Spetacular!

This reeks of economic ignorance. I'm sorry, but Chomsky makes several errors & I think it's because he assumes that the problem is complex, it isn't, it's simple. For starters, the market IS self regulating, Chomsky seems to have misunderstood what that means. So let's take an example: if the Banks crash because they have behaved poorly then that's that, the people who empowered those banks with their capital also loose out. & The self regulating factor? Well that's the crashing of the banks! They are obliterated from the market & people are punished by the loss of their capital in the bank precisely so that they won't repeat the mistake. If they do then they deserve it & if they won't learn from such poor judgement then that's that. Well, that's what should have happened anyway if the self regulating system wasn't impeded. The thing that saved the banks was the government, it bailed them out precisely because it wanted to protect the people. A noble intention to be sure, but what happens then is that they completely distort the market by saving crooked banks & ultimately they protect peoples ignorance. It is an extremely serious problem & the self regulating factors therefore are crucial to understand. The vast capital of the banks & even of the people have been accumulated by the abuse of millions of people world wide & that's where the unjust tilting of the market begins & that's also where Chomskys attention should be! Not on the people who knowingly & greedily supported crooked banks, that's easy, no, the question is where they got their capital from & whether or not their acquisition of that capital was good or whether or not it was accumulated from populations who are suppressed by their governments, not by the market. Does Chomsky even mention the state in his critique against economics? Or even the peoples responsibility in basic economics? Hardly. Please try to take whatever this man says about economics with a huge grain of salt, he is not a professor in economics.

@PandemoniumPirateRadio

9 жыл бұрын

***** Hello fellow "Scientismist" (do we really not have a better word for it?). Tell me, why is it slavery? If you're for science I really do hope you've done your homework in a rational manner and really inspected what made the modern world, what continues to take people out of poverty, what is the single most efficient method to deal with all current problems if the populations would just harness it rather than reject it on irrational ideological grounds from politicians of both colors who all have good intentions but the worst methods. Or how about what made it possible for common people to actually, in the first time throughout history, bring themselves out of precisely slavery and oppression, improve their lot, fight against elitist power holds by both religious dictators and monarchies, the opposite of slavery, oh yes, I'm talking about capitalism. And fine, you can say it's the "end of discussion" but I do hope, at least, you'll indulge me in explaining why exactly? That seems like a pretty reasonable inquiry don't you think? Besides, it would be fun to discuss, for once, with another scientism-ist ;)

@PandemoniumPirateRadio

9 жыл бұрын

***** No I meant it, I'm very much so a Scientismist. It's actually basic market sense that adjusts that, namely that people choose companies on their merits, which includes all those companies qualities such as the wages they give their workers etc. There's no such thing as real slave labour exploitation without violence however, if there are no other jobs, no other way to make a living, taking a short wage may be immoral and exploitative, but you could argue a lot of things exploitative in that case too. Providing any need whatsoever may seem as exploitative in a variety of ways, but that's kind of nonsense, of course it's exploitative but it still provides something that wasn't there without it and of course everything has a cost so yeah. But calling it slavery trivializes the meaning of that word. There is however real slavery still in the world and there are absolutely states impeding workers in many countries, but you REALLY have to study those cases again if you think it's the market, most of oppression today is made possible by states, those states are in turn sure made possible by capitalism, but capitalism therefore also dominates the very existence of any such system and it is therefore up to anyone with capital to not support or endorse such nations, companies, individuals etc. That is by far not a weakness of the market in other words, it is a weakness that will exist in any system but which can be thankfully dealt with in the market system itself. Again, as it has many times already in many countries. Your use of the word slavery is ideological and irrational and clearly not keeping to the meaning of the word, it's historical significance nor the state of actual slavery as it really exists in this day and age. So no, I refuse your usage of the word, it is just outright erroneous but even worse you're using it in a biased manner, against or for a system. That's not what scientism is, nor what science or rationality means. I hope you'll keep to the values of science and not take it personally, argue the points and not assume that I don't have critique against the system or state of the world simply because I'm criticizing your particular description of it. The workers very wages, regardless of their proportion, come from the profit, so no, you made another mistake, they DO partake in the profit and the people who support such companies and have let such companies out rival moral companies should know better (this has happened many times as you'd know if you had studied how the market has actually changed in the west). The workers can collectively own companies, buy shares in companies. This is a fundamental mechanic in economics and the market in general, so your statement that there is no way for worker control via the market is just wrong, dead wrong. Workers own companies in the world as you said, without political control. And it's the best way to do it. I live in socialism, and no, it creates ALL of the problems here. I respect the good intentions of it, but it really is a nationalistic monster in the end. It creates a ton of problems you probably don't even know of if you can just so easily and one sidedly suggest it as a solution to anything. I'm starting to wonder if you yourself really are a Scientismist, you really cannot have studied basic economics or any nobel prize winning economists etc. to any meaningful depth judging from some of the things you're saying. I think what you're doing is you're making the common mistake of attributing too much to capitalism, that is the single most prevalent way in which people have misconceptions about capitalism that I have encountered so far. By the way, the western world is less than 20% of the world population, your description of the market doesn't work for 80% of the world population, and the western 20% (socialist states and so on) only work because of the nationalistic abuse of those other 80%. Excuse the length and I hope I didn't write too sloppily :)

