That's where the concept of competition in the market comes in. Poor quality of service only correlates to high prices when monopolies form, almost always through government-granted privileges, and there's no one to compete. That's where you need another business to come in with the same quality for a lower price, or better quality for the same price. Matter of fact, if government has a monopoly on healthcare services, who do they have to compete with? There's no other option.
+Vault Boy® but how would you compare efficiency of health care in Cuba, they have a public health sector; yet they're better than many western countries in maternal mortality, child mortality. .... i believe health should be a non profit run by the government, so it'll be highly rationalized to give the best rational service ( not based on satisfaction of demands, but satisfying the needs) at the rational cost. in Belgium, 30% of radiology exam are not justified ( imagine the burden on health insurance), though many hospitals are going in competition against each other. sometimes competition just doesn't, why? misinformed public. how can you judge a good health Service? ? survival ratea? success rate. let's assume a technique or a cancer treatment that gives another 1 month yet double the price. let's not imagine it, another exemple: methotrexate is an efficient drug against many diseases and very cheap; yet most of American doctors have difficulties find in it in the US, because it's cheap, and therefore they turn to high coating treatments.
+Vault Boy® "Poor quality of service only correlates to high prices when monopolies form, almost always through government-granted privileges" Competition doesn't fix everything, for example, just take a look at social media websites. I think that once social media websites become very big, they become automatic, everlasting monopolies and no competition will ever replace them. Just think about it: you find a new social media website very similar, but slightly better, than facebook. You want to use it but, obviously, you still want to be able to talk to all your friends. Since there is no conceivable way that you would convince every single person you know to make the switch to the new platform, you'd have to juggle using the two sites, which would be a huge hassle: want to message that friend? Use this website. Want to message this friend? Use that website. Now imagine a better-than-youtube alternative, think about all those videos people uploaded to youtube, and all their favorites and all their playlists. All of that would be lost. This is why I say that once your website is big enough, you have an eternal monopoly, simply because you were the first. I don't think it's fair to make infinite profit from something that you might not have even created (youtube was bought by google, twitch by amazon, etc.).
+MiauFrito When it comes to Social media, no other companies are actually being barred from entering, it just so happens that the current sites like FB, Twitter, Insta, etc are doing a good enough job that competition is generally warded off and users stick with them. But remember, Facebook was the successor to Myspace; and Myspace was huge during that time. No reason at all a top tier competitor to Facebook won't appear and challenge their market share. Google+ tried, their service was okay, but consumers generally decided to stick with FB. Just their choice. Monopolies that happen naturally are generally okay because they provide a service people actually want and continue to do a good job at. Even if FB has a hold on the market, just because everyone's friends are there, doesn't mean a change can't happen in the future if the quality of FB drops (which it has in recent years). We just have to see what the future holds since social media is still in the early years. Even if things like favorites would be lost if a youtube competitor came in, that applies to other brands and industries. If I switch car manufacturers, I sever my history with my old company which has my preferred brand rep and all of my maintenance records for the past decade. But maybe it's important to me as a consumer that I switch to a brand I like more? You can also start a new social media site that connects many platforms into one using the different API's offered by the social media sites. That's how Hootsuite operates. Even if you think buying a company you didn't create isn't "fair" I guess that's a just a different view of what is fair. Who says it's infinite profit either? Can you see the future? If big social media sites hold up their end of the deal of providing a quality service that people enjoy, why can't they make "infinite profits"?
@@michaelcraig9449 triggers are a genuine thing, that was part of lexicon in psychology before they were on the Internet. As a cis white male, I may get annoyed at things like transphobia, homophobia, sexual assault etc, but for someone who has suffered those things, mention of those things can give someone an actual psychotic episode.
Even before discovering Chomsky, I used to think of businesses as mini dictatorships. If democracy was so great, why didn't I have a say at work or share the profits proportionally. People have said, "Well start your own business." Which of course only restarts the issues but with me as dictator.
Obviously Professor Noam Chomsky has nothing good or even satisfactory to say about Capitalism...What is his opinion about Socialism?? What is his opinion about the economic system of Sweden. The economic system of Sweden is Capitalism..Can he give an example of a successful Socialist country ? Can he explain why in many Socialists countries, those in Control of Government become rich, very rich...Examples :Cuba, Venezuela.
Have you not heard of cooperatives? They're businesses that don't have dictators. Instead, big decisions are made democratically and profits are more fairly distributed. That's the basis of socialism. Chomsky takes it further, as cooperatives still allow for different individual companies, but Chomsky wants the whole society to democratically make economic decisions.
@@Johnny-wd3tj Co operatives manifest the essential point of socialism which is workers owning the means of production instead of a single employer or small group at the top. That's what Marx was advocating. The question for socialists has been "how do we transition into this type of economy?" Long story short, some socialists eventually took control a country (Russia) and began to impose state control over the means of production. A lot of socialists disagree with their way of going about socialism and I would argue it wasn't socialism at all, since the workers weren't in control. So yeah, I agree it's not THAT kind of socialism.
JOSE LOZANO these latter ones are far from true socialist countries; they are corrupt and totalitarian; nevertheless, corrupt and poor capitalist countries also abound; those in Asia and Africa. Sweden has social democracy, which is indeed closer to socialism than other forms of capitalism
i know you didn't mean it this way but its funny whenever i listen/watch Noam Chomsky i have to increase my volume sometimes to double cause he is hard to hear lol
For those of you who are thinking that Chomsky is being irrational when he claims that corporations have to be as rotten as possible are probably thinking that he is ignoring that if 2 or more companies put out a similar product/service, that people will choose the better product at similar or lower price. That is not what he is talking about. He is talking about maximizing profits in regards to lowering the price of the infrastructure, materials and manpower to offer that service/product at a lower price. In other words, companies are not just competing for business, they are also competing to cut corners to maximize surplus value.
@@unknownchannel3141 id rather have government debt. Least it wont kill me. All sorts of products and services caused people to die because businesses cut corners, as well as destroying the planet and cruelty to animals etc etc. Id take government debt over that any day.
The reality is that a company can start out with good ideals, but then, due to the fact that capitalism is perpetuated upon the idea of exponential growth, the idealism disappears.
no matter what creative domain it is, it follows a preto distribution. it's not because companies necessarily get too corrupt for it to work or not. it is simply just the way the world works. It is not a fault of capitalism, it is a fault of all known systems and not systems we know. I do not understand how such a capable and well-formulated man as him does not take that into account. One does not have to read much Friedman, Sowell or read history before seeing the pattern
this is my problem with libertarianism, it describes each market exchange as though it was happening in a vacuum. as if there were no externalities and neither party was being coerced
Um, my understanding is that that is how capitalism defines market exchanges; in fact, all of capitalist theorizing essentially exists in a vacuum. Hence, externalities, which if accounted for, make this entire system unprofitable.
To reveal self-proclaimed "libertarians" as being full of BS, all one has to do is ask them what should be free from government influence. It's usually the case that they want a free ride in the things that they do, and taxes will be levied on something that doesn't impact them. They don't want rules to govern their own small business, but they want the law to come down hard on others. "Libertarians" are often juvenile, under-educated idealists who think they have the answer that'll fix everything, but with little to no real life experience in Economics or government. And no, a community college Intro to Macroeconomics that they got a C- in doesn't count.
1:30 "If you try to be benevolent, you're out of the business because someone undercuts you. So the nature of the system...is to be as mean and rotten as you can to maximize profit and market share." Reminds me of the following quote: "....a just man always fared worse than the unjust because he neglected to aggrandize himself by dishonest actions, and thus became unpopular among his acquaintances; while those who were less scrupulous, grew rich and were flattered."-Lydia Marie Child
That quote reminds me of something similar that one of the interlocutors (Glaucon I think?) says in Plato’s Republic, about how the perfectly just man appears to be unjust while the perfectly unjust man appears just.
Me too, some will try discredit you as some kind of Chomsky fan and so the implication would be that you have blindly followed Chomsky and are party to a doctrine that you your self have never challenged. I mention this to remind us that it was precisely our own critical minds that brought us to Chomsky who just happened to have carefully researched and offered academic (studied not postured) work on the questions we ourselves found ourselves asking. And furthermore found ourselves agreeing with Chomsky's findings as reasonable and well considered conclusions that were also convincing. The detractors I've interacted with spent more time trying to prove me a Chomsky fan boy rather than proving the presented argument as wrong. If you are citing Chomsky, please don't ever feel foolish. As John Stuart Mill argued: debate offers you to correct others or for you to be corrected. Both positives! But if you're debating comrade is hung up on you citing Chomsky and not on proving the cited point wrong!? Where's the opportunity of growth on both sides? I live Chomsky too like you, I'm giving you the argument why you should when faced by the cheap claim of being a fan boy but without an attempt to tackle substantive points that you found yourself agreeing with via Chomsky
+eruss We have them. You think he's the only guy to think this way? Outside of linguistics he isn't the most original thinker but he has a bit of a bully pulpit that he can use, and I think he'd agree with that sentiment. His persona is what makes people listen and his measured delivery makes him unique but only because of the nature of all the other voices. There are more voices like his out there but few are heard because Noam is grandfathered in from a much earlier period in American cultural history when he was heard amid a tide of dissent and social upheavel. He wouldn't be known today if he began his career as a commentator in the 80s or 90s. Understand none of that is to undermine him, but you can see it in how he is asked questions and his annoyance at many of them. His admirers ask him to give them a point of view but he insists everyone must begin to behave effectively as he does themselves because the only way to deliver us to a better society is if everyone stops being atomized and begins to work together as individual minds working in a community instead of individuals seeking individual interests or alternatively individuals subordinating their views into a group think that follows one or another speaker's every word as gospel.
***** I wouldn't say that the serious flaws in modern feminist discourse is a deliberate diversion, but its certainly compromising the long term credibility of the ideas that ought not to need any help with credibility. Its definitely something you could have seen coming 20-30 years ago. Basically the extremists got tenure and stole the mainstream away from sensible people.
make your own video then? this person took time to collect video clips and put them together in a montage and upload it on youtube for no profit just to share the word. be a little grateful. come on.
“Private ownership is about as close to totalitarianism as you can get!” “Then what would you like to institute in its place Mr. Chomsky?” Totalitarianism.
Thank you for having such important interview with Mr. Chomsky that his knowledge has serving a human history. Could you please sometime if you could possible make an interview with him, bring his attention on the subject related to Jihadist and Radical Islamist group had operating under US support through Saudi Arabia and the Pakistan regime of Zia Alhaq in the 1980s and 1990s in order to overthrown soviet union from Afghanistan and the war crime, the crime against humanity that those of jihadist have committed and still being alive and having power in Afghanistan.
There are some exceptions to what Chomsky says - some people jack their prices all the way and aren't competitive price-wise but have the appearance of exclusivity
He said the big corporations are glad that the people are blaming the government.It keeps peoples eyes off of THEM. I always wondered why people blamed the government when they didnt even own the companies who were paying low wages.
Capitalism is a system where innovations are rewarded and that is why industrialization bloom because innovators get rewarded and other creative people also try to make things that makes life easier because they see that they can be rewarded as well. Modern vaccines, drugs and technology is a direct product of capitalism. In addition to that it creates a value hierarchy which people can strive for in which positive emotions are gained in going up to those hierarchy driven by serotonin and dopamine circuits. The downside is the pollution which is the byproduct of the easy lives we live in and inequality, that's why we need the left and the right to balance it out and make it better if possible by civil discourse and critical thinking.
The idea that the profit motive is necessary for human advancement is simplistic and reductive. The internet stems from a government project, much of our medical research today is funded by charities, major works of infrastructure are built and maintained for the collective good of mankind rather than personal economic advancement. The soviets made it to space before the US, and even when the Americans got there it was a government institution that reached the stars long before any private enterprise. Do you really believe that Darwin and Newton were driven by the profit motive rather than the simple desire to advance mankind in its knowledge and understanding of the world?
