12 ms·

>"Now, it has long been understood, very well, that a society that is based on this principle will destroy itself in time. Bullshit. A society based on the pri

>"Now, it has long been understood, very well, that a society that is based on this principle will destroy itself in time. Bullshit. A society based on the principles of the free market will create unprecedented human health and prosperity[1]. Anti-capitalists are anti-human. I wonder if the billion or so people that climbed out of poverty over the last decade thanks to global capitalism would change Chomsky's mind at all. But I doubt it, considering how invested the man is in being a spokesman for a flawed worldview. It seems to me that anti-capitalism is a symptom of simple ignorance of basic facts about world economic development. [1]http://www.overcomingbias.com/2011/01/best-decade-ever.html http://www.overcomingbias.com/2011/01/best-decade-ever.html

lisper 16y ago
> "Now, it has long been understood, very well, that a society that is based on this principle will destroy itself in time. > Bullshit. A society based on the principles of the free market will create unprecedented human health and prosperity[1]. Those two things are not mutually exclusive.
- jacoblyles 16y ago
  Sure. And nobody has proven that Jesus or Vishnu won't come back and destroy the world for its sins, either. Positing a future apocalypse that will envelope the world unless everyone adopts your pet religion has a long pedigree.
  - anthonycerra 16y ago
    Now I think you're going too far. The point above says that you can use capitalism to benefit the world around you. Instead of spending $3 million on a car, you can spend $3 million on businesses in a 3rd world country. In the end everyone wins instead of you alone.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
steveklabnik 16y ago
I've often found it funny how two sides often use the exact same argument against each other, almost down to the wording: most anti-capitalists specifically charge capitalism with taking the human element out of the equation.
ynniv 16y ago
It's much better to work 16 hours for a $1 in your pocket than to do whatever you've been doing for the last 100,000 years. Those unfortunate poor people, someone should tell them how unhappy they are!
anthonyb 16y ago
There was a society based on the principles of the free market - Victorian England. It wasn't so great for most of the population there - pitiful wages, child labour, pollution, poor houses, squalour and misery. Free market? Sure, it's a great idea, but minimum wage laws, workplace safety, pollution control and so forth have all done just as much for our health and prosperity.
- dstorrs 16y ago
  Victorian England is definitely a good candidate, yes. But for an example of a "free market" society that is nearer in time and space to modern Americans, read Upton Sinclair's _The Jungle_ : http://search.barnesandnoble.com/The-Jungle/Upton-Sinclair/e/9781593080082 http://search.barnesandnoble.com/The-Jungle/Upton-Sinclair/e...
- zeteo 16y ago
  Are you kidding me? Victorian Britain was the most prosperous country on Earth, at the time. Sure, the average Brit had it much rougher than they do today, but that's not a valid comparison. Give me one country that had it better during the 19th century than Victorian Britain!
  - anthonyb 16y ago
    Sure, they were more prosperous on average, but the poor were much more worse off than the poor in rural areas. It's also impossible to say whether the prosperity was due to the free market and lack of regulations, the industrial revolution and development of steam power or the rise of the middle class and their increased free time/income. I suspect that mostly it was technology, similar to what's happening in developing nations right now, rather than any free markets.
    - zeteo 16y ago
      "the poor were much more worse off than the poor in rural areas." Do you have any support for that assertion? The poor themselves decided en masse to move from village to city at the time, which seems to indicate the contrary. Yes, in the city they were also much more visible to literate observers who would write about their misery, but who knows what those same observers might have exposed if they had lived in a village instead. The people who knew both sides of the situation, certainly seemed to vote with their feet for the industrialized cities. We see the same phenomenon at work in China nowadays.
thret 16y ago
Hans Rosling's 200 Countries, 200 Years, 4 Minutes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo Concisely sums up everything good about free-market capitalism.
drstrangevibes 16y ago
>A society based on the principles of the free market will >create unprecedented human health and prosperity agreed , but only for 0.005% of the population
fgbadiu 16y ago
>A society based on the principles of the free market will create unprecedented human health and prosperity The living standards of black slaves in the Americas increased over time as well. I wonder if the millions whose standard of living increased under slavery would change your mind that slavery is bad? It seems to me that anti-slavery is a symptom of simple ignorance of basic facts about world economic development.
acqq 16y ago
> A society based on the principles of the free market will create unprecedented human health and prosperity Only for a limited time as the natural resources are also limited. We don't have another Earth. The total standard of living existing now for humanity is not sustainable.
hxa7241 16y ago
Chomsky is not anti-capitalist in the sense of proposing some particular complete replacement of it (as one might infer from your comment). He carefully avoids what is not well understood. Would you say capitalism is perfect? No, of course not. Then surely you will allow people to criticise it.
- numeromancer 16y ago
  "Either the general population will take control of its own destiny and will concern itself with community interests..." So, he understood this very well? I must conclude so since he didn't avoid it. So he could tell me with precision when a "general population" has taken control of "its own destiny"? Whether "it" has "concern[ed] itself with community interests"? Generally, you can provide some measure with which I can find out if Chomsky is right or wrong in these statements? I think not. Chomsky "carefully avoids" nothing; he treads heavily, makes a lot of noise, and kicks up a dusty fog.

