Our new documentary featuring Noam Chomsky & on the history of Conservatives & Liberals - Now available for individual streaming on Amazon: goo.gl/sZDHf4 Academic/institutional license DVD available at americanfeud.org.

"In the progress of the division of labour... The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects, too, are perhaps always the same, or very nearly the same, has no occasion to exert his understanding, or to exercise his invention, in finding out expedients for removing difficulties which never occur. He naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become."

Invisible hand is introduced first in theory of moral sentiments to describe how acting in self interest in production will benefit the greater good. Just FYI

"Adam Smith is often worshipped but rarely read". Great quote. Smith's ideas are often misunderstood. He is far more nuanced and complex than people realise.

I'm quite surprised and grateful that 278 comments have been posted regarding the clip of this interview I conducted way back in 2004. It would be more enlightening, however, if people could talk about the substance of Professor Chomsky's argument rather than his ethnic heritage. Peace and empathy to all.

Chomsky, due to his intellect, is very good at seeing the fly in the soup and declaring the whole batch unfit for human consumption. He ignores that the meaning of Invisible Hand as used by Economists came from Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments. He also ignores that immediately after Nafta, you had the Peso Crisis, so of course there would be a dip (for different reasons) immediately after.

As someone who studies Political Economy it's kind of sad to see how misinterpreted many of Adam Smith's arguments are. He wanted to prioritize production but also recognized the huge threat that free markets created, especially regarding the control producers had over wages.

Exactly! One once was the term "invisible hand" mentioned in Wealth of Nations, and it was in the context Chomsky explains.

It seems that you're the one who should learn what these terms mean... anarchism means a /stateless/ society. saying that an advocate for a stateless society is a "soundboard...for statist ideology" makes no sense; I don't think I need to explain why

His last point is very interesting. There appears indeed little difference in the way big companies like GM operate to State-enterprises. They plan every detail. The whole assembly-line from raw materials > assembling > shipment > shops > consumer is already in place way ahead. The only people who really trade in the market are small local businesses, shopkeepers etc

Adam Smith wrote 'the wealth of nations' at the time of the first industrial revolution. Employees (including Children as young as 8 years) were the property of the mill owner. It is not a perfect world, the hunger for ever more money created a depressing life for the poor. So when he talks about wealth of nations is he only talking about the wealthy few. The next you tube video you should watch is "the pitchforks are coming".

I thought the "Division of Labor" had more to with the importance of specialization in an economy rather than the boring repetition of factory work.

However true Chomsky's statement that Adam Smith meant something else with the invisible hand may be, it does not add any value to the general economic debate. The fact remains that there is a concept called 'the invisible hand of the market' and it is quite clear what most people mean with it. The truly interesting question is whether markets actually function according to the invisible hand and whether this is deemed a good or a bad thing. Chomsky's argument is not wrong, but it simply does not offer any useful critique on the concept itself. Perhaps as Patrick Henry said below in a comment this might be labelled Pseudo-Intellectualism.

AWSOME OBSERVATION! I was thinking the exact same thing, and you stated Chomskys, views on the topic fantasticly!

There is a whole discourse among professors of economics, about what adam smith meant with the "invisible hand", wikipedia is your friend

Can anyone please provide the exact page number Chomsky's referring to regarding division of labour being 'monstrous' etc?

The quote in question, is indeed embedded in section regarding "foreign industry" and ends as follows: "...and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention." Note here the key phrase "as in many other cases." To quote just one of these other cases--one which had absolutely nothing to do with foreign industry--consider the following: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest..." Obviously this ties right into the invisible hand idea the runs throughout Smith's book. The phrase "invisible hand" was merely an evocative name Smith chose to give his idea at a certain point in his book, not knowing that it would eventually become the mother of all memes in the history of economics. So the attempt to discredit the entire idea of the invisible hand based on a questionable usage of this phrase in a single passage, as Chomsky tries to do here, is breathtakingly dishonest.

The book is easy to search now with google books. In my search "invisible hand" comes up one time, on page 400, in the context mentioned by Professor Chomsky. The chapter is titled: "of restraints upon the importation from Foreign countries of such goods as can be produced at home." In other words-invisible hand is protectionism. Could you please indicate on which pages the other two instances appear?