Democracy is a governing system, capitalism is an economic system. Economic systems are chosen by governing systems, not vise versa! For a governing system to be a democracy it must be a legislative assembly of all the people to participate directly in the decisions made in their society, if you have individuals leading and making decisions, that is not a democracy, it’s an authoritarian governing system, I don’t care it they are self appointed or elected, it’s still authoritarian. The problem is that when we discuss a republican form of government, because people don’t understand how it’s assembled or how it functions to achieve a majority consensus of all the people as it would in a democracy, we fail to define that there’s a difference between a representative, which is someone who you hire to act on your ideology and interest, and a representation which is an exact copy of the original only smaller. In our case a representation is not of ideology or political interest, it’s of demographics, that’s why to assemble a republican form of government it must be by the republican principle; per capita apportionment based upon an enumeration, a census, which is a statistical assembly method to produce an exact representation of the population in every aspect as a legislative assembly, and we use a statistically relevant proportionality constant to ensure that the resulting assembly does in fact form an exact representation of the population. Why don’t we do that today? It’s because of Slavery and the Civil War. Everyone was fine with that definition and mode of assembly when it didn’t include slaves, even though representation was provided for the slaves by the 3/5 rule, the slaves were basically unrepresented nonparticipants, so after the civil war they used political parties to keep the freed slaves, poor whites, and other undesirables as unrepresented and nonparticipants, while still being apportioned representation and suffrage based upon their number in the population. When that number became to large to control, then they issued in the congressional Statute to fix the number of Representatives at 435; there should be 10,247 representatives based upon the 2010 census (10,997 based upon the 2020 census), which is the whole number of representatives which does not exceed 1 representative for every 30,000 persons in each State, which is also a representation of the people of the State just as the representation of the people of the State in the State’s own most numerous legislative branch. It’s easy for us to come up with alternative interpretations to justify what we want to do to promote our own agendas and interest!
He is spot on regarding restriction of choice. The UK since privatisation of utilities and public transport is a good example. Pure smoke and mirrors. A bewildering selection on offer (except where there can be only one 'winner' of a franchise, such as transport, a decision the public has no control over)... then the jostle at the bottom: trade off between lowest price, environmental impact and abysmal customer service.
I learn a great deal when I listen to Mr Chomsky but he’s so soft spoken it’s frustrating to hear him clearly as it is in several of these interviews. Not sure why I’m writing that except I really want to take in the knowledge of this Man!
I think Chomsky has virtually no understanding of how the results of business are gotten. We don't have a perfect system, but what is the alternative he suggests? He has spoken about this elsewhere (search UA-cam). I think you'll find his suggested solutions to be extremely superficial at best.
@@a.s.2426 It is always easier to come up with critique than solutions, especially when speaking from a purely ideological viewpoint that lacks any practical comprehension..
@@amcvharten You're obviously not speaking of Chomsky, who offers facts here, not ideology. And his practical comprehension is extraordinarily high precisely because he's not burdened with the "free market" ideology of the business class. As for solutions, he's addressed that over and over.
Do people take these points to heart, really? If anyone wants to engage in a civil conversation with me, here are my thoughts (disclaimer: I am very familiar with whom Chomsky is and have heard most of his lectures on UA-cam). No, corporations are not totalitarian entities. Its owners and employees are legally accountable for their actions; elected officers have to perform their fiduciary duties and or face removal by the board of directors. Its employees are not forced to work there; they sign contracts and perform duties willingly. Saying that workers are forced to work at a given corporation is like saying you were forced to kill someone you didn’t like. There is always work in the public sector if you don’t like corporations. CEOs do have to take externalities into consideration: Big corporations are part of collective agreements whereby they refuse to do business with countries and companies that exploit child labor or do otherwise unethical things. Their company’s environmental impact, for example, is also something for which they are accountable. It is the job of the public to demand laws for these corporations to abide by them. The motive of maximizing profit seems bad on the surface but actually incentivizes more production of in-demand goods. If you can produce the same good for a lower price, people will buy from whoever has the lowest price. When big companies do that to eliminate competition, government steps in to provide fairness. Markets are “inefficient”? And anarcho-syndicalist societies where people produce things that are not in demand are efficient? Markets are the reason you have video cameras, microphones, your clothes, your (very high) professor salary and an outlet to spread these views. Markets didn’t develop out of some corporate conspiracy but to fulfill societies’ desire to produce and possess interesting things. This and most of our desires are irrational. If hierarchy is inherently amoral, well, how do you organize? Hierarchies exist because people are different and have better or worse skills. Some people have more leadership appeal, some people have less. Some people have more resources, some have less. Anarcho-syndicalism doesn’t answer how big societies can efficiently organize and distribute resources. You being a college professor is an example of hierarchy. The truth is that hierarchies allow for efficient work and that’s why we have leaders in movements, leaders in corporations and leaders in politics. Those subways that you talk of... Guess who builds them: Corporations! Why? It’s cheaper! Subways are not a “need”. The only thing you “need” is to be healthy and alive, with the former being difficult to measure in an objective way. Markets give you a city in which to have a subway in the first place.
These are all valid points, but there are key elements that, at least per these snippets, crucially ignore. Those are 1. Competition and 2. Alternative economic systems. Once you account for those, all of these criticisms are easily destroyed.
There has not been a politico-economy style yet created that can eliminate the problems of corruption by leaders. All we can do is manage that corruption and the best form of politico-economy to do that is capitalism.
Grahamhg What's stupid is trying to force everyone into a single way of doing things, that how we ended up in the mess we've got now. Everyone's got a preference, and none of us have the right to force it on anyone else. You may not agree with my philosophy, and I may not agree with yours, but if we agree to approach each other peacefully and respectfully, as all forms of anarchism advocate, then there's no reason we can't get along. No hard feelings, I agree with your suggestion.
+Spazotronic I really can't agree with that. Sure, we might like to sound all PC talking about how all different kinds of economy and politics are equal. But, at some point, we're gonna have to look the serfs/slaves in the eyes and tell them, "I'd rather be PC."
He is really talking about corporatism, not capitalism. Everyone in this world is a capitalist. If you make money, you are a capitalist; you are saling your services or products.
Will the human species live past the capitalist model of exclusive individualism particularly with regards to rampant profiteering and with a disregard for the greater common good concerning the environment ? It appears the answer is a resounding no if our direction is from a centralized top- down economic structure. The model has to change to an organized inclusive design where we all have a stake and an equal level of power and autonomy in our decision making.
humanity has never experienced a better time than today. thanks capitalism for bringing people around the world out of misery. i am not being sarcastic, we have the longest life expectancy with the highest standard of living that humanity has ever known. war is on the decline as is poverty. the stark contrast to the past should be evidence enough but somehow people still manage to convince themselves that they are living in hell.
@@Rumplefrumple Well if 2 % of the world's population possess over 90 % of the wealth then that is hardly proof positive that capitalism works well for the vast majority. And by the way are you even aware of climate change ?
@@jameschant2740 who cares about the wealth gap if everyone is getting out of abject poverty. i dont care if people are flying around in rockets and shitting in gold toilets so long as the people at the bottom continue to benefit from an increasingly better standard of living themselves. if today i make $10 and you make $1 and tomorrow i make $300 and you make $10, the gap between us has increased but youre still 10x better off than you were. marxists dont love the poor they just hate the rich. as for climate change, do you really believe communism goes hand in hand with sound environmental practice? thats a new one. the capitalist societies of today are constantly talking about and implementing ways to reduce pollution. ua-cam.com/video/yCm9Ng0bbEQ/v-deo.html
I'd argue the benefits are more due to education, science and technology than capitalism. Our current system pulls money up to the rich. Yes, they might pay their workers well, but they're taking the vast majority of the money. In accountancy terms, worker wages are referred to as a cost. Profits only go to the shareholders. If the shareholders find that they don't need as many workers anymore, they fire some of them. Cooperative systems are fairer and more democratic. It's a false dichotomy to assume that if we don't have capitalism, then the only alternative is the state controlling the economy.
Worst service at highest price. That is why people in their 50 with extensive experience are increasingly being eliminated from workforce as they tend to make more money than less experienced.
The issue is his view on capitalism either assumes a stupid or malevolent human nature. You can certainly have a capitalist market yet still actively seek to improve your society. Also, i take the bus and train, who says i cant do that in capitalism?
"I take the bus and train, who says i cant do that in capitalism?" . . . . And how much subsidy do trains and buses get compared to the private automobile? And look at the allocation of social space: how much is given over to the automobile compared to public transportation? If you want to enjoy a night out on the town with friends, what are your public transportation options coming home after midnight? What are they if you live in a rural area? etc. etc.
An aproximately adequate portrait of real capitalism, markets and big corporations, with the only exception of this: it's not plausible the idea that all the products and services in capitalism are the worst possible while profiting the most; I think Marx acknowledged very well the progress in quality of technology and efficiency within capitalism and surely we can see that there are some beneficial aspects in many technologies origined in capitalist economic dynamics (for sure, the bad externalities and frequent bad enterpreunership practices when there's no regulations on the markets are clear evidence that capitalism is far from being a perfect mode of economy). Yet there's a major problem here with the thesis of professor Noam Chomsky: the anarchist idea of a society without any kind of subordination as the counterproposal to capitalism has at least these problems: (1) it's required some sort of civil governance authorities to impose legitimate order and to establish criminal justice; (2) the moral anthropology of anarchists is contradictory: we have the overwhelming evidence of the tendencies in human nature to abuse others, be greedy and commit many kinds of moral evil, but at the same time the (not rationally justifiable) hope is that these tendencies will desappear in a social structure without power; I think this is very naive; (3) if it's justifiable and reasonable to not abolish capital or the production's specialized factors and existent technology (socialism doesn't necessarily do that and some sorts of capitalism mitigate and compensate the private ownership of the capital with redistribution programs) then the idea of no subordination as a mandate would be very complicated in this conservative scenario of economic production. It seems possible the existence of non-vicious relations of subordination and responsability in a real democracy without abuse of power and without the huge inequality that results of savage laissez-faire capitalism (whether neoliberal or libertarian); (4) it's a constant tendency in the left the despising of morality and religion (and this is a very dangerous feature because of the amoral atheist relativistic consequences). But if the Bible is the real Word of God (and God exists as the Supreme Good revealed to us through the Mediator and designated Master Jesus Christ of Nazareth in the testimony of the New Testament) then it's not merely optional the ethics and the teachings of the Bible (and that doesn't signify abuse over persons of other creeds or religions though saying this doesn't either mean the denial of the exclusivity of the Bible as the Word of God with ethical authority and containing all the religious truths that are in the Gospel and in all the Holy Scriptures).
Read George Orwell's "1984", Part 2, Chapter 9. It's all there... ❤ "...The pages were worn at the edges, and fell apart, easily, as though the book had passed through many hands. The inscription on the title-page ran: THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF OLIGARCHICAL COLLECTIVISM by Emmanuel Goldstein Winston began reading: Chapter I. Ignorance is Strength. Throughout recorded time, and probably since the end of the Neolithic Age, there have been three kinds of people in the world, the HIGH, the MIDDLE, and the LOW. They have been subdivided in many ways, they have borne count- less different names, and their relative numbers, as well as their attitude towards one another, have varied from age to age: but the essential structure of society has never altered. Even after enormous upheavals and seemingly irrevocable changes, the same pattern has always reasserted itself, just as a gyroscope will always return to equilibrium, however far it is pushed one way or the other. The aims of these groups are entirely irreconcilable..."
@3:34 - chomsky points to "repeated financial crises since Reagan and Thatcher" - isn't it a bit fairer to say these crises existed before the 80s as well?
