Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Adventurer]

Noam Chomsky: Anti-democratic nature of US capitalism is being exposed
Pubblicato da giovannicarrosio su 11 Ottobre, 2008

L�articolo di Chomsky � uscito in molteplici versioni su molti giornali e riviste internazionali. La presente versione � tratta dall�Irish Times del 10 ottobre 2008.

THE SIMULTANEOUS unfolding of the US presidential campaign and unravelling of the financial markets presents one of those occasions where the political and economic systems starkly reveal their nature.

Passion about the campaign may not be universally shared but almost everybody can feel the anxiety from the foreclosure of a million homes, and concerns about jobs, savings and healthcare at risk.

The initial Bush proposals to deal with the crisis so reeked of totalitarianism that they were quickly modified. Under intense lobbyist pressure, they were reshaped as �a clear win for the largest institutions in the system . . . a way of dumping assets without having to fail or close�, as described by James Rickards, who negotiated the federal bailout for the hedge fund Long Term Capital Management in 1998, reminding us that we are treading familiar turf. The immediate origins of the current meltdown lie in the collapse of the housing bubble supervised by Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, which sustained the struggling economy through the Bush years by debt-based consumer spending along with borrowing from abroad. But the roots are deeper. In part they lie in the triumph of financial liberalisation in the past 30 years - that is, freeing the markets as much as possible from government regulation.

These steps predictably increased the frequency and depth of severe reversals, which now threaten to bring about the worst crisis since the Great Depression.

Also predictably, the narrow sectors that reaped enormous profits from liberalisation are calling for massive state intervention to rescue collapsing financial institutions.

Such interventionism is a regular feature of state capitalism, though the scale today is unusual. A study by international economists Winfried Ruigrok and Rob van Tulder 15 years ago found that at least 20 companies in the Fortune 100 would not have survived if they had not been saved by their respective governments, and that many of the rest gained substantially by demanding that governments �socialise their losses,� as in today�s taxpayer-financed bailout. Such government intervention �has been the rule rather than the exception over the past two centuries�, they conclude.

Thoughts

[Gopher]

Never would have expected N. Chomsky to spin it that way.

But it does not matter: B. Obama is going to turn all of this around. He will cure the planet of capitalism. Obama's going to bring "Dallas" and "Wonder Woman" back to prime time.

[MollyBloom]

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/noamchomskygatekepper26sep05.shtml

[Manner of Speaking]

[Adventurer]

Frankly, Chomsky is correct that we have gone from a more regulated global financial system and order to a a more chaotic one, and the major financial problems we are facing to have surfaced after decades of de-regulation, and economists have warned of the risks associated with the actions of the major investment houses. It seems okay to have the state intervene to bail these corporations at the expense of the tax payer, the middle class, that gets shafted all the time, and it is not okay to have the state interfere to make sure that those in the market are not engaging in financial activities that are overly speculative in a fashion that puts the whole global system at risk. I don't think people should be surprised that this has occured. Many economists are certainly not surprised.

[mises]

I reread the last third of Failed States in the past week or so. In that portion he makes an argument similar to the one above. Hitchens's article in Vanity Fair reminded me of it.

It is not democratic to privatize profit and socialize loss, especially to this degree. If some of you don't like to hear that, and don't like Chomsky, then tough.

I dislike big government and I dislike big business. We should be scared when big government and big business are as tightly in bed as they are today, all over the world. I trust a market.

[Hater Depot]

Doesn't the market help create big business?

[mises]

To some extent. But the titans, GE, GM, FORD, Goldman's would never be able to survive without government help. They become inefficient, like governments. But anyways, the problem is when big business and government collude to *beep* us. The post-war period has been one where the very structure of cities have been created for business. If a business can become large and leave government alone, like Microsoft, then good for them. But they are the exception.

[Gopher]

Sorry, N. Chomsky's god-like status or not, anyone who does not treat capitalism as a transnational phenomenon, and who treats it as a specifically American phenomenon, is a moronemon. End of story as far as this piece goes.

Chomsky seizes any and all opportunities to attempt to discredit and undermine the United States in public opinion. This is the mission he has assigned himself since the Vietnam War. Understand that, and you can predict how he will respond to anything. One-tune propagandist. Why do people think he resonates with the people he resonates with here?

[Adventurer]

[Kuros]

Why is Chomsky a market specialist? Frankly, mises has more expertise than Chomsky does.

[Adventurer]

[mises]

[Gopher]

I thought we were already in agreement here, Mises: "Chomsky's level of dishonesty is appalling." And "we cannot believe he is the most cited living academic on Earth."

[mises]

Sure. I think the dude can be breathtakingly dishonest and he is clearly one-sided or anti-American. But that doesn't change that sometimes he is right. He has a solid habit of manufacturing sources, and citing people who cite him as a primary source.

As I said: