No, that's exactly what Chomsky wanted to point out...US success isn't a direct consequece of free market, there are many factors economists overlook.

Can you clarify what you mean here?

@@luistirado6305 do your parents also have normal kids? :)

@@luistirado6305 seriously, broseph. I lean social Democrat but even I recognize that milton friedman philosophy deserves scholarly discussion. Ron Paul carries the torch and even he is blowing the whistle on bad central bank behavior. Try not to fear opposing ideas. They can strengthen your position.

Shhhhh. It’s Chomsky

Exactly the point. ITS what he actually agreed to that led to the banks needing bail in the first place. He equated and associated greed with capitalism and that gave oompf to one of the understated tend3ncies of neoliberal ideology, which is to almost always never see the big picture. That is what led to the crash in the first place. Its actually one of the few areas I believe Milton either failed to fact check his evidence and arguments, or he was just pandering to his sponsors.

@@emmanueloluga9770 thats not at all true. Milton Friedman was against government involvement in the market. What caused the crash was government backed loan. The reason the banks where giving out loans to high risk people was because of Freddie mac type loan.

@@JoseGarcia-vi3pu Which was my point if you read my comment well. He was against big govt,, but his asserting that greed and capitalism are justified led to the nano and micro economic behaviors from the masses and people at large which in turn led to the crash in the first place

@@emmanueloluga9770 you seem like you haven't read much of his work. We all have greed is part of our nature, from poor to rich. Capitalism if ut had no government involvement his claim was that greed wouldn't matter because of competition. It would matter as far as motivation to be #1 but there would always be competition so things like jacking prices would be impossible. Its just so much i could say man i cant do him justice, my advice is if you interested read some of his work. If not that's ok lol.

@@JoseGarcia-vi3pu OK I gotta be calm and curb my passionsfor this. To keep it short, thats a load of unsubstantiated baloney, i.e all the talk about greed. Its still one of the most intellectual and pragmatically regressive assertions permeating human discourse today. It literally is the one and most valid criticism of Milton ever put forth and it has stood the test of time. Look, I am as much a MILTON fan as any other for his impact in pulling me out of economic and financial retardation, but please for crying out loud, let's not be disingenuous and disregard one of the most potent criticism of the man's pov ever put forth. Nobody is exclusive omniscient, all have flaws and this was Friedman's most prominent. The premise of greed and its influence is probably ly one of the most misunderstood and misleading assertion that refuses to leave discourse especially in Economics and sociopolitical circles. This is my question to you, what is GREED? and what do you understand is its relation to human behaviour?

Wouldnt want to live in US backed Argentina Dirty War, El Salvadoran Civil War or Bautista's Cuba, or Nicaraguan Death Squads. So you look at the US prefered dictators of those areas and theyre all objectively bad as well overall. They use Venezuela as a punchline and yet I dont see these types with a desire to be a US backed United Fruit Company banana plantation worker in Colombia as some glorious paradise. I wonder why?

If i had a penny every time socialism worked, i wouldnt have any money. Coincidently, if it did work, i wouldnt have any money either.

@@mustafa8988 and I wouldn't even bet your money of it working anytime soon

@@sirscrotum I've never seen a more loaded question in my life. Now what is to you a desirable alternative if I may ask

@@shotarodeniet3301 I took a moment to read about the El Salvadoran Civil War. El Salvadoran Military Junta Government was backed by BOTH Reagan and Carter governments. Are peasants in these countries wrong for not supporting the US backed regime carrying out peasantry massacres, assasinations of labor leaders and Clergy, state kidnappings/dissappearances? It's not wrong to not like being massacred: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Mozote_massacre This is too important, this is to secure our coffee bean export from El Salvador afterall. My point is, I look at the violent brutal dictatorships we propped up in Central and South America, right wingers use Venezuela as a punchline but often enough their favorite countries there sound like war stricken shitholes themselves too. Theyre basically criticizing victims for.not putting up with abuse from their abusers.

@Nix i know they would both need hearing aids

Thomas sowell is a fascist

@@xxxxxx-kk7mh not agreeing to me = Fascist

@@aswinunni1811 nice strawman

@@xxxxxx-kk7mh dude I'm a left libertarian and I don't see reasons why Sowell should be called a Fascist even if I have disagreements with him. You can very well present your points and evidences on why Sowell is a "fascist" rather than straightout name calling.

It were good for laugh only. Chomsky is a total idiot.

@@rocketdock11 absolutly, Milton Friedman already had a video debunking this statement. We can still let Thomas sowell debate Chomsky, but the outcome would be the same maybe even worse for Chomsky

Chomsky: "I never described Chavez's state capitalist government as 'socialist' or even hinted at such an absurdity. It was quite remote from socialism. Private capitalism remained ... Capitalists were free to undermine the economy in all sorts of ways, like massive export of capital." This man is quiet a criminal. Worth nothing, but jail. I can only imagine how many people are he tricked into believing that capitalism is evil, poverty is awesome. @@rechtsiscorrect8218

@R. W state capitalism is , which is what he was describing

@Muhammad Azim Sorry, I wasn't aware of the fact that he is smart. Maybe because I am stupid. Good luck do be successful.