I think there were less crises between the new deal in the 1930s and the neoliberal revolution of the 80s. But during that time the economy kind of stagnated and reached a crisis point with stagflation in the 70s
Between 1930s to 1980s economy was regulated after depression and there were much less crisis. However after deregulation by these pumpkins those things started to happen again. This is what he said. "Deregulation" Is keyword here
Transcript: In your view what's wrong with private ownership of the means of production? We should not have relations of hierarchy, dominance and subordination, centralized control over the means of life people, who give orders and others to take lives all that? Yeah. I mean if you have private ownership of the means of production it means that first of all the people it's not just one person it’s an institution so you get like maybe it’s a corporation or private business or something. First of all internally, it's essentially a totalitarian institution. Almost necessarily there's a group at the top maybe a person or a group they make the decisions they give orders people down the hierarchy get the orders transmit them at the very bottom you get people who are permitted to rent themselves to survive that's called a job, wage labor, and you get the outside community who’s allowed to purchase what you produce and of course they're very heavily propagandized to make them want to consume it even if they don't so that’s the nature of the system. It's kind of about as close to totalitarianism as you can imagine. Private enterprise works just the way Milton Friedman says. You give the worst possible service at the highest possible profit that's what it means to be in the business. If you try to be benevolent you're out of the business because somebody undercuts you. So the nature of the system is, a good insight goes way back to Adam Smith is to be as mean and rotten as you can to try to maximize profit and market share and give the worst possible service same with HMOs and everything else. The system has unacceptable risk built into it. It's well-known among economists that markets are inefficient from the narrowest perspective. So to make it simple suppose you and I, suppose you sell me a car. We may make a good deal for ourselves but we're not taking to account the effect on him. That’s what's called an externality and there’s an effect. if you sell me in a car, it increases gas prices, increases pollution, increases congestion and that extends very broadly. These so-called externalities can be very large now in financial institutions it's far worse they're in the business of taking risks. If they're well managed, they calculate the potential cost to themselves if there's a loss but the important words are to themselves they don't calculate in what's called systemic risk the effect on the whole system if I make if I go bust you know and as a huge effect. the result is that risk-taking is underpriced meaning there's a lot more of it than there would be in a reasonable system. But in your role as CEO of a corporation you are compelled to maximize profit and to ignore what economists call externalities, that is the impact of your transactions on others. Well that's why we have repeated financial crises ever since Reagan and Thatcher the deregulation of the financial institutions means that the people who run them have to ignore what's called systemic risk, the risk that a transaction is going to bring down the system. and since you ignore it you’re increasing the probability of it and therefore repeatedly happens. So we repeatedly have financial crises each one worse than the last. markets are supposed to be magnificent because they increase your choices. actually they restrict your choices. you think about it for a minute. suppose I want to get home from work at night ok the market offers me a choice. I can have a four-door Toyota, it does not offer me the choice of a subway. what I want what's good for me what's good for the environment what's good for my children but that's not offered in the market. markets offer individual consumption and the enormous stress on the importance of markets is part of the way to drive people towards looking for yourself. amassing as many commodities you can forget everything else. in fact if you think about it for every one of you in an economics course or read about it then you know what markets are supposed to be. markets are supposed to be systems in which informed consumers make rational choices, right. I'm sure every one of you is turned on a television set what do you see when you turn on a television set? you see that there's a huge industry public relations industry which began in the United States and Britain incidentally huge industry which is designed to undermine markets every ad is an attempt to create an uninformed consumer will make an irrational choice right a huge effort on the part of the business world the undermined markets but to keep the aspect that's useful for profit and power. namely separating people from one another, focusing on individual choices, not working with your neighbour. by now about close to half the stock is owned by about 1% of the population and the bottom 80% of the population hold about 4% of the stock and it's it's always understand the corporations are interlinked like a bank alone a big piece of one corporation and it's a it's a massive system of highly concentrated power given the rights of immortal persons but without the responsibility of person. these are amoral institutions in fact there are private tyrannies which are amoral and required to be amoral. they move towards out so they want to avoid monopolies because then they get public service requirements but they want to be very limited so just a few of them which can have what are called strategic alliances they can effectively act together.
4:00 If the people at large wanted to take the subway, then the subway would be a good choice to take as it would be improved and expanded by private enterprise. The people at large don't want that, so you get better and cooler cars as a better option. Noam Chomsky is not talking about what the people want, he is talking about what he thinks the people should want. Milton Friedman clearly explained this, who are anyone to tell others to take the subway instead of a car? The freedom to take what you want is most important, not some angel to tell us how to get from A to B. 4:35 Everyone is looking out for themselves, there are no angels in this world. Chomsky is just as greedy as anyone else in this world.
@@mirasaladi2936 Its a strange recession. Real Estate has yet to collapse after 9 months. Stocks recovered in 3 months and are higher value then before. Record unemployment and small businesses are forced to closed indefinitely.
@@cameronburnard4240 It’s coming 3 years too late. I knew the Fed would not be able to cool off rising prices because the profits were addicting. Now we’re all paying the price.
I reckon, everything points towards this, that it'll only get worse before it gets better. Food costs will rise even more as firms are forced to start paying next year's costs for food for example. Rampant inflation with limited intervention in sight apart from increasing rates which is driving us head first into this recession alongside everything else. Honestly we would have been better either letting the banks all crash in 2007 or nationalising them as it seems that the banks got drunk on money from QE and kept on convincing the government to keep printing; they never stopped and as you said, we are paying the price.
Noam Chomsky is right about Capitalism (also, see Werner Sombart The Jews And Modern Capitalism, Julius Evola Men Among The Ruins, Revolt Against The Modern World, American ''Civilization'' etc.).
Competition should push companies to provide a better service than the worst though...? In a crony system like we have, I can see the worst service being provided because the government give so many illicit privileges to certain entities.
He compares any kind of hierarchy as a totalitarianism. Private enterprises are opcional, it depends on the liberty to choose your own path. You can choose the boss you want to follow, you can perfectly not get into it. This hierarchy depends on skill. If you increase your skill and you want to leave the institution, it'll be in the interest of your boss to give you more money if they want to keep you. If you're good at what you do, you will go up in the hierarchy. The rest of the socialist systems depend on contacts and links with ideology or politics, the more you believe in the governement, the more you recieve. So there'll be a hierarchy in any system, but the difference is the way you can go up the stairs, by your own effort and skill, or by sacrifice of your own thinking. Good products don't come from ideology. I know the mastery of Chomsky trayectory in linguistics, but this man doesn't know anything about economy. I wish to know what do he thinks about the failures of socialism as Cuba, Venezuela, North Corea and the URSS (next time is Argentina).
@Jack "USSR failed because it was authoritative and ran by corrupt elites" . . . . .. Bolshevism SUCCEEDED in withdrawing Russia from WWI, (the bloodiest war in world history at the time) delivering food to the hungry, and raising an overwhelmingly peasant society to a modern standard of living in a single generation while defeating the Nazi behemoth. Not bad. It could not, however, make the transition to a digital economy, and its complete suppression of personal liberty was widely and justly resented.
I believe Noam Chomsky is a good person but the idea that Capitalism is a totalitarian system is a stretch. Every country that has embraced capitalism with a healthy democratic system has improved the quality of life of their citizens. The only exception perhaps is China, who only embraced half of the recipe which is even more shocking because it tells you that you only need a free market economy to succeed and democracy can come later.
You're forgetting the externalities. Like Chomsky alluded to, capitalism rewards the most narcissistic and sociopathic agents that believe they are worth more than others, at the expense of others. The type of country I assume you're referring to will generally speaking have outsourced it's least flattering labour elsewhere. You may be the most benevolent corporation and really care about your employees and the local environment, but you will quickly become obsolete thanks to the corporation that does not, allowing them to reduce total costs of production/extraction. The environmental damage and exploitation of people is still a byproduct of capitalism in Sweden or Canada, it just manifests itself as oil dumps in pristine waterways in the Ecuadorian Amazon, or in sweatshops in Bangladesh instead of in your local area.
Philosopher's will almost always push the envelope and try to get people to consider the greater good of humanity. That is their job. Settling for capitalism is for the capitalists. It is an easy position to take. Fighting for a better solution takes courage. Chomsky is, like many, unwilling to accept that the pinnacle of human evolution and development is capitalism, a system fueled by selfishness and basic material drives.
Caduceus : by opinion Chomsky is the Pinnacle of evolution with many others. People trying evolute their humanism by expressing in writing or speech. So we fill the need to stop shooting blanks.
In the antiquity they regarded being a merchant and someone who deals with money someone untrustworthy, secondary to the aristocrat and their actions (hannah arendt said the same thing in the human condition). When that changed, well we are here. I dont deny capitalistic good that it brougth, but overall I call it a bad. AS far as I know that is. And thats what I belive.
Profit maximization is the primary motivation of capitalists, which is another way to say that they have to deliberately ignore externalities (impacts of economic transactions on others). They overlook systemic crisis.
Noam's solution to capitalism: He should be the one making the best decisions for everybody. Isnt that equality. Anybody who promotes communism simply thinks that under their rule theyd do it better. Equality is not part of the communist equation.
All systems have a hierarchy. The Politburo was doing pretty well before the USSR collapsed. If you want to avoid a Pareto distribution, then you have to change human nature.
@@snakeweirdo I will admit that I am largely ignorant of his writing, I have only become aware of Noam Chomsky through UA-cam. It was in poor judgment that I made that blunt statement and I regret my wording. My sentiments are sincere in that I wish he would more clearly state solutions in his arguments or discussion. Ultimately though he is truly among the wisest of this world so my feeble chirpings matter very little.
He's not talking about capitalism, but corporatism. There's a massive difference. Around the founding of the US, corporations were chartered for a max of 20 years. Maybe that would help.
Chomsky doesnt understand what free market capitalism is It is simply individuals own their body, their labor, and their property and all individuals should be free to do with their property, labor, and body they want
But that's not what ends up happening in the market. Instead we have a few individuals at the top controlling everyone else's labour and property. A lot of companies today are owned by a handful of corporations, which are essentially dictatorship institutions.
@@miguelthealpaca8971 - And all evidence shows that this cannot happen without government to protect its cronies with regulations, taxation and licensing, thereby picking the winners and losers in the society, in the economy. Have you ever noticed that regulations never actually affect the big players in any sector? They pay a fine, which amounts to the _vig_ in mafia terms, and roll right along. But the cost of compliance, meaning the work hours needed to file all the paperwork, keeps smaller upstarts from being able to get into that sector. Regulations exist to protect the entrenched money, period. Complaints about hierarchy are specious. Humans are hierarchical in nature. You might as well complain about our need to breathe oxygen. The key to actual successful free market economics is to return government to its proper role as a protector of individual liberty. Regulations would by and large not be needed if people were not allowed to hide behind the legal fiction of a 'corporation' to avoid personal responsibility for bad actions.
@@Payin_Attention It's not just the government that's the problem and no, humans don't have to be hierarchical. There are thousands of businesses in the world that don't have a typical capitalist hierarchy with the few at the top making all the decisions and hiring others to work for them and produce profits for them. Essentially when you join a typical company, you're working for somebody else so that they can make lots of money while you only make a little bit in comparison. "You come work for me, I make millions while you make thousands. Deal?" Most of us are left with no choice but to accept this deal, or else we do have a choice but don't realise it. With a democratic business (a co-operative), again of which there are thousands, so I'm not inventing any unrealistic, utopian system, workers make the decisions and collectively decide what to do with the profits. Everyone in the business is, in effect, both an employer and an employee. But yes, good points about how government regulations help the big players but not the little guys. This is why socialists went into politics - it was to stop doing things like this and instead have policies that help everyone, not just the few at the top who have everyone else working for them or paying taxes to support them.
@Dylan Tucker yes, I think people should be able to choose between a capitalist company and a co-op. A free country would allow someone to work for somebody else if that's what they want to do. But I think if people were more educated about their choices and governments and banks made it easier to start a co op, then we would have a better economy. I haven't heard or read from those who suggest co-ops about a wealthy person putting in the initial capital and your scenario of someone with an idea that others don't agree with is an interesting one that I haven't thought of. In the first case, I think something needs to be worked out where they get compensated. Depending on the amount, they could earn more than their colleagues. For the person with an idea and no one wants to work with them. Yes, if somebody wants to work for them, then fine. But there are co-ops in which you can start as an employer and then become a full member. Also, with increasing automation, we're going to see less employees anyway.
Talk about a man of principles: It is why he has chosen to live in places like Romania and East Germany before the Wall came down, vacationed in Cambodia during the reign of Pol Pot, goes for his medical care in Cuba and now lives in downtown Caracas with the people who are now living the Chavez/Chomsky dream where every day he puts smiles on the faces of starving urchins by telling them they are no longer under western capitalist influence and that they are moving towards a Rosa Luxembourg model economy. It's like going to Disneyland for those kids as he marches them down the street playing The Internationale on a kazoo.
Caracas is not under Western Capitalist influence? So the US did not attempt a coup there in 2002, and not again just last year, when CIA director Mike Pompeo said we are "working very hard to change the government" of Venezuela? I don't know what your definition of Western Capitalist influence is, but I am sure it must include economic warfare and attempts at covert military intervention.