@PandemoniumPirateRadio

9 жыл бұрын

***** Not at all, I haven't assumed anything of the sort. I have provided only arguments that stand correct with observations being made, I agree that's not exactly science but it is as close to a scientific method you can get in the field and it is by far better than arguments that go against known facts and observations. So no, there's nothing laughable about a serious subject and the very serious observations made in the field. But sure, agreed, it's not science, but let's be totally and completely rational about it to a point to try to make up for that fact that no social theory is. But I'm arguing basic stuff, so there's not really any need to defend any vague economic theory, I'm talking economic fundamentals, how any market works regardless of what one thinks of it and so on. Certainly most economic/societal problems stem from psychological behaviors to begin with, which can be understood, cultural views etc. that's crucial and it's absolutely a science. I doubt that any high ranking economist would disagree with basic economics, so no. I wasn't making an argument from authority, my point was actually that in this field there is some importance to not just dismissing the best minds in it on grounds that do not correlate with reality. You made basic errors that have been and are already accounted for, which speaks to a lack in your own reasoning, which is why I brought up the question whether or not you've actually read much on the subject. But fine, regardless many of your points didn't stand and you didn't remedy any of them in this reply? I didn't poison any wells either, you put words in my mouth and imply that I've said things I haven't. So good, no arguments from authority and no twisting the others words ;) Socialism as it exists today is completely dependent on states, and in marxist theory it was meant as a transitional system to communism wasn't it? (I'm asking because I'm not sure). Theory doesn't even matter because as you said it's not a science and secondly the only thing that matters is observations that can be made. Either way, as it exist and as we observe it, socialism exists ONLY with states. I don't care who called the wage system of capitalism slavery, they were wrong too. The only way it could have been would have been under violence, which any free market basic moral is totally against. It's too easy to call it abuse when it's not and it's too easy to call it "helping people" when it actually is abuse, both sides are far too guilty of this in politics in the west so I think there's a good reason not to be biased about it and actually look at each case more carefully. I live in Sweden, and you? Also, I really wonder why you didn't respond to most of the criticisms of your reasoning and arguments?

@PandemoniumPirateRadio

9 жыл бұрын

Oh and also! Economics and capitalism shouldn't be studied as natural phenomena, but they can be studied and are understood as human inventions, they're no different than understanding the limitations or possibilities of any other human invention and so to that end it's fully possible to study what it does, how it works, what it's flaws may or may not be, what mechanics exist to counteract those flaws etc. But never conflate societal problems for problems with capitalist systems, the capitalist system does not pretend (like states or socialism does) that it is a remedy for anything, it is just a tool or invention and if people use it ignorantly then that has consequences. It's the only system that fully acknowledges that it's up to the people using it in the end, which is absolutely true and no other system will ever get away from that fact.

