Capitalism does NOT work for ANYONE! Capitalism is utopian, NOT utopia, it's a dystopia. The "World" is what someone said to me; millions times worse than nazism.
Of course we should now focus our energies on the task of monetary reform, I guess that was the point of the question. Start by cancelling the unjust unpayable debts of the developing nations, what could have a greater effect on saving lives, of course the 1% will take a hit but big deal. We face a choice, go down the business as usual road to maintain the debts and all misery that brings or we start down a new path. It has to happen sooner rather than later the current system is unsustainable.
History tells us they will be weakened and eliminated. In a world governed by money where money determines power the borrower will ultimately always be servant to the lender. Why leave such power in the hands of a sector of the economy that is incentivised by profits, who are incentivised by the exponential returns that the issuance of debt bestows, debt will still dominate for the majority leaving the resources in the hands of a few who will overtime undermine any regulations that limit them.
Noam serving up sophistry and carrying water for his masters. Dude thinks Clinton ran a surplus. You can’t be an academic and pretend that idea has any merit.
Do you want to focus energies on this mammoth task of totally overhauling global finance? Or work on smaller (less systemic but more proximate) causes of suffering/hunger/brutality in the world? It’s a judgement call, right? Who knows how you can save more lives – but I personally feel it’s the latter.
I never said they were were long term permanent fixes. However, you can’t say whether they’ll be weakened and eliminated though – they might be or might not. This is entirely determined by how much people scrutinise the banking system and how much transparency remains. If occupy-style pressure pushes through reforms, and then people go back to business as usual (apathy and indifference), sure they’ll be weakened and eliminated.
Of course this is true to the extent that bailing out the banks that had become too big to fail became the cheapest option but my point, and the point of the original question put to Chomsky, is having stabilised a failing system we NOW need to look beyond it and bring about real change to the monetary system.
Regulations under the current system have always proved to be nothing more than a short-term fix as has been proved time and time again. Leaving the control of money in the hands of the for profit, private sector grants them seigniorage and the advantages and benefits that come from money's first use. Any regulations will be weakened and ultimately eliminated, and the next financial crisis will follow. We need to be looking beyond such short term response and look towards real long term reform.
"vague bullshit". Seriously? There should be no more important question. The fact that Chomsky doesn't even deal with the question of money creation, even when directly asked, is disturbing. Many, many people look towards Chomsky for answers and guidance, I am not saying he needs to give his blessing, but to here his actual his opinion would have been nice, instead of laughably exclaiming "the debt is not a problem". Yeah for whom Noam?
And not to labour this point but I feel it's worthwhile. Without wild money printing and the burdensome inflation it has caused, people would be starving and dying at an incredibly high rate. We truly did avoid the worst of the recession with borrowing, any other way would have involved a total cultural revolution. And I don't think the world was ready for that 2007-present.
How can real practical reform take place? Within the current paradigm? Many ways. Glass-Steagall legislation. Increasing reserve requirements. Actually taxing companies instead of just ignoring double-irish-dutch-sandwich loopholes. Wider adoption of cryptocurrency. These things then give way to more radical change like reforming money creation.
Well what kind of vague bullshit question is that? “Is it time?” It’s been time since the federal reserve act was passed. Of course people are ALREADY starving in the street, but imagine what would have happened without the buffer of excessive money printing. Chomsky can’t answer because they only thing that determines if it’s really time to end this or that is the mood and readiness of the people. If people wanted it en masse, it would happen whether Chomsky gives his blessing or not.
What is says is true but the way to rob savers of money is no good solution. You can’t just have little inflation. Inflation is dragon. Everyone has always thought they could tame it but you never know where it goes.
No it is Chomsky who is missing the point, the point of the question, “is it time we ended the private control of money creation”, which he avoided answering. People are already starving in the streets because all money is unnecessarily being created and issued as debt. How can real, practical reform take place of “our current paradigm” with “mass involvement” if these sort of questions aren’t even going to be tackled?
Everyone’s missing the point. Chomsky isn’t ‘pro’ fractional reserve banking, or fiat currency, or debt money or any of this stuff. But he does recognise that these things are necessary in our current paradigm and people would have starved in the streets without reckless money printing. Before you get rid of that a lot of social reform with mass involvement needs to take place.
sorry, I just think it's a real shame Chomsky doesn't seem to be on board.
I'm anti-consumerism. I'm not sure what comes first supply or demand.
talk about drinking the Keynesian cool aide. We should all spend and rack up our debt and then ask others to be responsible for it. great idea.
Including capitalists!
Capitalism does NOT work for ANYONE! Capitalism is utopian, NOT utopia, it's a dystopia. The "World" is what someone said to me; millions times worse than nazism.