@Tate Ramessarthats my point... people bitch about capitalism and doesnt understand it. we can discuss the morality of some businessmen who exploit the labour as well as communists dictators who have killed people by hunger and bullets... no extreme is good.
@@jondam6221 Chomsky would say that the spectrum as the US sees it of one end being total private control of the economy and the other being total public control is a flawed way of looking at it. A better way is looking at it as total democratic control vs total autocratic control, whether the latter is administered by the government or oligarchical business.
@@jondam6221 ~~ Ayn Rand made a similar comment :: "You can't blame capitalism for a few bad apples". On that _one tree_ the "few" have _incorporated_ & poisoned the roots.
Chomsky's philosophy, although beautiful, is often idealist. It serves an orientation purpose, but to bring it into practice, we need another kind of society, and in a real world scenario, in our current time frame, it would be fundamentaly useless; it would only degenerate into a reckless revolution and a marxist (or worst) regime. We first have to answer the old Plato's question: who would govern? ie. into whom resides the real power, and a more modern one, by Popper: How do we guarantee a state that doesn't require bloodbath's to overthrow them ie. doesn't degenerate into totalitarianism.
Anarcho-syndicalism isn't really a philosophy. Hence Chomsky does not propose any utopian form, but relies on historical evidence, primarily the anarchist revolution in Spain in 1936.
@@miguelthealpaca8971 No sane business owner intends to provide the worst possible service. That is just ridiculous. They want to provide the BEST possible service at the lowest possible cost, which is not the same thing. They basically have to maximize efficiency, while still providing a service or product that the clients want, in order to remain competitive.
I have no problem with his opinion. The problem is: what's the alternative? I think the only way is ordinary people with low capital to unite and form a company that is competitive. And if they are successful, maybe, just maybe this business model can become the norm. Any other form of imposing a new social order is ridiculous.
Noam Chomsky is a complete ignoramus about economics, going as far as to call capitalism "totalitarian" and then going on about how words don't have meaning anymore.
"Noam Chomsky is a complete ignoramus about economics, going as far as to call capitalism "totalitarian"" . . . . Private bosses under capitalism determine whether and when you can go to the bathroom . . . . Stalin was a libertarian compared to them . . . He never dreamed of controlling bathroom breaks.
can someone explain something to me? I live on my small farm and make products with my bee's wax and goat's milk such as beard balms, soaps, shampoos. All natural, and I sell below market value. I have no intentions of being rich. Without capitalism, can I continue to do this and afford to pay myself to eat, travel every few years and take my family skiing a couple times a year? Or will all those pleasures be considered selfish and non essential under something other than capitalism?
Not at all. There is a thing called market socialism, where you take the market part of capitalism and slot it in socialism. There's dispute whether it is actually socialism or not, however in this, the workers still own the means of production, so if you are the only worker you own your means of production. If you have other workers they need an equal say in how the business is run. The government will provide things such as healthcare, education and so on. You will also have time to spend for yourself and your family. The workers deserve their time off, as they have lives and people they care for. Most socialists and communists want to give workers the ability to take time off, of course that has to be limited or else nothing would get done, but you would be able to take time off your work.
@@harisakhtar4197 "If you have other workers they need an equal say in how the business is run." I have built several reasonably sizeable businesses, the last to $100 million in annual revenue. As an entrepreneur you always hope to be able to recruit leaders who can run businesses for you (or at least large parts of a business for you). Despite spending hundreds of thousands in recruiting fees to find such leaders, you rarely find them, even among the trained, interested and experienced. As to the average "worker" (with no training, interest or experience in management), forget about it. Most people are simply not equipped to make decisions about the direction of a company. The kind of collectives of decision by worker vote that you mention and I believe Chomsky advocates are not viable as a large scale model.
@@a.s.2426 at this current state the education system isn't modelled for what I'm advocating for. I'm also sure you would find most workers are reasonably educated and can make their own decisions and know what's best for them. but if we were to implement these ideas into a larger scale we would need to equip workers with the right information and critical thinking to make those decisions, but by saying most workers are not trained enough to do this is an overstatement and assumption. the working class is full of intelligent individuals, and almost all the working class is full of people who are able to make choices that will affect their livelihood.
@@a.s.2426 Your argument ignores the many successful co-ops in the world. Democratic businesses evidently can choose effective leadership for themselves, even if you haven't seen it firsthand yet.
@@atashikokoni I have researched these co-ops in the past and they don't seem a compelling alternative. Suffice it to say in a more free market arrangement such as the one we have now in the United States (vs. what you are presumably contemplating, which would be more of a socialist arrangement), it stands to reason that if the co-op arrangement were a highly resource-efficient means to satisfying consumer demand, there would be a lot more of them occupying meaningful positions in the general marketplace. I think their relative invisibility speaks for itself. After all, market participants have been free to create such entities here in the U.S. whenever they wanted, if they thought they could compete.
I find it funny how we have Gay Rights, Black Rights, the First Black President and Women's Rights before we have the Redistribution of the Means of Production, I'm not trivialising them but it's food for thought...
Society could work as an open source software, everyone puts whatever they want into it and anyone can enjoy it. If we had food, water, house for everyone for free! We could do whatever we want in our free time. We would make analytics about how many working hours are needed to get everyone the basics what i said housing, water, and food. If that's done you will get how much one person needs to work and encourage people to work. Most people would work just out of boredom or because they want to contribute to the system something that's meaningful work.. First we wouldn't make useless things like plastic toys etc... So you would have to work about 2-4 hours a day the problem lots of people are consumers, that mindset should change in order for this system to work. I would be more happy working 4 hours a day and fly anywhere i want in my free time than have a TV or PC watching youtubers traveling or watching other shit. We would also have more holiday maybe 2 months a year. .
"The worst possible service at the highest possible profit?" "The worst possible service" only gets better in a capitalist society as bad service providers get outcompeted. I wonder if Chomsky knows what he's talking about?
The propaganda is so strong that people think corporations can't provide better services without competition. They can, but the capitalist system forces them to do that, especially in a crowded market. I'm pretty sure he knows what he's talking about.
I guess you didn't bother listening since he was referring to what Milton Friedman said and the point was that if a corporation is benevolent their competition will undercut them i.e. offer a similar service at a lower price because that company either has lowered to cost of it's infrastructure and/or pays their employees less in order to still have a profit at a lower price.
:D ...When his wife asked him to change clothes to meet the German Ambassador: "they want to see me, here I am. If they want to see my clothes, open my closet and show them my suits." - Albert Einstein "One of my colleagues in Princeton asked me: "If Einstein dislikes his fame and would like to increase his privacy, why does he wear his hair long, a funny leather jacket, no socks, no suspenders, no ties?" The answer is simple. The idea is to restrict his needs and, by this restriction, increase his freedom. We are slaves of millions of things. Einstein tried to reduce them to the absolute minimum. Long hair minimized the need for the barber. Socks can be done without. One leather jacket solves the coat problems for many years."
How does "worst possible service at the highest possible profit" translate into profit or market-share. Noam slipped a cog there by ignoring competition.
+john laird You might notice that when companies "rip[] ppl off with shoddy goods and services" like say Chipolte's sanitation or Volkswagen's diesel engines - then they LOSE profits and market share. You don't GAIN influence that way - you lose it.
+john laird I rebutted your statement, "cos thy then gain influence by ripping people off with shoddy goods and services. tit" No they don't GAIN influence, they DECLINE in influence. I never argued they have zero influence. Yes, my statement is entirely true.
Our perception of wealth and freedom has been skewed in the last century. Living in a consumerist society makes people crave more and more things, whilst becoming less happy. We'd all be happier if we had less 'things'.
The worst possible service at the highest possible profit. This is exactly why Healthcare should be non profit.
+boutchie06 and prisons
That's where the concept of competition in the market comes in. Poor quality of service only correlates to high prices when monopolies form, almost always through government-granted privileges, and there's no one to compete. That's where you need another business to come in with the same quality for a lower price, or better quality for the same price. Matter of fact, if government has a monopoly on healthcare services, who do they have to compete with? There's no other option.
+Vault Boy® but how would you compare efficiency of health care in Cuba, they have a public health sector; yet they're better than many western countries in maternal mortality, child mortality. .... i believe health should be a non profit run by the government, so it'll be highly rationalized to give the best rational service ( not based on satisfaction of demands, but satisfying the needs) at the rational cost. in Belgium, 30% of radiology exam are not justified ( imagine the burden on health insurance), though many hospitals are going in competition against each other. sometimes competition just doesn't, why? misinformed public. how can you judge a good health Service? ? survival ratea? success rate. let's assume a technique or a cancer treatment that gives another 1 month yet double the price. let's not imagine it, another exemple: methotrexate is an efficient drug against many diseases and very cheap; yet most of American doctors have difficulties find in it in the US, because it's cheap, and therefore they turn to high coating treatments.
+Vault Boy®
"Poor quality of service only correlates to high prices when monopolies form, almost always through government-granted privileges"
Competition doesn't fix everything, for example, just take a look at social media websites.
I think that once social media websites become very big, they become automatic, everlasting monopolies and no competition will ever replace them. Just think about it: you find a new social media website very similar, but slightly better, than facebook. You want to use it but, obviously, you still want to be able to talk to all your friends. Since there is no conceivable way that you would convince every single person you know to make the switch to the new platform, you'd have to juggle using the two sites, which would be a huge hassle: want to message that friend? Use this website. Want to message this friend? Use that website.
Now imagine a better-than-youtube alternative, think about all those videos people uploaded to youtube, and all their favorites and all their playlists. All of that would be lost.
This is why I say that once your website is big enough, you have an eternal monopoly, simply because you were the first. I don't think it's fair to make infinite profit from something that you might not have even created (youtube was bought by google, twitch by amazon, etc.).
+MiauFrito When it comes to Social media, no other companies are actually being barred from entering, it just so happens that the current sites like FB, Twitter, Insta, etc are doing a good enough job that competition is generally warded off and users stick with them. But remember, Facebook was the successor to Myspace; and Myspace was huge during that time. No reason at all a top tier competitor to Facebook won't appear and challenge their market share. Google+ tried, their service was okay, but consumers generally decided to stick with FB. Just their choice. Monopolies that happen naturally are generally okay because they provide a service people actually want and continue to do a good job at. Even if FB has a hold on the market, just because everyone's friends are there, doesn't mean a change can't happen in the future if the quality of FB drops (which it has in recent years). We just have to see what the future holds since social media is still in the early years.
Even if things like favorites would be lost if a youtube competitor came in, that applies to other brands and industries. If I switch car manufacturers, I sever my history with my old company which has my preferred brand rep and all of my maintenance records for the past decade. But maybe it's important to me as a consumer that I switch to a brand I like more?
You can also start a new social media site that connects many platforms into one using the different API's offered by the social media sites. That's how Hootsuite operates.
Even if you think buying a company you didn't create isn't "fair" I guess that's a just a different view of what is fair. Who says it's infinite profit either? Can you see the future? If big social media sites hold up their end of the deal of providing a quality service that people enjoy, why can't they make "infinite profits"?
Chomsky is a political Yoda
Totally. I've always loved how calm, rational and objectively he can explain these things.
@@upside93 This is how smart folks talked before insane screamy internet conversations where everything is "triggers" and "trolls"
*the
Michael Craig intelligent people still speak like this. Intelligent people don’t argue from emotion.
@@michaelcraig9449 triggers are a genuine thing, that was part of lexicon in psychology before they were on the Internet. As a cis white male, I may get annoyed at things like transphobia, homophobia, sexual assault etc, but for someone who has suffered those things, mention of those things can give someone an actual psychotic episode.
Even before discovering Chomsky, I used to think of businesses as mini dictatorships. If democracy was so great, why didn't I have a say at work or share the profits proportionally. People have said, "Well start your own business." Which of course only restarts the issues but with me as dictator.
Obviously Professor Noam Chomsky has nothing good or even satisfactory to say about Capitalism...What is his opinion about Socialism?? What is his opinion about the economic system of Sweden. The economic system of Sweden is Capitalism..Can he give an example of a successful Socialist country ? Can he explain why in many Socialists countries, those in Control of Government become rich, very rich...Examples :Cuba, Venezuela.