Do you understand the United Nations statistical comparison of long life and income in the country vs long life and income in the city factory?

Has free trade not helped lift hundreds of millions of Chinese people out of abject poverty?

"As long as politics is the shadow cast on society by big business, the attentuation of the shadow will not change the substance." John Dewey

Once in the Wealth of Nations but 3 times in total. The recognized use of the 'invisible hand' actually comes in The Theory of Moral Sentiments.

@TheCapitalistdog That is your opinion. So what is your solution?

Which invisible hands are directing trade between China and the USA today?

And? Who doesn't?

But why & how?

Interesting point in the last 30 seconds of identifying corporate internal trade vs. 'real' trade. Heard a similar parable in E-Myth Enterprise I was listening to yesterday.

Yes, the actual term "invisible hand" appears only once and is in the context of trade and domestic vs. foreign investment. But clearly the idea is central to other areas of the book, especially basic price theory. That's why the quote is "he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand..." As in many other cases is quite clear. And overall, Smith's criticism of mercantilism did not hinge on the passage under question, rather absolute advantage, which Ricardo refined.

You are incorrect. The foundations of neoclassical economics assume certain types of symmetry between participants in a market. As such, it assumes perfect information availability. And it absolutely does assume perfect markets. Look up the phrase "Perfect Competition".

debates are necessary to understand if we are not following some idea which creates problems. chomsky might be wrong in some places but that does not mean you should disrespect him. i dont know how old he is but he is contributing to society even at this stage. he may reply to all the criticism you put in comment box and how can your argument be correct when your questions cant even reach him at the moment?

1:31 the what institute? please help me out here if you can thanks

Anyone talking about Adam Smith needs to recognize that even though he was practically the founder of capitalism, he was also one of its greatest critics, and recognized some of the fatalities within the economic system.

thanks v much!

Noam Chomsky is a very intelligent man, and he is right by saying that Adam Smiths arguments for free markets are rather balanced and nuanced, but unfortunately his assertions regarding how Adam Smith used the term “Invisible Hand” in “Wealth of Nations”, and how that relates to the modern use of the expression, are misleading at best, and plain wrong at worst. Since there seems to be a lot of confusion on the topic, I decided to write a short explanation on how Adam Smith used the metaphor of the “Invisible Hand” in “Wealth of Nations”, and why I think Chomsky’s claims are misleading. I will post some version of this text on multiple KZfaq videos in which Chomsky talks about this subject. In “Wealth of Nations”, the “Invisible Hand” is mentioned once in book IV, chapter 2. That chapter is concerned with restraints upon importation of goods that can be produced at home. Among many other things that are discussed in this chapter, Adam Smith mentions the phrase “Invisible Hand” somewhat offhandedly, in a discussion about investment behavior. Now let’s look at the full quote: “By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain; and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest, he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it.” With this sentence Adam Smith summarizes 2-3 previous pages in which he outlines his arguments. The quote has roughly four parts. We now look at each of them individually, and add in the context of the previous pages. 1. “By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; […]” This is the part that Chomsky mostly talks about. Adam Smith argues that upon equal or close to equal profits, merchants generally prefer to invest their capital in domestic rather than foreign industry. The reason for this is that the merchants like to have direct oversight over their business, and they are more accustomed to the people and the laws of their home country, which reduces the risk of doing business. Now, Chomsky is largely correct when he says that the “Invisible Hand” refers to this sort of “Home Bias”, but he fails to mention that according to Adam Smith, this is due to investors acting in their own self-interest. More importantly, he also fails to mention that this “Home Bias” is not the only thing to which the “Invisible Hand” is referring to. 2. “[…] and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain […]” This is a totally separate argument and has absolutely nothing to do with the “Home Bias” that was the subject of the first part. Smith argues, that when people invest their money, they look for the most profitable industry to do so. The most profitable industry in turn, is the industry which creates the most value. Since the annual revenue of a society is equal to the value added in production, the self-interest of investors, according to Smith, leads to the most beneficial investment of capital. This very much resembles how the expression “Invisible Hand” is used today, but Chomsky does not acknowledge or even mention this part at all. 3. ”[…] and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.” Finally, we come to the part, where Adam Smith describes these mechanisms with the metaphor of the “Invisible Hand”. It generally refers to the fact that the self-interested actions of individuals can lead to outcomes which were not intended by the individuals. The important part here is “AS IN MANY OTHER CASES”, meaning that the metaphor is not limited to the aforementioned instances, but can be applied to many other cases as well. 4. “Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest, he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it.” This last part concludes by saying, that this mechanism of the “Invisible Hand” frequently leads to outcomes which are beneficial to society as a whole, which again is very much in line with the modern use of the expression. Arguments for other cases where the “Invisible Hand” leads to better societal outcomes, can be found all over the book. In summary, the “Invisible Hand” as it is used by Adam Smith in “Wealth of Nations”, refers to the fact, that individual self-interested actions can lead to unintended outcomes. Smith also states, that the unintended results of individual self-interested actions, frequently improve national welfare better, than actions which are consciously designed to do so. Smith mentions the metaphor while explaining two mechanisms (1. Self-interested investors prefer to invest at home compared to abroad; 2. Self-interested investors invest in industries, which are most beneficial to society), but he also clearly states, that this holds in many other cases as well. So, Chomsky is right in saying that Adam Smith uses the “Invisible Hand” in “Wealth of Nations” to explain some sort of “Home Bias”, but he is wrong in reducing the expression to this very specific instance. He acknowledges only the first part of the sentence, but ignores the second part, and even more importantly, he ignores the third part in which Adam Smith explicitly says that the two mentioned cases are just specific examples of a more general concept, which applies to many other cases as well. Chomsky seems to imply that the way the expression of the “Invisible Hand” is used and understood today, is somehow in contrast to what Adam Smith wrote, but this assertion is simply not correct. The modern use of the expression “Invisible Hand” is a completely legitimate interpretation, and exactly in line with how Adam Smith used it in “Wealth of Nations”. Chomsky’s reductive interpretation, which he has repeated many times over the years in many different places, is indicative of him being either disingenuous or misinformed. If we give him the benefit of the doubt by assuming that he is being genuine, then his line of argumentation reveals a very superficial reading on his part, and he would have been well-advised to read the passage a little bit more carefully.