lisper 16y ago

> "Now, it has long been understood, very well, that a society that is based on this principle will destroy itself in time. > Bullshit. A society based on the principles of the free market will create unprecedented human health and prosperity[1]. Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

jacoblyles 16y ago
Sure. And nobody has proven that Jesus or Vishnu won't come back and destroy the world for its sins, either. Positing a future apocalypse that will envelope the world unless everyone adopts your pet religion has a long pedigree.
- anthonycerra 16y ago
  Now I think you're going too far. The point above says that you can use capitalism to benefit the world around you. Instead of spending $3 million on a car, you can spend $3 million on businesses in a 3rd world country. In the end everyone wins instead of you alone.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

steveklabnik 16y ago

I've often found it funny how two sides often use the exact same argument against each other, almost down to the wording: most anti-capitalists specifically charge capitalism with taking the human element out of the equation.

ynniv 16y ago

It's much better to work 16 hours for a $1 in your pocket than to do whatever you've been doing for the last 100,000 years. Those unfortunate poor people, someone should tell them how unhappy they are!

anthonyb 16y ago

There was a society based on the principles of the free market - Victorian England. It wasn't so great for most of the population there - pitiful wages, child labour, pollution, poor houses, squalour and misery. Free market? Sure, it's a great idea, but minimum wage laws, workplace safety, pollution control and so forth have all done just as much for our health and prosperity.

dstorrs 16y ago
Victorian England is definitely a good candidate, yes. But for an example of a "free market" society that is nearer in time and space to modern Americans, read Upton Sinclair's _The Jungle_ : http://search.barnesandnoble.com/The-Jungle/Upton-Sinclair/e/9781593080082 http://search.barnesandnoble.com/The-Jungle/Upton-Sinclair/e...
zeteo 16y ago
Are you kidding me? Victorian Britain was the most prosperous country on Earth, at the time. Sure, the average Brit had it much rougher than they do today, but that's not a valid comparison. Give me one country that had it better during the 19th century than Victorian Britain!
- anthonyb 16y ago
  Sure, they were more prosperous on average, but the poor were much more worse off than the poor in rural areas. It's also impossible to say whether the prosperity was due to the free market and lack of regulations, the industrial revolution and development of steam power or the rise of the middle class and their increased free time/income. I suspect that mostly it was technology, similar to what's happening in developing nations right now, rather than any free markets.
  - zeteo 16y ago
    "the poor were much more worse off than the poor in rural areas." Do you have any support for that assertion? The poor themselves decided en masse to move from village to city at the time, which seems to indicate the contrary. Yes, in the city they were also much more visible to literate observers who would write about their misery, but who knows what those same observers might have exposed if they had lived in a village instead. The people who knew both sides of the situation, certainly seemed to vote with their feet for the industrialized cities. We see the same phenomenon at work in China nowadays.

thret 16y ago

Hans Rosling's 200 Countries, 200 Years, 4 Minutes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo Concisely sums up everything good about free-market capitalism.

drstrangevibes 16y ago

>A society based on the principles of the free market will >create unprecedented human health and prosperity agreed , but only for 0.005% of the population

fgbadiu 16y ago

>A society based on the principles of the free market will create unprecedented human health and prosperity The living standards of black slaves in the Americas increased over time as well. I wonder if the millions whose standard of living increased under slavery would change your mind that slavery is bad? It seems to me that anti-slavery is a symptom of simple ignorance of basic facts about world economic development.

acqq 16y ago

> A society based on the principles of the free market will create unprecedented human health and prosperity Only for a limited time as the natural resources are also limited. We don't have another Earth. The total standard of living existing now for humanity is not sustainable.

hxa7241 16y ago

Chomsky is not anti-capitalist in the sense of proposing some particular complete replacement of it (as one might infer from your comment). He carefully avoids what is not well understood. Would you say capitalism is perfect? No, of course not. Then surely you will allow people to criticise it.

numeromancer 16y ago
"Either the general population will take control of its own destiny and will concern itself with community interests..." So, he understood this very well? I must conclude so since he didn't avoid it. So he could tell me with precision when a "general population" has taken control of "its own destiny"? Whether "it" has "concern[ed] itself with community interests"? Generally, you can provide some measure with which I can find out if Chomsky is right or wrong in these statements? I think not. Chomsky "carefully avoids" nothing; he treads heavily, makes a lot of noise, and kicks up a dusty fog.