Have you not heard of cooperatives? They're businesses that don't have dictators. Instead, big decisions are made democratically and profits are more fairly distributed. That's the basis of socialism. Chomsky takes it further, as cooperatives still allow for different individual companies, but Chomsky wants the whole society to democratically make economic decisions.
@@Johnny-wd3tj Co operatives manifest the essential point of socialism which is workers owning the means of production instead of a single employer or small group at the top. That's what Marx was advocating. The question for socialists has been "how do we transition into this type of economy?" Long story short, some socialists eventually took control a country (Russia) and began to impose state control over the means of production. A lot of socialists disagree with their way of going about socialism and I would argue it wasn't socialism at all, since the workers weren't in control.
So yeah, I agree it's not THAT kind of socialism.
JOSE LOZANO these latter ones are far from true socialist countries; they are corrupt and totalitarian; nevertheless, corrupt and poor capitalist countries also abound; those in Asia and Africa. Sweden has social democracy, which is indeed closer to socialism than other forms of capitalism
You may have a problem with hierarchies.
Why is it that the man that has the most to say is the hardest to hear..
Humans
i know you didn't mean it this way but its funny whenever i listen/watch Noam Chomsky i have to increase my volume sometimes to double cause he is hard to hear lol
@@lololololololololol4666 ALWAYS
@@lololololololololol4666 lol I literally thought that's what this comment meant
Change youtube speed when listening to chomsky vids from past 10 yrs thats legit what i do
For those of you who are thinking that Chomsky is being irrational when he claims that corporations have to be as rotten as possible are probably thinking that he is ignoring that if 2 or more companies put out a similar product/service, that people will choose the better product at similar or lower price. That is not what he is talking about.
He is talking about maximizing profits in regards to lowering the price of the infrastructure, materials and manpower to offer that service/product at a lower price. In other words, companies are not just competing for business, they are also competing to cut corners to maximize surplus value.
Sure, & then you look at government debt & you choose which one you want.
False dichtomy right winger and a red herring.
@@unknownchannel3141 id rather have government debt. Least it wont kill me. All sorts of products and services caused people to die because businesses cut corners, as well as destroying the planet and cruelty to animals etc etc. Id take government debt over that any day.
The reality is that a company can start out with good ideals, but then, due to the fact that capitalism is perpetuated upon the idea of exponential growth, the idealism disappears.
no matter what creative domain it is, it follows a preto distribution. it's not because companies necessarily get too corrupt for it to work or not. it is simply just the way the world works. It is not a fault of capitalism, it is a fault of all known systems and not systems we know. I do not understand how such a capable and well-formulated man as him does not take that into account. One does not have to read much Friedman, Sowell or read history before seeing the pattern
this is my problem with libertarianism, it describes each market exchange as though it was happening in a vacuum. as if there were no externalities and neither party was being coerced
Um, my understanding is that that is how capitalism defines market exchanges; in fact, all of capitalist theorizing essentially exists in a vacuum. Hence, externalities, which if accounted for, make this entire system unprofitable.
It's the lengths people will go to make profits is the deadliest part of all
You mean right "libertarianism". Actual libertarianism is and has always been left wing
To reveal self-proclaimed "libertarians" as being full of BS, all one has to do is ask them what should be free from government influence. It's usually the case that they want a free ride in the things that they do, and taxes will be levied on something that doesn't impact them. They don't want rules to govern their own small business, but they want the law to come down hard on others. "Libertarians" are often juvenile, under-educated idealists who think they have the answer that'll fix everything, but with little to no real life experience in Economics or government. And no, a community college Intro to Macroeconomics that they got a C- in doesn't count.
@@ThePainkiller9995 No it is not it is very neutral, neither right or left.
1:30
"If you try to be benevolent, you're out of the business because someone undercuts you. So the nature of the system...is to be as mean and rotten as you can to maximize profit and market share."
Reminds me of the following quote: "....a just man always fared worse than the unjust because he neglected to aggrandize himself by dishonest actions, and thus became unpopular among his acquaintances; while those who were less scrupulous, grew rich and were flattered."-Lydia Marie Child
That quote reminds me of something similar that one of the interlocutors (Glaucon I think?) says in Plato’s Republic, about how the perfectly just man appears to be unjust while the perfectly unjust man appears just.
Arn’t politicians given the same insentives?
The time comes for western people to listen to this man.
And this man... Was terribly wrong
@@followersofadolfhitler81 lmao incel
@@followersofadolfhitler81 fascist detected opinion discarded
@@kx7500 How can a nothing n nobody discard me. Some invisible non existant internet troll discardin me lol.
@@followersofadolfhitler81 cope
Man I love chomsky
He is the best of humanity.
Me too, some will try discredit you as some kind of Chomsky fan and so the implication would be that you have blindly followed Chomsky and are party to a doctrine that you your self have never challenged. I mention this to remind us that it was precisely our own critical minds that brought us to Chomsky who just happened to have carefully researched and offered academic (studied not postured) work on the questions we ourselves found ourselves asking. And furthermore found ourselves agreeing with Chomsky's findings as reasonable and well considered conclusions that were also convincing. The detractors I've interacted with spent more time trying to prove me a Chomsky fan boy rather than proving the presented argument as wrong. If you are citing Chomsky, please don't ever feel foolish. As John Stuart Mill argued: debate offers you to correct others or for you to be corrected. Both positives! But if you're debating comrade is hung up on you citing Chomsky and not on proving the cited point wrong!? Where's the opportunity of growth on both sides? I live Chomsky too like you, I'm giving you the argument why you should when faced by the cheap claim of being a fan boy but without an attempt to tackle substantive points that you found yourself agreeing with via Chomsky
We need more voices like Chomsky.
+eruss We have them. You think he's the only guy to think this way? Outside of linguistics he isn't the most original thinker but he has a bit of a bully pulpit that he can use, and I think he'd agree with that sentiment. His persona is what makes people listen and his measured delivery makes him unique but only because of the nature of all the other voices.
There are more voices like his out there but few are heard because Noam is grandfathered in from a much earlier period in American cultural history when he was heard amid a tide of dissent and social upheavel. He wouldn't be known today if he began his career as a commentator in the 80s or 90s.
Understand none of that is to undermine him, but you can see it in how he is asked questions and his annoyance at many of them. His admirers ask him to give them a point of view but he insists everyone must begin to behave effectively as he does themselves because the only way to deliver us to a better society is if everyone stops being atomized and begins to work together as individual minds working in a community instead of individuals seeking individual interests or alternatively individuals subordinating their views into a group think that follows one or another speaker's every word as gospel.
***** I wouldn't say that the serious flaws in modern feminist discourse is a deliberate diversion, but its certainly compromising the long term credibility of the ideas that ought not to need any help with credibility.
Its definitely something you could have seen coming 20-30 years ago. Basically the extremists got tenure and stole the mainstream away from sensible people.
If they just don't have the same political and economic views, I'd say: Let everybody that wants this voice have it..
we also need more volume on the video
Why, Chomsky's ideas are so naive.
I'm kinda starting to lean Anarcho Syndicalist
I have become a libertarian socialist.
Edit: I no longer identify as such. I'm a capitalist.
libertarian socialist is an oxymoron
SDPRZ
gr8 b8 m8
@@sdprz7893 how?
No it isn't.
The video volume is way too low--even with my computer volume on maximum. Headphones help a bit, but the volume could be more crisp and clear.
buy Beats go on...u know u want to....haha
connect your computer to you home hifi amplifier. That is what I have done.
Someone in the same room as me dropped a feather, so I couldn't hear a thing.
The complaints about the volume of this video are 3 years old .... It seems this problem should have been rectified by now. Why hasn't it been?
make your own video then? this person took time to collect video clips and put them together in a montage and upload it on youtube for no profit just to share the word. be a little grateful. come on.
Knowledge is power
Money is power
@@eddy4470 Homophobic
Power is knowledge
We Appreciate Power
Knowledge isn’t wisdom
If Capitalism is good what about the level of POVERTY, UNEMPLOYMENT, INFRASTRUCTURE, OUT OF REACH HIGH EDUCATION, PRESCRIPTIONS ETCETERA
*The best way to figth capitalism is to buy only what you need and some things from time to time that you like and think are worth the money*
There is no fighting it. Wrong perspective. A reformation and greater governance is needed until our systems evolve into something else
Every time I watch a video of Noam Chomsky I have to turn my volume all the way up.
Why we do not have leaders like him? The system and culture do not allow it. This is why Bernie will always be an outsider.
the capitalist class can't let someone who endangers their power and profits get into power.
🎻
Great selection of clips, nice one!
Ford said, “the man who can use his creative imagination and give more for a dollar 💵 than less for a dollar 💵, is bound to succeed”.
“Private ownership is about as close to totalitarianism as you can get!”
“Then what would you like to institute in its place Mr. Chomsky?”
Totalitarianism.
The military industrial complex is ongoing
Thank you for having such important interview with Mr. Chomsky that his knowledge has serving a human history. Could you please sometime if you could possible make an interview with him, bring his attention on the subject related to Jihadist and Radical Islamist group had operating under US support through Saudi Arabia and the Pakistan regime of Zia Alhaq in the 1980s and 1990s in order to overthrown soviet union from Afghanistan and the war crime, the crime against humanity that those of jihadist have committed and still being alive and having power in Afghanistan.
Gotta love Chomsky
There are some exceptions to what Chomsky says - some people jack their prices all the way and aren't competitive price-wise but have the appearance of exclusivity
He said the big corporations are glad that the people are blaming the government.It keeps peoples eyes off of THEM. I always wondered why people blamed the government when they didnt even own the companies who were paying low wages.
Capitalism is a system where innovations are rewarded and that is why industrialization bloom because innovators get rewarded and other creative people also try to make things that makes life easier because they see that they can be rewarded as well. Modern vaccines, drugs and technology is a direct product of capitalism. In addition to that it creates a value hierarchy which people can strive for in which positive emotions are gained in going up to those hierarchy driven by serotonin and dopamine circuits. The downside is the pollution which is the byproduct of the easy lives we live in and inequality, that's why we need the left and the right to balance it out and make it better if possible by civil discourse and critical thinking.
The idea that the profit motive is necessary for human advancement is simplistic and reductive. The internet stems from a government project, much of our medical research today is funded by charities, major works of infrastructure are built and maintained for the collective good of mankind rather than personal economic advancement. The soviets made it to space before the US, and even when the Americans got there it was a government institution that reached the stars long before any private enterprise. Do you really believe that Darwin and Newton were driven by the profit motive rather than the simple desire to advance mankind in its knowledge and understanding of the world?
For those that don't recognize him, the person he's speaking to in the first clip is Michael Albert, another prominent libertarian socialist.
Democracy is a governing system, capitalism is an economic system. Economic systems are chosen by governing systems, not vise versa! For a governing system to be a democracy it must be a legislative assembly of all the people to participate directly in the decisions made in their society, if you have individuals leading and making decisions, that is not a democracy, it’s an authoritarian governing system, I don’t care it they are self appointed or elected, it’s still authoritarian.
The problem is that when we discuss a republican form of government, because people don’t understand how it’s assembled or how it functions to achieve a majority consensus of all the people as it would in a democracy, we fail to define that there’s a difference between a representative, which is someone who you hire to act on your ideology and interest, and a representation which is an exact copy of the original only smaller.
In our case a representation is not of ideology or political interest, it’s of demographics, that’s why to assemble a republican form of government it must be by the republican principle; per capita apportionment based upon an enumeration, a census, which is a statistical assembly method to produce an exact representation of the population in every aspect as a legislative assembly, and we use a statistically relevant proportionality constant to ensure that the resulting assembly does in fact form an exact representation of the population.
Why don’t we do that today?
It’s because of Slavery and the Civil War. Everyone was fine with that definition and mode of assembly when it didn’t include slaves, even though representation was provided for the slaves by the 3/5 rule, the slaves were basically unrepresented nonparticipants, so after the civil war they used political parties to keep the freed slaves, poor whites, and other undesirables as unrepresented and nonparticipants, while still being apportioned representation and suffrage based upon their number in the population. When that number became to large to control, then they issued in the congressional Statute to fix the number of Representatives at 435; there should be 10,247 representatives based upon the 2010 census (10,997 based upon the 2020 census), which is the whole number of representatives which does not exceed 1 representative for every 30,000 persons in each State, which is also a representation of the people of the State just as the representation of the people of the State in the State’s own most numerous legislative branch.
