chomsky has laid out this argument for decades.
we do not have capitalism.
we have state sponsored capitalism.
hmmm...bill moyers interviewing chomsky...i am off to find that interview!

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Saturday, March 10th, 2012 5:16pm PST - promote requested by enoch.

found it!!
http://videosift.com/video/bill-moyers-interviews-noam-chomsky-1988

*controversy

Adding video to channels (Controversy) - requested by MrFisk.

Capitalism is virtually guaranteed to become state-sponsored, over the long run, especially in a democracy (or republic, there's little effective difference). When the government has no built-in opposition to the capitalist class, sooner or later, it gets bought.

The big question is how do you build in a negative feedback loop to limit the power of the oligarchs.

Seems to me that the People need to vote with their dollars and stop, for example, buying Dominos Pizza, once they learn that it's profits support anti-gay campaigns, or Snapple once they learn that it's owned by Rush Limbaugh, and so on.>> ^Stormsinger:

Capitalism is virtually guaranteed to become state-sponsored, over the long run, especially in a democracy (or republic, there's little effective difference). When the government has no built-in opposition to the capitalist class, sooner or later, it gets bought.
The big question is how do you build in a negative feedback loop to limit the power of the oligarchs.

>> ^Trancecoach:

Seems to me that the People need to vote with their dollars and stop, for example, buying Dominos Pizza, once they learn that it's profits support anti-gay campaigns, or Snapple once they learn that it's owned by Rush Limbaugh, and so on.>> ^Stormsinger:
Capitalism is virtually guaranteed to become state-sponsored, over the long run, especially in a democracy (or republic, there's little effective difference). When the government has no built-in opposition to the capitalist class, sooner or later, it gets bought.
The big question is how do you build in a negative feedback loop to limit the power of the oligarchs.


That's effectively the situation today...and we see how well that's been working. If it worked, this video wouldn't exist.


In order for that approach to be effective, it requires a change in normal human behavior...such that
many people would willingly inconvenience themselves for principles that don't immediately affect them.

If we can change human nature, we don't need any other answer. Let's just change it so capitalism (or communism, or objectivism) works well without regulation. They all work fine if those pesky humans would just do what the various Utopians think they should.

"...inequality of income and wealth is part of a capitalist society, but it can't overwhelm our democracy. And what we've seen in the last 30 years is a gradual erosion of the firewalls that protect our democracy from [these inequalities]."

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by geo321.

I am so looking forward to watching this. Two greats in a conversation decades ago. You kick boot enoch!>> ^enoch:

found it!!
http://videosift.com/video/bill-moyers-interviews-noam-chomsky-1988

This is an encore airing of a program originally aired on January 13, 2012.
http://billmoyers.com/episode/on-winner-take-all-politics/

The Real "1 Percent" (80% of millionaires EARNED their money through hard work)

There is no grand conspiracy to "enforce" inequality, Nature does a fine job on her own.

Isn't Moyers' hogging of taxpayer dollars, leaving little or none for a less-leftist public TV political show a form of engineered inequality?

P.S. Lovable Chomsky is a millionaire and, quite rationally, has taken any and all steps to protect that money from taxation.

>> ^quantumushroom:

The Real "1 Percent" (80% of millionaires EARNED their money through hard work)
There is no grand conspiracy to "enforce" inequality, Nature does a fine job on her own.
Isn't Moyers' hogging of taxpayer dollars, leaving little or none for a less-leftist public TV political show a form of engineered inequality?
P.S. Lovable Chomsky is a millionaire and, quite rationally, has taken any and all steps to protect that money from taxation.


1. 80% of millionaires did not earn their money through hard work. That is part of the bullshit mythos too many wealthy people fall in to, namely how they did it ALL themselves without the aide of others. I've worked for millionaires (and beyond!) and too many of them consider their workers to be incidental components in their meteoric assent to greatness... blah blah blah.

2. Nature's conspiracy is nature's and man's conspiracy is man's. One doesn't negate the other, though they intersect from time to time.

3. You don't appear to be interested in defending millionaires or the 1%; you simply don't like it when, occasionally, some of them acknowledge income inequality or disparity in rates of taxation. It smacks of hypocrisy to you that a wealthy person might think they have it a little too good. I guess Bill Maher shouldn't have given HIS money to Obama's SuperPac because he's the wrong kind of millionaire. He should be ashamed he didn't keep that money for more hot tubbing and weed.

>> ^Stormsinger:

Capitalism is virtually guaranteed to become state-sponsored, over the long run, especially in a democracy (or republic, there's little effective difference). When the government has no built-in opposition to the capitalist class, sooner or later, it gets bought.
The big question is how do you build in a negative feedback loop to limit the power of the oligarchs.
I think what truly undermines capitalism is:



- Public education: if you let people be educated by the state, they'll be deprived of the critical thinking needed to challenge it.