How many risks did Professor Milton Friedman take? He was talking head.

I don't think you know what it would've implied if the government would've let those banks fail.

胖胖兔兔 yes, it is part of the profit and loss system, with an emphasis on the loss part also

Yea but he attributes their success to free markets

It doesn't matter whether or not he would've supported it. The fact is that whenever you have large inequalities you will always have political influence resemble that same degree of inequality. You will have governmental laws written to the advantage of the rich, even Milton admits that. You will never find a real-life historical example of the kind of non-government intervention that Milton advocates. It's impossible.

+RTWPimpmachine These are not opinions. That's just what these words mean: -All governmental laws and edicts are supported by force or the threat of force. -All market transactions are voluntary, or they are not market transactions. That's just a matter of having a meaningful definition. And if we can not agree to definitions, then we can discuss these things reasonably. If you'd like to insist that I use the term "free market" instead of just "market", I think it's a bit redundant, but I'm happy to agree to it for argument's sake if it's a semantic issue for you. Either way, I'm not sure what "right wing" has to do with anything. I'm certainly not interested in the "right wing" or "left". I would suggest that you try stepping out of that silly "left vs. right" "us vs. them" team sports nonsense sometime. You are likely start to think, and see the world, much more clearly once you do.

Also, everyone "voluntarily" decides their wage unless they are forced to work, in which case, their giving of their labor is not a free market transaction. It is a form of slavery. When you agree to work for say $40k, you voluntarily decide it is an acceptable wage and so does the employer who pays you that amount. The same is true if you make $4k or $400k. The fact that you cannot unilaterally mandate that your wage must arbitrarily be $40 million is because market transactions require mutual voluntary decisions from more than one party. Otherwise, they are forced transactions and are not free market transactions. On a related note: If people in China who make Apple products have fewer opportunities because of restrictions in their market from the use of force, then I agree that is a very bad thing. Still, with that said, you and I live under somewhat corrupt governments, I am sure. Within that context, are we better off with a job and source of income, or without? Are we better off with more options to choose from within that context or fewer? Is that somehow different in China? Those last questions are unlike the prior ones as they are questions of expediency rather than principle. My ideal, certainly, would be for fully voluntary cooperation between people. That is ultimately, all a "free market" really means, by definition.

+RTWPimpmachine Yes, any debate is fairly worthless if you are going to avoid reasoning, poison the well, insult, misdirect and argue in bad faith. You've got me there! :) Unless you are open to reason, then it's really no debate at all. You're just letting off steam. I would like to address just one portion of your argument, because it is the only one really worth speaking to, I think. It seems to contain your whole central argument within it: --"Just listen to your false dichotomy about "the government" and "private enterprise" in its enforcement, LOL! Do you still not understand that they are synchronously linked? For example, who the fuck enforces contracts? Enforces patents? Carries out litigation?"" In a society that has a government, the government tends to do those things. That is an intervention into markets and not completely ideal, perhaps. I would be happy to agree with you on that. In a completely free society, such things would be done by voluntary, non-governmental institutions. To some degree, this is already done in practice. Because government courts are so bad and so backlogged, many contracts and disputes are now taken care of through voluntary "binding arbitration", just as they would be in a freer society. --"the notion that the relationship between a worker and his employer is voluntary falls flat on its face by the simple fact that if a worker does not work.... he starves." Which is different from the choices that person would be presented with in a state of nature, how exactly? Alone on a hypothetical desert island, if you do not work to feed yourself, you starve to death. The same is true in a free society or in a totalitarian regime or anywhere in-between. (Unless of course, you rely on charity or holding guns to people's heads, which is still arguably a form of "work" on some technical, though evil, level. But ultimately, work must be done for you to not starve to death, probably by you, unless you are content to leech from others.) That's just a silly argument, for that reasons. OK, I'll go on, but just a little bit: --" the world is an incredibly complex place. Even a 'simple' product like an iPhone requires hundreds of components which are obtained from multiple areas of the planet," I agree, and so would Friedman. Have you never heard the "lesson of the pencil".?This is actually a core argument of Friedman's, and precisely why he spoke out against central planning. --"much of that extraction is, believe it or not, coercive." Yes, I would agree that a portion of it is, and so would Friedman. Where this is true, the "free market" is *not* at play, and it is a shame. We should indeed work to remove as much coercion from the world as possible. In the unlikely scenario that you were to remove it all, then all that you would have left-be definition-would be "the free market". That's just what those words mean.

+RTWPimpmachine "Again, the market and the state are one and the fucking same. You CANNOT have Capitalism without the state. This is true for all of modern history. " You nailed it bro and took that idiot to school.