Seriously stop preaching at me I agree with you.
Of course we should now focus our energies on the task of monetary reform, I guess that was the point of the question. Start by cancelling the unjust unpayable debts of the developing nations, what could have a greater effect on saving lives, of course the 1% will take a hit but big deal. We face a choice, go down the business as usual road to maintain the debts and all misery that brings or we start down a new path. It has to happen sooner rather than later the current system is unsustainable.
wiseguysi who's comment are you referring to?
History tells us they will be weakened and eliminated. In a world governed by money where money determines power the borrower will ultimately always be servant to the lender. Why leave such power in the hands of a sector of the economy that is incentivised by profits, who are incentivised by the exponential returns that the issuance of debt bestows, debt will still dominate for the majority leaving the resources in the hands of a few who will overtime undermine any regulations that limit them.
If he didn’t why are there sweatshops?
Mass production?
Clinton did run a surplus. Ever heard of ms
Noam serving up sophistry and carrying water for his masters. Dude thinks Clinton ran a surplus. You can’t be an academic and pretend that idea has any merit.
The latter then the former.
Do you want to focus energies on this mammoth task of totally overhauling global finance? Or work on smaller (less systemic but more proximate) causes of suffering/hunger/brutality in the world? It’s a judgement call, right? Who knows how you can save more lives – but I personally feel it’s the latter.
I never said they were were long term permanent fixes. However, you can’t say whether they’ll be weakened and eliminated though – they might be or might not. This is entirely determined by how much people scrutinise the banking system and how much transparency remains. If occupy-style pressure pushes through reforms, and then people go back to business as usual (apathy and indifference), sure they’ll be weakened and eliminated.
Of course this is true to the extent that bailing out the banks that had become too big to fail became the cheapest option but my point, and the point of the original question put to Chomsky, is having stabilised a failing system we NOW need to look beyond it and bring about real change to the monetary system.
Regulations under the current system have always proved to be nothing more than a short-term fix as has been proved time and time again. Leaving the control of money in the hands of the for profit, private sector grants them seigniorage and the advantages and benefits that come from money's first use. Any regulations will be weakened and ultimately eliminated, and the next financial crisis will follow. We need to be looking beyond such short term response and look towards real long term reform.
"vague bullshit". Seriously? There should be no more important question. The fact that Chomsky doesn't even deal with the question of money creation, even when directly asked, is disturbing. Many, many people look towards Chomsky for answers and guidance, I am not saying he needs to give his blessing, but to here his actual his opinion would have been nice, instead of laughably exclaiming "the debt is not a problem". Yeah for whom Noam?
"…maybe in the long term it can be worn away, maybe overthrown, and I hope so…"
And not to labour this point but I feel it's worthwhile. Without wild money printing and the burdensome inflation it has caused, people would be starving and dying at an incredibly high rate. We truly did avoid the worst of the recession with borrowing, any other way would have involved a total cultural revolution. And I don't think the world was ready for that 2007-present.
How can real practical reform take place? Within the current paradigm? Many ways. Glass-Steagall legislation. Increasing reserve requirements. Actually taxing companies instead of just ignoring double-irish-dutch-sandwich loopholes. Wider adoption of cryptocurrency. These things then give way to more radical change like reforming money creation.
Well what kind of vague bullshit question is that? “Is it time?” It’s been time since the federal reserve act was passed. Of course people are ALREADY starving in the street, but imagine what would have happened without the buffer of excessive money printing. Chomsky can’t answer because they only thing that determines if it’s really time to end this or that is the mood and readiness of the people. If people wanted it en masse, it would happen whether Chomsky gives his blessing or not.
What is says is true but the way to rob savers of money is no good solution. You can’t just have little inflation. Inflation is dragon. Everyone has always thought they could tame it but you never know where it goes.
Sounds like he drank the Krugman Kool Aid.
Chomsky's been reading a lot of Dean Baker, it looks like.
No it is Chomsky who is missing the point, the point of the question, “is it time we ended the private control of money creation”, which he avoided answering. People are already starving in the streets because all money is unnecessarily being created and issued as debt. How can real, practical reform take place of “our current paradigm” with “mass involvement” if these sort of questions aren’t even going to be tackled?
You’re completely missing his point.
Did you miss the part where he said "We have a state capitalist economy."
Everyone’s missing the point. Chomsky isn’t ‘pro’ fractional reserve banking, or fiat currency, or debt money or any of this stuff. But he does recognise that these things are necessary in our current paradigm and people would have starved in the streets without reckless money printing. Before you get rid of that a lot of social reform with mass involvement needs to take place.