@shammy1002 That's very civil and thoughtful of you, Shammy.

You just said no one associates Smith with free trade and then said it was Ricardos idea and then say Smith barely touches on it. So does he mention free trade or not.

@dmowings Who's opinions on economics do you value? Milton Friedman? David Rockefeller? Timothy Gheitner? Ben Bernanke? Yeah, I trust those guys and their "opinions on economics", haha, "opinions".

yeah that´s correct but why not ask anyone who has won the riksbank sign of nobel prize or something?

How exactly can an anarchist be a "soundboard for...statist ideology"?

@dick391 Well you are welcome to come to your own conclusions. I was simply putting forth some additional information about the situation which might add perspective; unfortunately this venue isn't really conducive to elaborate discussion. I will add, however, that moving from the horse and buggie to the automobile is slightly different than outsourcing jobs to countries with less stringent labor rights. Also, you may think it's illogical, but it could simply be different tastes.

He points that out quite often actually, this was just a short clip of his ideas.

Read over what I said more carefully. I never assumed the lower price was "justified" (a rather morally loaded term you used there- what one person considers just maybe considered unjust to another). But whether a given price is just is completely irrelevant here. Arbitrage serves to reduce the price differences between two markets paying different prices (justified or not). Textbook economics.

My apologies. I have only skimmed the comments and must have missed the earlier dude.

CONT: I made a mistake. The number of people brought out of poverty in India and China is 500, 000, 000 Change 500,000 TO 500 MILLION

@radicalKT Obviously a rural worker would only take the job if it is better than their current situation, which is admittedly rough. If you deny them the opportunity to make such move (via protectionism to prevent capital investment), how on earth are you making their lives better? Do you see the flaw in your reasoning now?

@babayabadabadu was referring to the "you are stupid" comment earlier in the stream.

The progress of science and technology are linked to DoL. It is neither good nor bad, but quite possibly the most powerful character of the human condition.

@26Keano Noam is an anarcho-syndicalist. He's said before he supported the anarchist movement in Spain in the 1930's.

