Noam Chomsky on Capitalism, Free Trade, and the Free Market Future – Covert Action Part 1 (1993)
December 10, 1993 www.amazon.com Watch the full lecture: thefilmarchived.blogspot.com The Boeing Company is a major aerospace and defense corporation, founded by William E. Boeing in Seattle, Washington. Boeing has expanded over the years, merging with McDonnell Douglas in 1997. Boeing Corporate headquarters has been in Chicago, Illinois since 2001. Boeing is made up of multiple business units, which are Boeing Commercial Airplanes (BCA); Boeing Defense, Space & Security (BDS); Engineering, Operations & Technology; Boeing Capital; and Boeing Shared Services Group. Boeing is the largest global aircraft manufacturer by revenue, orders and deliveries, and the third largest aerospace and defense contractor in the world based on defense-related revenue. Boeing is the largest exporter by value in the United States. Its stock is a component of the Dow Jones Industrial Average. Free trade is a system of trade policy that allows traders to act and or transact without interference from government. According to the law of comparative advantage the policy permits trading partners mutual gains from trade of goods and services. Under a free trade policy, prices are a reflection of true supply and demand, and are the sole determinant of resource allocation. Free trade differs from other forms of trade policy where the allocation of goods and services amongst trading countries are determined by artificial prices that may or may not reflect the true nature of supply and demand. These …
Learn Trading Related Blogs
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
@MebAbSebseb Capitalism CAN’T survive without government help? That’s exactly what ruins capitalism. All of this limits competition, promotes poor decision making on the part of business, and misallocates resources. No free-marketer would ever support these things. Subsidies, bailouts, etc run completely counter to what capitalism is all about.
@MebAbSebseb What? That’s a complete bastardization of free-market economics. A corporation should never be bailed out by the government, that’s tax money! and if a business collapses because of bad economic decisions, it should ultimately be penalized where all its assets are redistributed and bought up by competitors not rewarded with bailout money from the government! Free-market capitalism would never survive without a state to enforce its contracts. Check your facts, bro.
Chomsky proves once again that capitalism cannot survive without the nanny state. Subsidy, bailout, direct government cash………..but profits never go back to the public. They stay in private hands. Corrupt private hands mostly, like Wall Street.
Noam Chomsky dynamites the myth of free enterprise in our corporate dominated economy. A true inspiration.
Shame on you Noam Chomsky, your Straw Man arguments against free market are distortions of a long history of the “market” of ideas that will continue to exist weather black or under the light. You do have legitimate claim that our barbaric, unevolved financial and government systems are festering churns of unclean concentrations of greed and power but you are linking the market and the power structure that currently holds it hostage
For another example, look at Kerberos. This was developed by MIT and shared with the world as open source software. Microsoft made a trivial modification that they called a trade secret, and leveraged that to gain market share in the server market. When this was reverse engineered, they threatened to sue to maintain their monopoly status. Free market indeed.
@JessAtlas You mean that people don’t have a right to others’ services? I think the main reason people object to it is that they don’t believe it can work; they don’t see how order can exist in society without government. The trick is to show examples and theories that demonstrate that the free market could handle things like protection of property and establishing order. It isn’t easy, but it’s certainly possible.
@yakyakyak69 Even today, you have yet to explain to me how “free market socialism” is an oxymoron or why government is necessary to protect property or restore order. Please don’t make points if you can’t back them up; you are only wasting our time.
@QuatFax How do you convince that simple moral point to some one who’s grown up expecting those things? Doesn’t seem possible. The whole idea is so hard to comprehend for the average person.
@yakyakyak69 Of course, you STILL haven’t explained to me why the government should protect people’s property. You are no libertarian if you think people have a right to someone else’s service. If you own property, you should defend it or pay to defend it YOURSELF. You have no right to have it defended at the taxpayers’ expense.
@yakyakyak69 Who’s to say that a strong leader would be needed to “restore order?” Order can be established by a free market of competing private defense agencies. Market forces will prevent them from abusing their power (who would buy from an aggressive defense agency?) I’m not going to debate you if you just make shit up.