It’s easy for us to come up with alternative interpretations to justify what we want to do to promote our own agendas and interest!
He is spot on regarding restriction of choice. The UK since privatisation of utilities and public transport is a good example. Pure smoke and mirrors. A bewildering selection on offer (except where there can be only one 'winner' of a franchise, such as transport, a decision the public has no control over)... then the jostle at the bottom: trade off between lowest price, environmental impact and abysmal customer service.
🎻
I learn a great deal when I listen to Mr Chomsky but he’s so soft spoken it’s frustrating to hear him clearly as it is in several of these interviews. Not sure why I’m writing that except I really want to take in the knowledge of this Man!
So what does Noam Chomsky propose as a better alternative?
I think Chomsky has virtually no understanding of how the results of business are gotten. We don't have a perfect system, but what is the alternative he suggests? He has spoken about this elsewhere (search UA-cam). I think you'll find his suggested solutions to be extremely superficial at best.
@@a.s.2426 It is always easier to come up with critique than solutions, especially when speaking from a purely ideological viewpoint that lacks any practical comprehension..
@@amcvharten Very beautifully stated.
@@amcvharten You're obviously not speaking of Chomsky, who offers facts here, not ideology. And his practical comprehension is extraordinarily high precisely because he's not burdened with the "free market" ideology of the business class. As for solutions, he's addressed that over and over.
@@michaelsmith8665 Thank you for your comment. I'm curious to learn, what are the solutions he proposes?
Just one historical error - Crashes have been around since the early 1800’s, 20ys intervals
Do people take these points to heart, really? If anyone wants to engage in a civil conversation with me, here are my thoughts (disclaimer: I am very familiar with whom Chomsky is and have heard most of his lectures on UA-cam).
No, corporations are not totalitarian entities. Its owners and employees are legally accountable for their actions; elected officers have to perform their fiduciary duties and or face removal by the board of directors. Its employees are not forced to work there; they sign contracts and perform duties willingly. Saying that workers are forced to work at a given corporation is like saying you were forced to kill someone you didn’t like. There is always work in the public sector if you don’t like corporations.
CEOs do have to take externalities into consideration: Big corporations are part of collective agreements whereby they refuse to do business with countries and companies that exploit child labor or do otherwise unethical things. Their company’s environmental impact, for example, is also something for which they are accountable. It is the job of the public to demand laws for these corporations to abide by them.
The motive of maximizing profit seems bad on the surface but actually incentivizes more production of in-demand goods. If you can produce the same good for a lower price, people will buy from whoever has the lowest price. When big companies do that to eliminate competition, government steps in to provide fairness.
Markets are “inefficient”? And anarcho-syndicalist societies where people produce things that are not in demand are efficient? Markets are the reason you have video cameras, microphones, your clothes, your (very high) professor salary and an outlet to spread these views. Markets didn’t develop out of some corporate conspiracy but to fulfill societies’ desire to produce and possess interesting things. This and most of our desires are irrational.
If hierarchy is inherently amoral, well, how do you organize? Hierarchies exist because people are different and have better or worse skills. Some people have more leadership appeal, some people have less. Some people have more resources, some have less. Anarcho-syndicalism doesn’t answer how big societies can efficiently organize and distribute resources. You being a college professor is an example of hierarchy. The truth is that hierarchies allow for efficient work and that’s why we have leaders in movements, leaders in corporations and leaders in politics.
Those subways that you talk of... Guess who builds them: Corporations! Why? It’s cheaper! Subways are not a “need”. The only thing you “need” is to be healthy and alive, with the former being difficult to measure in an objective way. Markets give you a city in which to have a subway in the first place.
“peepee poopoo i was born in a rich family and never had to work to not die of exposure”
@@someloudthunder3578 No, actually I’m 21 already emancipated from my parents and working to pay for my own life while attending college.
These are all valid points, but there are key elements that, at least per these snippets, crucially ignore. Those are 1. Competition and 2. Alternative economic systems. Once you account for those, all of these criticisms are easily destroyed.
One of the greatest minds of our generation. So true what he says about anything.
'Capitalism is really bad for people.
Anyway can I talk about the doomsday clock?'
An uninformed public making irrational choices. Well said, Prof. Chomsky. You're brave and knowledgeable. Thanks.
When you know that corporations are interlinked, then it’s easier to see that they’re one large Beast, that no one can control.
There has not been a politico-economy style yet created that can eliminate the problems of corruption by leaders. All we can do is manage that corruption and the best form of politico-economy to do that is capitalism.
+Grahamhg Anarcho-capitalism ;)
Grahamhg
What's stupid is trying to force everyone into a single way of doing things, that how we ended up in the mess we've got now. Everyone's got a preference, and none of us have the right to force it on anyone else. You may not agree with my philosophy, and I may not agree with yours, but if we agree to approach each other peacefully and respectfully, as all forms of anarchism advocate, then there's no reason we can't get along.
No hard feelings, I agree with your suggestion.
+Spazotronic I really can't agree with that. Sure, we might like to sound all PC talking about how all different kinds of economy and politics are equal. But, at some point, we're gonna have to look the serfs/slaves in the eyes and tell them, "I'd rather be PC."
I'm not sure that you and I are on the same page.
That's your take. I've heard others say the same thing about AnCom, but I'm inclined to disagree with both.
Love you Chomsky but wish you would speak louder!!
Hate low volume vids!
He is really talking about corporatism, not capitalism. Everyone in this world is a capitalist. If you make money, you are a capitalist; you are saling your services or products.
wow someone's got a big brain
Will the human species live past the capitalist model of exclusive individualism particularly with regards to rampant profiteering and with a disregard for the greater common good concerning the environment ? It appears the answer is a resounding no if our direction is from a centralized top- down economic structure. The model has to change to an organized inclusive design where we all have a stake and an equal level of power and autonomy in our decision making.
humanity has never experienced a better time than today. thanks capitalism for bringing people around the world out of misery. i am not being sarcastic, we have the longest life expectancy with the highest standard of living that humanity has ever known. war is on the decline as is poverty. the stark contrast to the past should be evidence enough but somehow people still manage to convince themselves that they are living in hell.
@@Rumplefrumple Well if 2 % of the world's population possess over 90 % of the wealth then that is hardly proof positive that capitalism works well for the vast majority.
And by the way are you even aware of climate change ?
@@jameschant2740 who cares about the wealth gap if everyone is getting out of abject poverty. i dont care if people are flying around in rockets and shitting in gold toilets so long as the people at the bottom continue to benefit from an increasingly better standard of living themselves. if today i make $10 and you make $1 and tomorrow i make $300 and you make $10, the gap between us has increased but youre still 10x better off than you were. marxists dont love the poor they just hate the rich.
as for climate change, do you really believe communism goes hand in hand with sound environmental practice? thats a new one. the capitalist societies of today are constantly talking about and implementing ways to reduce pollution. ua-cam.com/video/yCm9Ng0bbEQ/v-deo.html
I'd argue the benefits are more due to education, science and technology than capitalism. Our current system pulls money up to the rich. Yes, they might pay their workers well, but they're taking the vast majority of the money. In accountancy terms, worker wages are referred to as a cost. Profits only go to the shareholders. If the shareholders find that they don't need as many workers anymore, they fire some of them. Cooperative systems are fairer and more democratic.
It's a false dichotomy to assume that if we don't have capitalism, then the only alternative is the state controlling the economy.
Are there any vids where he speaks on his ideal alternative to capitalism?
ua-cam.com/play/PLHZGTTZG6HcJ8btr3wrKyoVu_82_wn6Ym.html
smackem1212
It was included.
Bruh, his entire political philosophy is that of Anarcho-Syndicalism. Damn near all he does is advocate for new, superior models for society.
Worst service at highest price. That is why people in their 50 with extensive experience are increasingly being eliminated from workforce as they tend to make more money than less experienced.
I love how 5he sonud on these kinds of videos always gets progressively worse and becomes almost painful
4:00 Markets offer single atomized decisions, not collective ones.
The issue is his view on capitalism either assumes a stupid or malevolent human nature. You can certainly have a capitalist market yet still actively seek to improve your society.
Also, i take the bus and train, who says i cant do that in capitalism?
"I take the bus and train, who says i cant do that in capitalism?" . . . . And how much subsidy do trains and buses get compared to the private automobile? And look at the allocation of social space: how much is given over to the automobile compared to public transportation? If you want to enjoy a night out on the town with friends, what are your public transportation options coming home after midnight? What are they if you live in a rural area? etc. etc.
This guy just described the USSR a “totalitarian institution”
lesser know achievement of noam chomsky would be the chomsky normal form but Its a big deal in Computer Science. I would like to see a bit on that.
Chomsky hierarchy
An aproximately adequate portrait of real capitalism, markets and big corporations, with the only exception of this: it's not plausible the idea that all the products and services in capitalism are the worst possible while profiting the most; I think Marx acknowledged very well the progress in quality of technology and efficiency within capitalism and surely we can see that there are some beneficial aspects in many technologies origined in capitalist economic dynamics (for sure, the bad externalities and frequent bad enterpreunership practices when there's no regulations on the markets are clear evidence that capitalism is far from being a perfect mode of economy). Yet there's a major problem here with the thesis of professor Noam Chomsky: the anarchist idea of a society without any kind of subordination as the counterproposal to capitalism has at least these problems: (1) it's required some sort of civil governance authorities to impose legitimate order and to establish criminal justice; (2) the moral anthropology of anarchists is contradictory: we have the overwhelming evidence of the tendencies in human nature to abuse others, be greedy and commit many kinds of moral evil, but at the same time the (not rationally justifiable) hope is that these tendencies will desappear in a social structure without power; I think this is very naive; (3) if it's justifiable and reasonable to not abolish capital or the production's specialized factors and existent technology (socialism doesn't necessarily do that and some sorts of capitalism mitigate and compensate the private ownership of the capital with redistribution programs) then the idea of no subordination as a mandate would be very complicated in this conservative scenario of economic production. It seems possible the existence of non-vicious relations of subordination and responsability in a real democracy without abuse of power and without the huge inequality that results of savage laissez-faire capitalism (whether neoliberal or libertarian); (4) it's a constant tendency in the left the despising of morality and religion (and this is a very dangerous feature because of the amoral atheist relativistic consequences). But if the Bible is the real Word of God (and God exists as the Supreme Good revealed to us through the Mediator and designated Master Jesus Christ of Nazareth in the testimony of the New Testament) then it's not merely optional the ethics and the teachings of the Bible (and that doesn't signify abuse over persons of other creeds or religions though saying this doesn't either mean the denial of the exclusivity of the Bible as the Word of God with ethical authority and containing all the religious truths that are in the Gospel and in all the Holy Scriptures).
I can't imagine a world without Chompsky to explain the world to us!❤
Read George Orwell's "1984", Part 2, Chapter 9. It's all there... ❤
"...The pages were worn at the edges, and fell apart, easily, as though the book had passed through many hands. The inscription on the title-page ran: THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF OLIGARCHICAL COLLECTIVISM by Emmanuel Goldstein
Winston began reading:
Chapter I. Ignorance is Strength.
Throughout recorded time, and probably since the end of the Neolithic Age, there have been three kinds of people in the world, the HIGH, the MIDDLE, and the LOW. They have been subdivided in many ways, they have borne count- less different names, and their relative numbers, as well as their attitude towards one another, have varied from age to age: but the essential structure of society has never altered. Even after enormous upheavals and seemingly irrevocable changes, the same pattern has always reasserted itself, just as a gyroscope will always return to equilibrium, however far it is pushed one way or the other.
The aims of these groups are entirely irreconcilable..."
You can’t think for yourself and need an old clueless man to explain it to you
a recurring issue i'm having with Noam clips is that i need to MAX OUT my volume just to hear it clearly. :/
@3:34 - chomsky points to "repeated financial crises since Reagan and Thatcher" - isn't it a bit fairer to say these crises existed before the 80s as well?