- Economic intervention: if government has any power over the economy, those with money will buy that power. Are TV networks and newspapers lobbying government to censor competitors? No, because censorship is unnaceptable in a free speech society.

Oligarchs don't want free markets, they're the ones who built this crony capitalism, where they get to make rules for their own benefit.

>> ^renatojj:

>> ^Stormsinger:
Capitalism is virtually guaranteed to become state-sponsored, over the long run, especially in a democracy (or republic, there's little effective difference). When the government has no built-in opposition to the capitalist class, sooner or later, it gets bought.
The big question is how do you build in a negative feedback loop to limit the power of the oligarchs.
I think what truly undermines capitalism is:

- Public education: if you let people be educated by the state, they'll be deprived of the critical thinking needed to challenge it.
- Economic intervention: if government has any power over the economy, those with money will buy that power. Are TV networks and newspapers lobbying government to censor competitors? No, because censorship is unnaceptable in a free speech society.
Oligarchs don't want free markets, they're the ones who built this crony capitalism, where they get to make rules for their own benefit.

- The issue has -nothing- to do with public education. Even the stupidity of our electorate has nothing to do with education...it's that most people don't care about anything past the end of their nose, and are too stupid to actually think about issues in the first place. Education won't change that, it never has. But it makes a nice red herring.


- Yes, of course. The answer to a capture of regulators is to abandon all regulation on the offenders whatsoever...I'm sure that'll make things better. We can obviously count on their better nature to ensure our well-being, once we stop trying to do it for ourselves. Typical libertarian lunacy. You might want to see Somalia for the actual results of that sort of thinking.

A much better answer is to design a system such that those people involved in regulating have an incentive (and the power) to stay opposed to any increase in power of the oligarchs. Negative feedback loops are the time-proven method of maintaining a balance. Designing such a social system is difficult, of course, and implementing it is likely to require a violent overthrow of our current system. But it's going to have to happen sooner or later, if we want an end to these boom-and-bust cycles of the robber barons.

@Stormsinger whatever system you're envisioning seems to me like a common fantasy of underestimating the complexities of society. I invite you to rethink your idea of a society with economic freedom, because it's definitely not Somalia, an uncivilized society ruled by criminals has no freedoms.

No state regulation doesn't mean less regulation. Instead of coming from above in the form of laws, regulation would come from the people and however they decide to organize themselves to deal with anything they perceive as abuses in the economy, without resorting to force. State only comes in to enforce contracts and respect for private property.

Yes, there would be failure, bankruptcy, loss, but that's what makes a system alive, adaptable and capable of evolving, as opposed to the static oligarchic power structures we have now. If you think people are stupid and don't care past the end of their noses, wait until they have to pay dearly for their bad decisions. Which doesn't mean I want to live in a cruel and abusive world, I want a society that can learn and react faster and more appropriately to whatever complex problems that may come up. Leaving that job to regulators and central economic planners is painfully inefficient, not to mention anti-capitalistic.

You know why you talk about a system where regulators, which would still have power, would be held responsible for their actions? Because you like responsability, and I like it too. No one should have power and not be held accountable for their actions.

So here's a thought: take the power away from regulators, let people have the power and the responsability: if they use it wisely, they succeed and profit, otherwise they crash and burn. No, I don't like to see people failing either, but forcibly removing failure from society is what leads society itself to fail.

Yes, of course. I ever so much prefer to get revenge for being poisoned, rather than prevent the poisoning beforehand. Your solutions make the former the only possible approach. Not a world -I- care to live in... The oligarchs have repeatedly proven they are more than willing to inflict any amount of damage on us, if it'll make them a buck or two. Dead people can't sue, you see.

This is why I use the term lunacy to describe libertarianism. The loons ignore all of history and claim that replacing law with civil suits would make everything grand. I suppose I could be more generous and call it naivete, but the result is the same. You ignore history and human nature...just like all utopians, be they capitalist, libertarian, communist or whatever. Utopias only work if human nature changes.

@Stormsinger hey, I should be the one accusing you of being the utopian, wishing to design a system where power wielding regulators would magically not succumb to their human nature.

No matter how cruel you may think a freer society can be, a more oppressive society can't be any better. America has matured to deal with the challenges of having freedom of speech, even though I'm sure it was a scary idea at the time it was proposed. We just need the courage to try economic freedom, without training wheels, without caving in before liberals crying foul for every little perceived abuse.

Also, don't be so quick to dismiss ideas about liberty as lunacy, many liberties you enjoy today used to be considered lunacy too, specially by those in power and by dumb submissive majorities.