wouldnt be surprised.

@kasimshaikh3750

3 жыл бұрын

Lol your criticism is exactly what you desperately tried to put on him.

The chomps sure complains a lot, it would be much better if he suggested a better system than the current one that has lifted more people out of poverty than ever before.

@reachforacreech

9 жыл бұрын

simple.abolish private property and then everyone will have some property and they will have just about everything they nedd,THAT is wealth.of course that fact flies right the fuck over your right wing indocrinated head.

@osityan

9 жыл бұрын

You could give many people millions of dollars but after a few years it will all be gone. Or you could give someone a cheap skill and they will turn that skill into millions. Which one are you?

@SatyriconDivina

9 жыл бұрын

osityan People throw away millions of dollars because the social morality of Capitalism, 'you shall do this, or else,' is to buy as much useless junk as possible, or: the most revered people are those with a lot of Capital and the most material items. If the social morality of said system was destroyed, people would spend time doing what they are passionate about, they would build music or art studios, make inventions from freely available parts, garden, enjoy nature etc. Right now the system prevents people from achieving their highest potential because its values lie in specializing in whatever maximizes profit, no matter the cost. Whoever veers away from the tenents of the Capitalist cult, reduces their ability to have the necessities to use their skills.

@osityan

9 жыл бұрын

Dionysus vs Apollo Capitalism is a system. Systems don't have social moralities, ...people do. And people already 'build music', art studios and invent things all the time, they certainly have their own passions. ....and people SHOULD do things that maximize profits, why do otherwise? Those things are maximizing profits because they are obviously useful to someone else. The things that don't maximize profits are obviously less useful and less wanted. If you don't see it like that, you may possibly end up poor and/or a less useful member of society with little to offer others, or maybe not. My 2cents...

@Jcolinsol

9 жыл бұрын

osityan Part of the present problem is that our system favors a single model of business organization: the publicly traded corporation. The problem is, that this model focuses exclusively on maximizing return on investment, i.e. profit, but profit is measured in dollars, and dollars are abstracted from our practical needs and priorities. This causes absurd situations, like businesses that "improve" their bottom line by laying off employees. We need to emphasize the practical needs of the workers and customers over the obligation of capital, and there are established alternatives to the corporate legal fiction that could do that without abolishing property or requiring undue government involvement.

The totalitarian society he describes sounds more Soviet Union than US

@davidjmify

4 жыл бұрын

It was state capitalist.

@paifu.

3 жыл бұрын

Good thing the soviet union was further from socialism than even the usa is then lmao

@Shockkings0714

3 жыл бұрын

@@paifu. false lie

@utilitymonster8267

3 жыл бұрын

@@Shockkings0714 Not at all. Socialism means labourers take controll over the means of production. In neither the US nor the SU this was happening

@utilitymonster8267

3 жыл бұрын

Jordan, you say it as if Chomsky supports the Soviet Union. He is against both.

When it comes to foreign policy he is spot on. But please stay away from economic philosophy.

@Appleriver3

5 жыл бұрын

He's also spot-on when it comes to economics.