@radicalKT I was talking about the GDP of advanced (first-world) countries, including the U.S. Okay cool so you've just admitted that I'm right. Why all the anger dude?

where is the part where Adam Smith says division of labor will be dangerous in the long run ? I'm making a paper on Wealth of Nations and the Theory of Moral Sentiments and it is clear he is very much in favor of division of labor both in the short and long run.

We can and do in some cases own and control many or all of those things through public trading and free markets. The problem that Dewey is pointng out is that we are increasingly disconnected as we as a society become lazier and allow or are duped into relinquishing it. Politicians are owned by big financial interests and social engineering has us divided and squabbling over relatively minor issues while they orchestrate changes in legislature to benifit those who got them elected.

@dmowings I disagree.

Chomsky is actually right on what he says about the invisible hand and division of labour. I see a lot of people getting upset but instead of answering incoherently just look it up in the Wealth of Nations. Chomsky is actually right.

know i should: maybe now i found it might gutenberg(org)/files/38194/38194-h/38194-h.htm#Page_185

Anarcho-syndicalism doesn't imply total lack of state, it suggests it as an ideal but recognizes the need for a replacement construct, suggesting a worker's union type of system. This is still a state, and honest Anarcho-syndicalists recognise this and are unable to reconcile this with the core pricipal of "power corruption". Naom has written maybe 100 books by now, I doubt anyone, myslef included has a complete grasp of all of his work.

@radicalKT Btw in your example, the U.S manufacturing sector decreases by more than the China manufacturing sector increases. Why? Because the Chinese labor is lower cost than U.S labor. Overall, the global manufacturing sector has declined not increased.

the invisible hand has now turnt into an invisible toe

"Goods are worth whatever labour went into producing them"- No. For starters, costs other than labour go into most goods (i.e. materials, overhead, etc.) Plus there is the additional value of having someone else produce the product for either cheaper, faster or better quality than if you were to do it yourself. That's why you pay more for a burger at a fast food joint than if you were to buy the patties yourself. They make it much faster and if you're not a culinary expert- perhaps tastier.

"As long as politics is the shadow cast on society by big business, the attentuation of the shadow will not change the substance."

@NerdsMakeMedia Just go to Wikipedia & search "Invisible Hand" and, about half-way down the page is the quote from *Wealth of Nations*. It refers to the fact that even though the (proverbial) butcher, baker, & candlestick-maker r seeking-&-acting-on merely their own subjectively-perceived self-interest ("buy-low, sell-high"), their interactive-composite effect, or result, in the market is one in which maximum possible satisfaction of utility(s) is obtained most efficiently. Cf. Joe Stiglitz.

I'm intrigued. So are you suggesting limited government isn't necessary for say, solving the public good problem or the tragedy of the commons?

@radicalKT Btw the fact that someone has two bad options to choose from doesn't mean that they have "no choice". Obviously you have two compare the two bad options and pick the lesser evil. In this case, the lesser evil is working in factory under brutal conditions rather than starving to death on their farms. Based on your reasoning you'd rather they suffer on their farms then be allowed to move to the city. Do you honestly have a degree in Economics?

You can't spell the phrase "contrived bullshit" without the word "idiot", either.

If what Chomsky says is correct, then he makes Milton Friedman and Ron Paul look like children. Goddess gracious

@NerdsMakeMedia Now, it is true, as the Wikipedia article concurs-with-Chomsky in pointing out, that the phrase in the *WoN* occurs in the context of domestic producers (supposedly) preferring (at least oftentimes) domestic trade partners to foreign ones, when feasible, but Smith nonetheless was referring, in other words, to the idea of (as Hayek puts it) a result or upshot that is "the result of human [inter]action[s], [yet] not of human [intention or] design." I.e. a COMPOSITE outcome.