@yakyakyak69 Bullshit. We recognize the right to Lockean property in communities where people want to have Lockean property (i.e.- property is anything you mix with labor). We simply don’t want that system to be IMPOSED on us for a government.
There is nothing oxymoronic about free-market socialism. Socialism is worker control over production, which could easily happen under free market conditions. How in any way is free-market socialism an oxymoron?
@QuatFax Mutualism is something between classical economics and socialism, with some characteristics of both. Modern-day Mutualist Anarchism’s Kevin Carson, considers anarchist mutualism to be “free market socialism.” [oxymoron]
Half-Pregnant?
Mutualism supports exploitation when it does not recognize a right of an individual to protect land that he has mixed his labor. Mutualism will ALWAYS lead to Oligarchy when people cry out for a “strong leader” & his “friends” to restore order.
@yakyakyak69 I’m not an anarcho-communist; I’m a Mutualist.
People don’t have the right to have their property protected. They have every right to protect it themselves, but society doesn’t owe them the service.
You never have a right to a service at someone else’s expense, whether it be protection of property or healthcare.
That the founding fathers believed it is irrelevant. The founding fathers also supported slavery; does that make slavery right.
@QuatFax Are you KIDDING?!?!?
Protecting Property Rights (one’s right to keep the fruits of their OWN labor is Directly Opposite of Forced Redistribution.
Again the Anarcho-Communism that YOU promote is the OPPOSITE of True Liberty because Anarcho-Communism DEPENDS on Big Gov’t Central Planning by a “strong leader” and his cadre of OLIGARCHY.
Protecting Property Rights is what the founders called “PROMOTE the General Welfare”
watch?v=AMSMQHpIEQU&feature=channel_video_title
LEARN!
@yakyakyak69 Your belief that the government should protect private property is no less statist than the “progressive” belief that the government should offer universal healthcare. If you were a true libertarian, you’d oppose the EXISTENCE of the state as I do. Protection of property should be left up to the free market, not provided by the state.
@yakyakyak69 Property can be defended without the government’s protecting it. That’s my point: I have no problem with the existence of private property, but it should not be protected by the government any more than health care should be provided by the government. If people want private property, they should have to hire private defense agencies to defend it themselves.
@QuatFax The “Free Market” depends on Property Rights!
For a complete explanation watch:
“Collectivism/Anarcho-Communism – Planned Chaos” here on YouTube
watch?v=AMSMQHpIEQU&feature=channel_video_title
Perhaps this will help you understand.
Watching: “The Philosophy of Liberty” will also help you.
@yakyakyak69 I notice you’ve never explained why government enforcement of property is consistent with a free market. Tsk, tsk.
Anyone that violates the Non-Coercion Principle should be charged as such.
@yakyakyak69 What proves that I “don’t know SQUAT”? Article 1 section 9 allowed for slavery. Slavery was constitutional so your arguments against democracy can also be used against constitutionalism. For some reason it rarely is. In any case you’re just robotically spewing things I already know, you’re not really refuting anything. Going back to the original premise of this debate, you acknowledge the need for a state. That puts you more in line with the progressives than myself
@yakyakyak69 I just told you, I’m not a progressive, I don’t view gov’t as a positive force for the worker. I think the state is an anti-worker institution. And again, you didn’t refute anything, you just have keyboard diarrhea. You’re not connecting your rebuttals to anything substantive. And I’m right. There is a reason why Jefferson omitted Locke’s “property” in exchange for the “pursuit of happiness”. Common Sense is not the only thing Paine wrote, read Agrarian Justice
@boywhosucksatlife Again, you don’t know what your talking about. Way too much time in “progessive” (socialist) circles and not enough time thinking for yourself. Some day perhaps you can be deprogrammed.
@yakyakyak69 Silly goose, fac totum (do everything) describes what i do (everything). I don’t mean it in the housekeeper/servant sense. I like different types of work, I don’t like to be tied down. It’s more of a reference to Bukowski
@yakyakyak69 Please don’t put them in the same basket, those names belong to people who were generally on polar opposites.