Roger Bharath he didn’t say they never occurred before; still, the Great Depression is also one related to overly free financial governance
I think there were less crises between the new deal in the 1930s and the neoliberal revolution of the 80s. But during that time the economy kind of stagnated and reached a crisis point with stagflation in the 70s
Roger Bharath correct sir. I guess he didn't read about the creation of the fed...
Between 1930s to 1980s economy was regulated after depression and there were much less crisis. However after deregulation by these pumpkins those things started to happen again. This is what he said. "Deregulation" Is keyword here
Transcript:
In your view what's wrong with private ownership of the means of production?
We should not have relations of hierarchy, dominance and subordination, centralized control over the means of life people, who give orders and others to take lives
all that?
Yeah. I mean if you have private ownership of the means of production it means that first of all the people it's not just one person it’s an institution so you get like maybe it’s a corporation or private business or something. First of all internally, it's essentially a totalitarian institution. Almost necessarily there's a group at the top maybe a person or a group they make the decisions they give orders people down the hierarchy get the orders transmit them at the very bottom you get people who are permitted to rent themselves to survive that's called a job, wage labor, and you get the outside community who’s allowed to purchase what you produce and of course they're very heavily propagandized to make them want to consume it even if they don't so that’s the nature of the system. It's kind of about as close to totalitarianism as you can imagine.
Private enterprise works just the way Milton Friedman says. You give the worst possible service at the highest possible profit that's what it means to be in the business. If you try to be benevolent you're out of the business because somebody undercuts you. So the nature of the system is, a good insight goes way back to Adam Smith is to be as mean and rotten as you can to try to maximize profit and market share and give the worst possible service same with HMOs and everything else.
The system has unacceptable risk built into it. It's well-known among economists that markets are inefficient from the narrowest perspective. So to make it simple suppose you and I, suppose you sell me a car. We may make a good deal for ourselves but we're not taking to account the effect on him. That’s what's called an externality and there’s an effect. if you sell me in a car, it increases gas prices, increases pollution, increases congestion and that extends very broadly. These so-called externalities can be very large now in financial institutions it's far worse they're in the business of taking risks. If they're well managed, they calculate the potential cost to themselves if there's a loss but the important words are to themselves they don't calculate in what's called systemic risk the effect on the whole system if I make if I go bust you know and as a huge effect. the result is that risk-taking is underpriced meaning there's a lot more of it than there would be in a reasonable system.
But in your role as CEO of a corporation you are compelled to maximize profit and to ignore what economists call externalities, that is the impact of your transactions on others. Well that's why we have repeated financial crises ever since Reagan and Thatcher the deregulation of the financial institutions means that the people who run them have to ignore what's called systemic risk, the risk that a transaction is going to bring down the system. and since you ignore it you’re increasing the probability of it and therefore repeatedly happens. So we repeatedly have financial crises each one worse than the last. markets are supposed to be magnificent because they increase your choices. actually they restrict your choices. you think about it for a minute. suppose I want to get home from work at night ok the market offers me a choice. I can have a four-door Toyota, it does not offer me the choice of a subway. what I want what's good for me what's good for the environment what's good for my children but that's not offered in the market. markets offer individual consumption and the enormous stress on the importance of markets is part of the way to drive people towards looking for yourself. amassing as many commodities you can forget everything else.
in fact if you think about it for every one of you in an economics course or read about it then you know what markets are supposed to be. markets are supposed to be systems in which informed consumers make rational choices, right. I'm sure every one of you is turned on a television set what do you see when you turn on a television set? you see that there's a huge industry public relations industry which began in the United States and Britain incidentally huge industry which is designed to undermine markets every ad is an attempt to create an uninformed consumer will make an irrational choice right a huge effort on the part of the business world the undermined markets but to keep the aspect that's useful for profit and power. namely separating people from one another, focusing on individual choices, not working with your neighbour. by now about close to half the stock is owned by about 1% of the population and the bottom 80% of the population hold about 4% of the stock and it's it's always understand the corporations are interlinked like a bank alone a big piece of one corporation and it's a it's a massive system of highly concentrated power given the rights of immortal persons but without the responsibility of person. these are amoral institutions in fact there are private tyrannies which are amoral and required to be amoral. they move towards out so they want to avoid monopolies because then they get public service requirements but they want to be very limited so just a few of them which can have what are called strategic alliances they can effectively act together.
Ole Noam is smoking something good
4:00 If the people at large wanted to take the subway, then the subway would be a good choice to take as it would be improved and expanded by private enterprise. The people at large don't want that, so you get better and cooler cars as a better option. Noam Chomsky is not talking about what the people want, he is talking about what he thinks the people should want. Milton Friedman clearly explained this, who are anyone to tell others to take the subway instead of a car? The freedom to take what you want is most important, not some angel to tell us how to get from A to B. 4:35 Everyone is looking out for themselves, there are no angels in this world. Chomsky is just as greedy as anyone else in this world.
@Pissed Bob Ross The car industry is monopoly, because it works through the gov. The gov should be put into place
I’m eagerly waiting the next recession.
Corona virus brought It :D
@@mirasaladi2936 Its a strange recession. Real Estate has yet to collapse after 9 months. Stocks recovered in 3 months and are higher value then before. Record unemployment and small businesses are forced to closed indefinitely.
Think you might be getting it now
@@cameronburnard4240 It’s coming 3 years too late. I knew the Fed would not be able to cool off rising prices because the profits were addicting. Now we’re all paying the price.
I reckon, everything points towards this, that it'll only get worse before it gets better. Food costs will rise even more as firms are forced to start paying next year's costs for food for example. Rampant inflation with limited intervention in sight apart from increasing rates which is driving us head first into this recession alongside everything else.
Honestly we would have been better either letting the banks all crash in 2007 or nationalising them as it seems that the banks got drunk on money from QE and kept on convincing the government to keep printing; they never stopped and as you said, we are paying the price.
Noam Chomsky is right about Capitalism (also, see Werner Sombart The Jews And Modern Capitalism, Julius Evola Men Among The Ruins, Revolt Against The Modern World, American ''Civilization'' etc.).
This! Our failure or unwillingness to understand this stuff will be our downfall.
I confess I will never understand this drivel.
@@roughhabit9085 Don't be so hard on yourself. We have an enormous capacity for learning.
Must be hard to a brilliant Professor that knows all the dirt and can't tell.
And he can’t tell the difference between shit and clay ? Is that what you were going to say?
Competition should push companies to provide a better service than the worst though...? In a crony system like we have, I can see the worst service being provided because the government give so many illicit privileges to certain entities.
Yeah he straight out lied . Friedman never said that. He always advocated that socialist industries produce poor quality products.
Please turn up the volume.
He compares any kind of hierarchy as a totalitarianism. Private enterprises are opcional, it depends on the liberty to choose your own path. You can choose the boss you want to follow, you can perfectly not get into it. This hierarchy depends on skill. If you increase your skill and you want to leave the institution, it'll be in the interest of your boss to give you more money if they want to keep you. If you're good at what you do, you will go up in the hierarchy. The rest of the socialist systems depend on contacts and links with ideology or politics, the more you believe in the governement, the more you recieve. So there'll be a hierarchy in any system, but the difference is the way you can go up the stairs, by your own effort and skill, or by sacrifice of your own thinking. Good products don't come from ideology.
I know the mastery of Chomsky trayectory in linguistics, but this man doesn't know anything about economy. I wish to know what do he thinks about the failures of socialism as Cuba, Venezuela, North Corea and the URSS (next time is Argentina).
@Jack "USSR failed because it was authoritative and ran by corrupt elites" . . . . .. Bolshevism SUCCEEDED in withdrawing Russia from WWI, (the bloodiest war in world history at the time) delivering food to the hungry, and raising an overwhelmingly peasant society to a modern standard of living in a single generation while defeating the Nazi behemoth. Not bad. It could not, however, make the transition to a digital economy, and its complete suppression of personal liberty was widely and justly resented.
I believe Noam Chomsky is a good person but the idea that Capitalism is a totalitarian system is a stretch. Every country that has embraced capitalism with a healthy democratic system has improved the quality of life of their citizens. The only exception perhaps is China, who only embraced half of the recipe which is even more shocking because it tells you that you only need a free market economy to succeed and democracy can come later.
You're forgetting the externalities. Like Chomsky alluded to, capitalism rewards the most narcissistic and sociopathic agents that believe they are worth more than others, at the expense of others.
The type of country I assume you're referring to will generally speaking have outsourced it's least flattering labour elsewhere. You may be the most benevolent corporation and really care about your employees and the local environment, but you will quickly become obsolete thanks to the corporation that does not, allowing them to reduce total costs of production/extraction.
The environmental damage and exploitation of people is still a byproduct of capitalism in Sweden or Canada, it just manifests itself as oil dumps in pristine waterways in the Ecuadorian Amazon, or in sweatshops in Bangladesh instead of in your local area.
Philosopher's will almost always push the envelope and try to get people to consider the greater good of humanity. That is their job. Settling for capitalism is for the capitalists. It is an easy position to take. Fighting for a better solution takes courage. Chomsky is, like many, unwilling to accept that the pinnacle of human evolution and development is capitalism, a system fueled by selfishness and basic material drives.
Caduceus I do not settle for anything. I advocate for capitalism.
Very well said.
Caduceus : by opinion Chomsky is the Pinnacle of evolution with many others. People trying evolute their humanism by expressing in writing or speech. So we fill the need to stop shooting blanks.
Chomsky is not a liberal though. He is either a libertarian or a socialist. Both fit him. Not using American usage of terms here.
Areez, Muhammad : Am I Amnesty international..? Maybe that's why his name is not Nicki Heily
Capitalism is another word
for do what's best for the USA .
Whether it's legal or shady business in cloak & dagger behind the scenes
Noam Chomsky on not linguistics
In the antiquity they regarded being a merchant and someone who deals with money someone untrustworthy, secondary to the aristocrat and their actions (hannah arendt said the same thing in the human condition). When that changed, well we are here. I dont deny capitalistic good that it brougth, but overall I call it a bad.
AS far as I know that is. And thats what I belive.
Someone I know nearly went into full blown psychosis.
Profit maximization is the primary motivation of capitalists, which is another way to say that they have to deliberately ignore externalities (impacts of economic transactions on others). They overlook systemic crisis.
Noam's solution to capitalism: He should be the one making the best decisions for everybody.
Isnt that equality.
Anybody who promotes communism simply thinks that under their rule theyd do it better.
Equality is not part of the communist equation.
chomsky isn’t a communist, he also hasn’t ever advocated for totalitarianism in any form
@@Jay-mj1tp he is
Do you have any evidence? Or are you just going to keep making assertions?
All systems have a hierarchy. The Politburo was doing pretty well before the USSR collapsed. If you want to avoid a Pareto distribution, then you have to change human nature.
Only thing I get frustrated by with Noam is he is so absolute….ivory tower expert but no real solutions.
How much have you looked into his writing? Because one of the things he often writes about is grassroots activism, and what's effective.
@@snakeweirdo I will admit that I am largely ignorant of his writing, I have only become aware of Noam Chomsky through UA-cam. It was in poor judgment that I made that blunt statement and I regret my wording. My sentiments are sincere in that I wish he would more clearly state solutions in his arguments or discussion. Ultimately though he is truly among the wisest of this world so my feeble chirpings matter very little.
He's not talking about capitalism, but corporatism. There's a massive difference. Around the founding of the US, corporations were chartered for a max of 20 years. Maybe that would help.
As a linguistics professor you would think he would choose the right words
Chomsky doesnt understand what free market capitalism is
It is simply individuals own their body, their labor, and their property and all individuals should be free to do with their property, labor, and body they want
What's wrong with individuals making free choices
But that's not what ends up happening in the market. Instead we have a few individuals at the top controlling everyone else's labour and property. A lot of companies today are owned by a handful of corporations, which are essentially dictatorship institutions.
@@miguelthealpaca8971 - And all evidence shows that this cannot happen without government to protect its cronies with regulations, taxation and licensing, thereby picking the winners and losers in the society, in the economy.