""In order to restore democracy, one thing and one thing only is essential. The people will rule when they have power, and they will have power in the degree they own and control the land, banks, the producing and distributing agencies of the nation. Ravings about Bolshevism, communism, socialism are irrelevant to the axiomatic truth of this statement. They come either from complaisant ignorance or from the deliberate desire of those in possession of power and rule to perpetuate their privilege"

@NerdsMakeMedia He mentiones it in the moral sentiments several times. He mentions this concept in different meanings, unrelated to one another, in one particular nuance as the invisible hand redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor etc. Chomsky is correct in saying that he never has used the invisible hand in the sense of the price mechanism controlling equilibrium or that everyone would be better off. He is a strong advocate of government intervention, on a constant basis.

guy talking about today what was only known 300 years ago different time and world

Arbitrage (buying at lower price in one market and selling a higher price in another) serves a very valuable purpose. It lowers the price in the market that is overpaying for a product.and raises the price in the market paying too little. Absent arbitrage (or competition in general), the buyers paying the higher price in one market are stuck indefinitely paying a higher price than they should.

Not sure why you would indicate I need to take such a class when at no point I said markets were perfect. You're falling hard for the fallacy that I described earlier. Government subsidy is a classic case of government failure, not market failure. Wage abuse is a morally loaded term. But let's suppose a case of truly, unbelievably terrible wage abuse. Arbitrage still serves to raise the wage (price) of the "abused" through higher demand and to lower the wage of the "non" abused by lower demand.

[continuation of previous comment] Each individual becomes more expert in his own peculiar branch, more work is done upon the whole, and the quantity of science is considerably increased by it." - Adam Smith (talking about Division of labor in thinking)

@0Jonnyboy000 A bubble is followed by a compensating crash. "False wealth" is increased but then subsequently decreased. When you average a full economic cycle in your analysis, you can't attribute the economic growth to a bubble. That said 1993-2007 includes two bubbles but only one crash. So you have a point.

@babayabadabadu why do you say things like that? How about trying to engage in civil discourse?

"By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain; and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention." I think that is fairly explicit. The language can be a little challenging at times so I'm not surprised people get it wrong.

@0Jonnyboy000 Another example is the transition from a manufacturing economy to a service economy. This is naturally occuring phenomenon that had been occurring well before NAFTA. How long did it take for increases in service jobs to overtake manufacturing losses, again I'm not sure. But most economists would agree that this has been a net benefit in the long run. The counter-argument that we should limit productivity gains to prevent short-term creative destruction seems illogical to me

@ but Chomsky conveniently forgets the requirements that need to be in place in order for free markets to work. Adam Smith advocated a limited role for government. he supported an independent court system and administration of justice to control crime and protect property just......like Hayek did ....

@radicalKT No you're way off. The manufacturing sector (as a percentage of GDP) has shrunk precisely due to advances in technology and utilization of cheaper labor (higher productivity). It now costs us much less time and resources to produce manufactured goods of a given level of quality. This frees up more resources to be spent on services It's a common cycle that all advanced economies go through. Demand for services increases more than mfg goods as national income rises. Econ 101

Hilarious/depressing that so many in the comments think they're better read than Chomsky about this.

@AroundSun Chomsky is very well informed about the realities of our world socio-economically, politically, etc. Anarcho-syndicalism is not as vague and ill defined as you think it is. It's process oriented and it's based on people partaking in active, direct democracy and institutions that protect the rights of the common man all ON A LOCAL LEVEL and slowly overtime dissolving the far reaching empires that oppress the masses throughout the world.

In fact if one is truly concerned about wage abuse, the better alternative is free trade. This is because wage abuse is by definition a problem of insufficient competition. If there are many buyers of labour, it is far more difficult to commit wage abuse. On the other hand, wage abuse is far more often enabled by government policies such as tariffs, regulations, licenses, patents etc that create uncompetitive markets. Natural monopolies do exist but they are the exception not the rule

@dick391 His argument, if I'm understanding him right, is that the supposed effect of NAFTA was increased trade between Mexico and the US, but what we're really seeing is corporations now moving their goods from the US to Mexico (implied: to exploit their labor) and then back to the US. Sure, there is more stuff moving across the border, but it's not really trade. The effect has been, as is argued explicitly elsewhere, that the trade agreement is very one-sided in favor of US firms.

Inflammatory rhetoric. "The anarchosyndicalist Fernand Pelloutier asked: "Must even the transitory state to which we have to submit necessarily and fatally be a collectivist jail? Can't it consist in a free organization limited exclusively by the needs of production and consumption, all political institutions having disappeared?''