@PandemoniumPirateRadio

9 жыл бұрын

***** Satisfied with being in debt because no other choices exist after having completely butchered any market that existed before? It's not that we don't want that poor market either, we do, we buy things from it, we just don't want it in our country, which is nationalism. It abuses millions so we can have an incredibly wasteful bureaucracy. So yes, you don't know the first thing about my country. It's a mess and at other peoples expense and it breeds a disgusting culture as a result. Any and all of my points are based on observations, I wouldn't bother making them otherwise :/. That's what scientism sort of means, if there's no grounds for it in reality then that's that. I refuted that cooperatives can't exist in capitalism and that any of the problems you brought up can't be solved in capitalism. Please tell me how exactly I did not disprove them? Your claim was against capitalism and I argued that isn't true because you can study exactly those things occurring and those mechanisms clearly functioning and existing. It's not so much a position as it is stating what happens today as we speak, every day. The free market isn't a political system, it hasn't failed anywhere. Saying it has is like saying science failed because it produced atom bombs etc. The market causes problems when people use it to cause problems, understand? That is not the same thing as saying that the market has those problems intrinsic to it just like how that isn't true with science either. The assumption of politically minded people is that capitalism is only good if it only services good ends, it doesn't, nobody has ever argued against that and it is clearly a politically minded argument stemming from ideology and not economic research or rational inquiry because you would then be making the mistake of mixing what "ought" to be with what "is". Which is irrational and fundamentally anti scientific. Your arguments are the arguments I had before studying economics, now that isn't itself an argument against anything, I'm just saying that as a polite hint and I really mean it :/ Do you at least understand what I'm saying? Socialism doesn't exist as a phenomena for either of us to study without states? Can you at least allow your reasoning that much plasticity? It's completely true and you just argued against the scientific merits of economics to then argue for a economic theory that is vague and nonexistent. You just used the argument of nonexistence against the free market but then don't apply that to socialism? Come on, if you can actually show me my error (rather than just saying you don't agree then not explain why exactly without making the same supposed mistakes you then make yourself) then I'll take that swig of intellectual honest alongside with you ;) The free market absolutely exists, this is a common misconception of what a market fundamentally is which is why I earlier said that the market in no form is a "political system". If you're assuming that it is and that it can only exist if it dominates politics then you are wrong and need to understand that you're not talking about a political system whatsoever here alright? We could totally go into in depth why this is an error if you want to. But I'll spare you the length for now. Also, I did look up both those cooperations you mentioned, I don't understand how you think they are an argument against my case whatsoever? I mentioned that such companies existed myself and it was an argument that they occur and exist without a problem inside of capitalism and you basically just said confirmed that they do, so... ok? I'll just add this: the way in which those cooperations exist within capitalist countries is close to how the free market also exists in almost every country to varying degrees in spite of the over arching political and bureaucratic systems around it (which are both anti free market). Understand? Also, I'll be honest, I didn't know socialism didn't come from Marx. That doesn't change any of the facts that it's not a good political system (not that there is such a thing as a "good political" system to begin with but you get my point).

Aren't we lucky to have Noam Chomsky to judge, ' The Market '? After all, who could be better qualified on this subject, than a Linguistics Professor, who has never even run a burger stand? This makes perfect sense-Right??? UGH-It is a tragedy that anyone actually takes this ridiculous old man seriously! SMH

@amihartz

5 жыл бұрын

Sounds like someone is upset they had their worldview challenged and couldn't think of a rebuttal to it.

@mck1972

5 жыл бұрын

(SIGH) Actually it's more that, ' someone '-Me-actually sees through Chomsky's, ' Emperor's New Clothes ', illusion, to the REALITY that he has NO idea WTF he is talking about in ANY area OUTSIDE of Linguistics! And NO amount of Chomsky reciting facts & figures with the great luxury of exploiting 20/20 Hindsight changes this reality! Hopefully one day you will open your eyes to this reality yourself! SMH

@jcantonelli1

5 жыл бұрын

Chomsky is essentially expanding upon his remark that banks "privatize gains and socialize losses". Though he arguably is one, it doesn't take a genius to recognize this fact of the current global economic system. So, what was it, exactly, that sounded like the ramblings of an old man to you again?

@mck1972

5 жыл бұрын

Joe Antonelli, That is a fair question, so I will answer using a sports analogy: IF I watch video of last season's NFL games, I can clearly analyze what the winning teams did right, vs what the losing teams did wrong. BUT-Does this by itself make me qualified to criticize the actions of the players and coaches on the field? Of Course Not-It simply means that I have the great luxury of 20/20 Hindsight, which they did NOT have at the time! THIS is exactly what Chomsky does: He points to what everyone else did wrong, via his exploitation of 20/20 Hindsight! Yet he has never had the guts to actually get involved in the process himself, try to improve it, AND accept responsibility for doing so-In Real Time! All of which makes Chomsky nothing more than a very intelligent-sounding Monday-Morning-Quarterback, and renders his criticisms essentially worthless! Hopefully I have explained this clearly. M CK

@jcantonelli1

5 жыл бұрын

there's a lot of issues with that analogy. one of the main ones is that you are implying that the individuals "at the controls" are acting with a sort of "purity of heart" in the "fog of war" of the moment...I simply don't think that's true of our officials broadly speaking, be they elected or not.