Have you ever noticed that regulations never actually affect the big players in any sector? They pay a fine, which amounts to the _vig_ in mafia terms, and roll right along. But the cost of compliance, meaning the work hours needed to file all the paperwork, keeps smaller upstarts from being able to get into that sector. Regulations exist to protect the entrenched money, period.
Complaints about hierarchy are specious. Humans are hierarchical in nature. You might as well complain about our need to breathe oxygen. The key to actual successful free market economics is to return government to its proper role as a protector of individual liberty. Regulations would by and large not be needed if people were not allowed to hide behind the legal fiction of a 'corporation' to avoid personal responsibility for bad actions.
@@Payin_Attention It's not just the government that's the problem and no, humans don't have to be hierarchical. There are thousands of businesses in the world that don't have a typical capitalist hierarchy with the few at the top making all the decisions and hiring others to work for them and produce profits for them.
Essentially when you join a typical company, you're working for somebody else so that they can make lots of money while you only make a little bit in comparison. "You come work for me, I make millions while you make thousands. Deal?" Most of us are left with no choice but to accept this deal, or else we do have a choice but don't realise it. With a democratic business (a co-operative), again of which there are thousands, so I'm not inventing any unrealistic, utopian system, workers make the decisions and collectively decide what to do with the profits. Everyone in the business is, in effect, both an employer and an employee.
But yes, good points about how government regulations help the big players but not the little guys. This is why socialists went into politics - it was to stop doing things like this and instead have policies that help everyone, not just the few at the top who have everyone else working for them or paying taxes to support them.
@Dylan Tucker yes, I think people should be able to choose between a capitalist company and a co-op. A free country would allow someone to work for somebody else if that's what they want to do. But I think if people were more educated about their choices and governments and banks made it easier to start a co op, then we would have a better economy.
I haven't heard or read from those who suggest co-ops about a wealthy person putting in the initial capital and your scenario of someone with an idea that others don't agree with is an interesting one that I haven't thought of.
In the first case, I think something needs to be worked out where they get compensated. Depending on the amount, they could earn more than their colleagues.
For the person with an idea and no one wants to work with them. Yes, if somebody wants to work for them, then fine. But there are co-ops in which you can start as an employer and then become a full member.
Also, with increasing automation, we're going to see less employees anyway.
I'm not that stupid ya know.....
Chomsky is a better economist than many Nobel Leaurates of Economics
Noam Chomsky is a multi millionaire.
red herring
Talk about a man of principles: It is why he has chosen to live in places like Romania and East Germany before the Wall came down, vacationed in Cambodia during the reign of Pol Pot, goes for his medical care in Cuba and now lives in downtown Caracas with the people who are now living the Chavez/Chomsky dream where every day he puts smiles on the faces of starving urchins by telling them they are no longer under western capitalist influence and that they are moving towards a Rosa Luxembourg model economy. It's like going to Disneyland for those kids as he marches them down the street playing The Internationale on a kazoo.
Lmao, too funny :)
Caracas is not under Western Capitalist influence? So the US did not attempt a coup there in 2002, and not again just last year, when CIA director Mike Pompeo said we are "working very hard to change the government" of Venezuela? I don't know what your definition of Western Capitalist influence is, but I am sure it must include economic warfare and attempts at covert military intervention.
Is there a reststop between here and the fucking point?
The volume is TERRIBLE!! Please turn it up.
Noam “i've become a millionaire criticizing capitalism“ Chomsky
@Tate Ramessarthats my point... people bitch about capitalism and doesnt understand it. we can discuss the morality of some businessmen who exploit the labour as well as communists dictators who have killed people by hunger and bullets... no extreme is good.
@@jondam6221 Chomsky would say that the spectrum as the US sees it of one end being total private control of the economy and the other being total public control is a flawed way of looking at it. A better way is looking at it as total democratic control vs total autocratic control, whether the latter is administered by the government or oligarchical business.
@@jamie_vids551
A false dichotomy.
Prove that he's a millionaire or else you're just a dirty troll
@@jondam6221 ~~
Ayn Rand made a similar comment ::
"You can't blame capitalism for a few bad apples".
On that _one tree_ the "few" have _incorporated_ & poisoned the roots.
Chomsky's philosophy, although beautiful, is often idealist. It serves an orientation purpose, but to bring it into practice, we need another kind of society, and in a real world scenario, in our current time frame, it would be fundamentaly useless; it would only degenerate into a reckless revolution and a marxist (or worst) regime. We first have to answer the old Plato's question: who would govern? ie. into whom resides the real power, and a more modern one, by Popper: How do we guarantee a state that doesn't require bloodbath's to overthrow them ie. doesn't degenerate into totalitarianism.
Anarcho-syndicalism isn't really a philosophy. Hence Chomsky does not propose any utopian form, but relies on historical evidence, primarily the anarchist revolution in Spain in 1936.
"the worst possible service at the highest possible price" do you understand that this is not true?
Socialism provides the worst possible service, irregardless of price.
It's not always true, but it so often is. Have you ever eaten at McDonalds or bought clothing from Walmart?
@@miguelthealpaca8971 No sane business owner intends to provide the worst possible service. That is just ridiculous. They want to provide the BEST possible service at the lowest possible cost, which is not the same thing. They basically have to maximize efficiency, while still providing a service or product that the clients want, in order to remain competitive.
I have no problem with his opinion. The problem is: what's the alternative? I think the only way is ordinary people with low capital to unite and form a company that is competitive. And if they are successful, maybe, just maybe this business model can become the norm. Any other form of imposing a new social order is ridiculous.
This man knows nothing about business... period...
Which might be a relevant point if the video were about business. It's not. It's about capitalism.
Look at the world market. The average person receives very low wages. Corporations rely on this to max profits. V sad
🎻
Your parents didn’t raise a man
orange man bad
This is why people in rehab centers pay over 700$ per day, to sit in their own shit for hours each day....
Noam Chomsky is a complete ignoramus about economics, going as far as to call capitalism "totalitarian" and then going on about how words don't have meaning anymore.
"Noam Chomsky is a complete ignoramus about economics, going as far as to call capitalism "totalitarian"" . . . . Private bosses under capitalism determine whether and when you can go to the bathroom . . . . Stalin was a libertarian compared to them . . . He never dreamed of controlling bathroom breaks.
@@michaelsmith8665 no they don't. You're a moron, stop believing in economically illiterate garbage
can someone explain something to me? I live on my small farm and make products with my bee's wax and goat's milk such as beard balms, soaps, shampoos. All natural, and I sell below market value. I have no intentions of being rich.
Without capitalism, can I continue to do this and afford to pay myself to eat, travel every few years and take my family skiing a couple times a year? Or will all those pleasures be considered selfish and non essential under something other than capitalism?
Not at all. There is a thing called market socialism, where you take the market part of capitalism and slot it in socialism. There's dispute whether it is actually socialism or not, however in this, the workers still own the means of production, so if you are the only worker you own your means of production. If you have other workers they need an equal say in how the business is run. The government will provide things such as healthcare, education and so on.
You will also have time to spend for yourself and your family. The workers deserve their time off, as they have lives and people they care for. Most socialists and communists want to give workers the ability to take time off, of course that has to be limited or else nothing would get done, but you would be able to take time off your work.
@@harisakhtar4197 "If you have other workers they need an equal say in how the business is run." I have built several reasonably sizeable businesses, the last to $100 million in annual revenue. As an entrepreneur you always hope to be able to recruit leaders who can run businesses for you (or at least large parts of a business for you). Despite spending hundreds of thousands in recruiting fees to find such leaders, you rarely find them, even among the trained, interested and experienced. As to the average "worker" (with no training, interest or experience in management), forget about it. Most people are simply not equipped to make decisions about the direction of a company. The kind of collectives of decision by worker vote that you mention and I believe Chomsky advocates are not viable as a large scale model.
@@a.s.2426 at this current state the education system isn't modelled for what I'm advocating for. I'm also sure you would find most workers are reasonably educated and can make their own decisions and know what's best for them. but if we were to implement these ideas into a larger scale we would need to equip workers with the right information and critical thinking to make those decisions, but by saying most workers are not trained enough to do this is an overstatement and assumption. the working class is full of intelligent individuals, and almost all the working class is full of people who are able to make choices that will affect their livelihood.
@@a.s.2426 Your argument ignores the many successful co-ops in the world. Democratic businesses evidently can choose effective leadership for themselves, even if you haven't seen it firsthand yet.
@@atashikokoni I have researched these co-ops in the past and they don't seem a compelling alternative. Suffice it to say in a more free market arrangement such as the one we have now in the United States (vs. what you are presumably contemplating, which would be more of a socialist arrangement), it stands to reason that if the co-op arrangement were a highly resource-efficient means to satisfying consumer demand, there would be a lot more of them occupying meaningful positions in the general marketplace. I think their relative invisibility speaks for itself. After all, market participants have been free to create such entities here in the U.S. whenever they wanted, if they thought they could compete.
Thank you mr chomsky for curing my insomnia
I find it funny how we have Gay Rights, Black Rights, the First Black President and Women's Rights before we have the Redistribution of the Means of Production, I'm not trivialising them but it's food for thought...
Most intelligent person of the world . He is a rare jewel.
Society could work as an open source software, everyone puts whatever they want into it and anyone can enjoy it. If we had food, water, house for everyone for free! We could do whatever we want in our free time. We would make analytics about how many working hours are needed to get everyone the basics what i said housing, water, and food. If that's done you will get how much one person needs to work and encourage people to work. Most people would work just out of boredom or because they want to contribute to the system something that's meaningful work.. First we wouldn't make useless things like plastic toys etc... So you would have to work about 2-4 hours a day the problem lots of people are consumers, that mindset should change in order for this system to work. I would be more happy working 4 hours a day and fly anywhere i want in my free time than have a TV or PC watching youtubers traveling or watching other shit. We would also have more holiday maybe 2 months a year. .
"The worst possible service at the highest possible profit?"
"The worst possible service" only gets better in a capitalist society as bad service providers get outcompeted. I wonder if Chomsky knows what he's talking about?
Yes, this is the idea behind minimal viable products. Getting your product/service to market at the lowest cost possible ensures its inferiority.
The propaganda is so strong that people think corporations can't provide better services without competition. They can, but the capitalist system forces them to do that, especially in a crowded market.
I'm pretty sure he knows what he's talking about.
I guess you didn't bother listening since he was referring to what Milton Friedman said and the point was that if a corporation is benevolent their competition will undercut them i.e. offer a similar service at a lower price because that company either has lowered to cost of it's infrastructure and/or pays their employees less in order to still have a profit at a lower price.
Knows more than you apparently
Chomsky= Matrix smasher
still better that socialism/comunism
@Elzoro24 The end result will be the same. Mark my words.
tho capitalism isnt great, its the best there is
Man... Chomsky loves that sweater :)
:D ...When his wife asked him to change clothes to meet the German Ambassador: "they want to see me, here I am. If they want to see my clothes, open my closet and show them my suits." - Albert Einstein
"One of my colleagues in Princeton asked me: "If Einstein dislikes his fame and would like to increase his privacy, why does he wear his hair long, a funny leather jacket, no socks, no suspenders, no ties?" The answer is simple. The idea is to restrict his needs and, by this restriction, increase his freedom. We are slaves of millions of things. Einstein tried to reduce them to the absolute minimum. Long hair minimized the need for the barber. Socks can be done without. One leather jacket solves the coat problems for many years."
How does "worst possible service at the highest possible profit" translate into profit or market-share. Noam slipped a cog there by ignoring competition.
cos thy then gain influence by ripping people off with shoddy goods and services. tit
+john laird You might notice that when companies "rip[] ppl off with shoddy goods and services" like say Chipolte's sanitation or Volkswagen's diesel engines - then they LOSE profits and market share.
You don't GAIN influence that way - you lose it.
fraxus not entirely true cos they still have the influence and the cash to go with it
+john laird I rebutted your statement, "cos thy then gain influence by ripping people off with shoddy goods and services. tit"
No they don't GAIN influence, they DECLINE in influence.
I never argued they have zero influence. Yes, my statement is entirely true.
fraxus whatever you say son
How do we make a system that works for the people while also generating wealth and freedom?
Our perception of wealth and freedom has been skewed in the last century. Living in a consumerist society makes people crave more and more things, whilst becoming less happy. We'd all be happier if we had less 'things'.