From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Thu Dec 09 2004 - 15:31:38 GMT
Hi MSH,
> platt:
> As usual Chomsky begins with a false premise, namely, that
> capitalism's only concern is making money. It is one of the driving
> forces to be sure, but not the only one. The major force is freedom
> to exchange one's goods and services in an open market without
> interference by government thugs wielding guns.
>
> msh says:
> It's not his premise. He's responding to precise arguments. But I
> think you raise a good point in defense of the free market. NC was
> not asked to respond to this point, but I think he should be. If you
> don't mind, I'll pass your words along to him. and let's see what he
> says. Do you think I should phrase it the way you have, with the
> comment about government thugs wielding guns? Wouldn't the phrase
> "without government interference" be sufficient and less
> antagonistic. But I'll phrase it any way you like; just lemme know. He
> usually responds in less than a week.
Yes, best to drop the bit about government thugs. We don't want to
antagonize Noam do we?
> > >2. The classic - People vote with their dollars, what
> > >they like they buy and thus those things are supported.
>
> Chomsky:
> > Why do businesses spend hundreds of billions a year on
> > advertising? Is it to develop the free markets of
> > doctrine in which informed consumers make rational
> > choices? Or is it to "create wants," to pursue what
> > Adam Smith called the basic objective of "merchants and
> > manufacturers": to "oppress" and "deceive" the public?
> > All of this seems too obvious even to waste time
> > discussing.
>
> Two typical Chomsky tactics--slyly misquote and ignore context. Adam
> Smith didn't say the "basic objective of . . ." His actual words were
> "generally have an interest in . . ." Further, the context was that
> it was far less dangerous to the free market to have businessmen
> pursue their interests than to allow government to restrain
> competition.
>
> msh says:
> You fail to respond to the main point. Why do businesses spend
> hundreds of billions a year on advertising, if all they want to do is
> offer an objective arena in which fully informed consumers make
> rational choices?
I know intellectual elites consider the masses to be stupid and thus easily
fooled by "emotional" advertising. Funny though, you don't hear many
complaints from the victims of this supposed evil. Guess they just don't know
any better.
> As for the rest of your comment, you yourself are playing a little
> fast and loose with Adam Smith's ideas. Smith's overall view was
> that, given equal starting positions and an equal playing field, the
> "invisible hand" will fairly guide a free market economy without
> government interference. But he was well aware that, in the real
> world of the 18th century English economy, as well as in our current
> world, there is nothing approximating these ideal starting conditions. And
> that under such conditions, government influence is not only warranted but
> essential. Chomsky touched on these points in his response, but you've
> excised them.
Right. I was responding specifically to Chomsky's inaccurate presentation
of source material, a technique he often uses.
> I guess we can argue more about this, if you like. I should warn you that
> I've just finished reading a book on economic theory from Smith to Keynes,
> so I'm ready to go!
Suggest you add to your reading a little book by Henry Hazlitt entitled
"Economics in One Lesson," available from amazon.com.
> > >3. Great intellectuals like Milton Friedman and Adam
> > >Smith advocate capitalism, how could I challenge these
> > >great minds?
>
> Chomsky:
> > Let's put aside Friedman, out of politeness, and keep
> > to Smith, a very important figure.
>
> platt:
> I don't know what to call this rude dismissal of a Noble Prize
> winner. Chomsky chutzpah perhaps? Whatever, it's a slippery, mean-
> spirited dodge, unworthy of high school freshman much less a college
> professor.
>
> msh says:
> O, c'mon. I agree about the dismissal. But he's doing nothing more than
> we all do from time to time in our email responses. This same dismissive
> tone is in your own response, above.
Yes, but I'm not an esteemed college professor who you would think would
be interested in setting and following high standards of civilized
conversation.
> My guess is, he wasn't prepared to
> discuss Friedman off the top of his head, but knows very well that
> Friedman's general economic theory is: What's good for business is good
> for the economy.
No. What's good for people is freedom to choose.
> Whether or not someone has won the highly political Nobel
> Prize shouldn't enter into the equation. Kissinger shared the Peace Prize
> in '73 and there are plenty of people in the world, with strong argument to
> support them, who would like to try him for crimes against humanity. Now
> that's some delicious irony.
Along with the intellectual's worship of Jimmy Carter who taught Sunday
school while President. All of which is besides the point, but
"delicious."
> > >4. "All other systems that have been tried have
> > >failed." (Russia, Cuba, this arguement is a joke.)
>
> Chomsky:
> > Yes, a joke, and one in particularly poor taste. And
> > capitalism hasn't failed?
>
> platt:
> What's funny or in poor taste about citing the millions slaughtered
> under Communism?
>
> msh says:
> Nothing. Nor is there anything funny about the millions slaughtered
> in wars for resources and markets.
Like?
> platt:
> Oh, I forgot. Chomsky was an admirer of Mao and Ho
> Chi Min.
>
> msh says:
> There's that tone again. There's a lot to admire about Ho Chi Minh,
> and even Mao. But discussing this would require you to have some
> exposure to actual historical information about these men. And about the
> struggle for Vietnam's independence from French colonialism, and US
> involvement against that struggle. Start with the Pentagon Papers and read
> backward into history.
You can admire those guys if you want. I admire the boat people who risked
everything to escape from their beneficence.
> > >5. Capitalism is the only viable system, that's why
> > >it's the only one that is still functioning.
>
> Chomsky:
> > First, nothing remotely like capitalism exists. Is the
> > US economy, relying crucially on the dynamic state
> > sector, a capitalist economy?
>
> platt:
> Relying on a dynamic state sector? A "dynamic" state is an oxymoron
> if ever I saw one.
>
> msh says:
> He's referring to state investment in the development of technology
> which, when it becomes profitable, is turned over to the private
> sector; also about the huge injections of cash into the economy via
> the military-industrial complex. Also about tax-payer bailouts of
> failing and corrupt businesses such as the recent airline fiascos and the
> criminal of the Enron and S&L scandals, to name but a few.
It's government's job to defend the country against it's enemies. You
object to that? As for bailouts, I agree. The government shouldn't
interfere, but since they are the cause of most of the problems by prior
interference through regulation and taxation, it'll never happen.
> platt:
> Ever try to mail a package or get a driver's license? Static the
> state is, dynamic it ain't.
>
> msh:
> Lemme know the next time you get FedEx to deliver a letter, door-to-
> door, cross country, in a couple of days, for less than 40 cents.
That's your tax-payer government subsidy at work. As for a "couple of
days," what delivery system are you referring to?
> > >6. The competition inherent in capitalism creates
> > >innovations and produces things that would not be
> > >possible in other systems.
>
> Chomsky:
> > Have a look at the actual history of innovation, as
> > barely hinted above.
>
> platt:
> Yeah, take a look at U.S. and British innovation vs. rest o' world. I
> mean, just look and be amazed. No need to cite all the inventions
> from the light bulb to atomic energy.
>
> msh:
> I believe his point is not that western economies haven't produced
> some nifty things, but that these things are not a result of
> invention and creativity inspired by pursuit of profit in imaginary
> free-markets.
Well, the two seem to go together. Maybe just coincidence, huh?.
Anyway, what has all this got to do with Pirsig's MOQ? I mean, I enjoy
discussing these things with you, but is it really relevant to the
purpose of this forum? Should Horse step in and blow the whistle?
Best,
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Dec 09 2004 - 23:26:30 GMT