Gov. should charge based on services, like its dealing with other nations and facilitating the importation of foreign goods. import tariffs as the sole means of generating revenue.

So given that both markets and government will fail (perfection doesn't exist), the question is which one results in a more economically efficient outcome. For example, profit is not a perfect measure of what the customer prefers. But government has an objectively far worse track record of determing what the consumer prefers (and a great track record at rewarding its favored political constituencies for reasons other than economic efficiency or ability to produce a valuable product to society).

@fifh89 He's simply advocating people taking up a plethora of skill sets and responsibilities within their communities so they're better informed, overall, about each area with which they have involvement. If someone works in politics but doesn't understand the kleptocratic machinations of the economy, they can't very well do anything to create a more ethical, humanitarian socio-economic system. If you're a doctor but you also understand the law, you're now better prepared to perform 2 functions

i'm curious about his comment about how the division of labour will make a person a mindless machine. the alternative i guess would be a population of brilliant, enlightened subsistence farmers? this should ensult anybody today that is employed on any level in any industry/business.

@AroundSun The idea is that you dissolve concentrated, hierarchical, centralized power. So, for example, if I want organic food from a farm, I buy it from the farm right outside my town. If I want to establish a democratically decided upon social code for my town, I engage in local level, direct democratic governance open to the grievances, voices, and concerns of EVERYONE. It's not ill defined and if you've taken the time to read Chomsky on Anarchism, Rudolf Rocker, etc. youd see that.

The problem with criticizing Adam Smith is that when his policies were adopted following the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846, it brought in the greatest period of economic growth Britain, if not the world, has ever seen; where the general lot of the average man improved vastly and where hard work and an enterprising mind could get u untold riches. What is 'moral' is to have an even a playing field as possible, and not to treat people differently because of a perceived disadvantage

I just baught adam smiths wealth of nations. and it is a good read

Unfortunately, Chomsky never argues what the alternative to labour is.This sleight of hand disables you from seeing that the alternative to grinding labour is death. It's all relative.

Having parts made in illinois and then assembled in mexico is still trade. It is a trade of money for labour.

What Noam is talking about is state capitalism. The central bank and national currency led to consolidated banking, which led to consolidated industry.

@26Keano Also, I don't think you're an idiot but I would caution against assuming that if a philosophy or outlook on the world does not immediately add up logically to YOU, an individual, you should not assume that it does not logically make sense. Perhaps you are missing something central to the argument and find ease in complacency and denial of worthwhile arguments. I don't know, you should read Chomsky on Anarchism, then you have the right to ask "What is socialist libertarianism"

@warbread His argument is a total non sequitur. Whether the trade occurs inside of a corporation or not is wholly irrelevant. The real issue is whether both countries are better off economically as a result of free movement of labor and capital. A US corporation that sets up a plant in Mexico provides jobs and capital investment for Mexicans that wouldn't have existed in the face of protectionist policies. In turn it provides Americans with a cheaper product (or better product at the same price)

Exploiting Chinese workers? Raising their wages!

Perhaps you should re-read Noam's stuff. From wikipedia: "Ideologically identifying with anarcho-syndicalism and libertarian socialism". Just what do you think the "syndicalism" and "socialism" modifiers of those philosophies suggest. Are you familiar with their intricacies and implications? I do not have time to educate everyone.

one of the recruiting myths of orthodox economists and the like is that if the state weren't involved in the economy competition would be so fierce it would be impossible for a monopoly to form. the fact is capitalism is not just the market. it also rests on a very specific institutional structure the consists of a blank check as to how much can one own and at what expense. they don't seem concerned with the potential authoritarian character of private bussinesses.

When people are being paid far less than the value of their labour, they are being 'exploited'. You can't get mansions or Lamborghinis without ripping someone off at some point, whether it be through overly high prices or exploiting people. While one can argue that the value of people's labour is unequal, people with mansions simply can't have earned that much money without exploiting people. You can hardly call it fair that some must earn their wealth while others don't simply by luck of birth.

I thought it meant the invisible hand of a businessman picking your pocket and sliding your home out from under you for another nickel. My bad.

how orthodox is chomsky's libertarianism?