+justin vaughn Um, no, simply reasserting the same thing again after it has been effectively rebutted is not the same as making a reasoned counterargument. "The market" means "voluntary interactions". "The state" means "socially accepted monopoly on force within a society". These things are essentially opposites. Not "one in the same". You are welcome to try and make a reasoned counterargument, but simply trying to change definitions and Orwell these words up with doublespeak to fit your personal agenda doesn't count as a reasoned counterargument. It's just dumb. Markets can exist with or without a state. And sure, markets for power and position can even exist within a state. But they are not "one in the same". "Markets"=completely voluntary interactions, "State"=socially accepted coercive interactions. Sure, there is an argument to be made that some small degree of a socially-sanctioned monopoly on coercive power could be beneficial beneficial to *protecting* markets from disruption in the form of violence and coercive power. That would be a pro-state, or "minarchist" position. But even under this paradigm, the two modes of interaction are rightly seen as being completely different. On the other hand, there are many who reasonably believe that even this minor interference of states into markets is bother counter-productive and unjust, and that no socially accepted use of force or "state" should be warranted. This would be the anarchocapitalist or "voluntaryist" position. So, in short: Make a better argument or go home.

@@TheCriticsAreRaving except milton never made that claim either, he only claimed that the US economy was comparably free in contrast to societies in the rest of the world and throughout history up to the point where he lived. Milton obviously talked a lot about the US's shortcomings in achieving true freedom. And, I think milton would agree that every year we are going further and further away from one

I understand Chomsky's argument to be that the US would not have its current wealth without having utilized state intervention. How would Friedman respond to businesses using their power to induce the state to act in their interests? I am thinking about our foreign policy in the "banana republics," that enhanced the profits and expansion of the United Fruit Company among others. Is the nature of an unhindered market that major market participants seek state aid for their interests, the largest participants - think oil corporations or agricultural businesses - would take greater power because they occupy a larger part of the market. That becomes a potential destabilizing force for democracy. Where would he have stood on the Citizens United case? When Chomsky talks about difference of values, I am thinking about the way he dismisses a young woman's question in this video kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ntl5o7Rovs3Zd3k.html When he dismisses micro level concerns with large macro answers, he does not really answer their questions. In fact, that woman is still waiting for her answer because the market still creates disparity in pay between men and women, and between whites and other races and Hispanics. If the answer to my micro-level concern is that I can wait and hope that my great-grandchildren will live in a world where disparity in pay has been resolved, that is a very cushy response from a white man. It dismisses my existence with a broad brush because I am a reminder that free markets do not work well for all participants.

@@cerose0 Freidman once made a point about disparity of pay, specifically between men and women. He said that if you take away the disparity then you take away the reason to employ the woman over the man in the first place, or words to that effect it was a while ago I listened to what he said. I think the point he was making was that without the disparity the woman may well not get the job anyway and from there prove her worth to the company, work her way up and eventually be paid more. I'm not saying he was right, just the point he made.

Friedman argued the depression was caused by a failure of the Federal Reserve to bail out banks, in his own words when the Bank of United States collapsed it was the duty of the Federal Reserve to "come in and flood the country with liquidity to prevent other banks from failing". To state Friedman would have been against the bail-out betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of his philosophy. edit -bank of united states,not bank of america

@@cloughie1981 I actually watched him talk about this. The US was on the gold standard at that point though. He was blaming the government for not printing enough money to watch its reserves and the size of the economy.

Thank you

that the idea of the "free market" and current reality of capitalism would never be sustainable without the intervention of government

💕👏🏽🙏🏽

If it’s not markets what is it? Of course it’s market forces that are responsible. Chomsky thinks he can cite slavery and government subsidies as evidence our wealth is not due to markets? This is silly

Virtually every economist would say that the economy would grow faster without these subsidies by letting more efficient industries produce more with the resources that were used so saying that the economic growth is attributable to these interventionist measures represents a profound misunderstanding of economics.

Who's freedom?

@@dylanm3519 He was referring to the people. Maybe you disagree with his ideas but Milton always claimed his motives were for the freedom of regular everyday people. He thought that was the most important value a society should have.

LOL! That guy was so full of shit

@@uzah88 Turns out rhetoric worked well on useful idiots for capital interst. His ideas gave the investor class freedom to exploit workers. See Chile today.

@@jeffreyblack6611 Um, you understand the average per capita income in Chile rose strongly and had a strong degree of involve in reviving Chile's overall economy and improving across the board the quality of life. Friedman was not a direct advisor but his ideas impacted the policies that led to such a revival in Chile. Then within a decade's time when Pinochet was gone the successor government completely changed the policies so when you criticize Chile today for those policies you are forgetting what happened in the past 40 years. Friedman also condemned the actions of Pinochet in the same way he condemned any and all dictators as his entire ideology stemmed from an opposition to the state and tyranny. When your entire argument against someone is they are "so full of shit" or "they were just working for *insert class*" then you are not putting up so much of an argument as an ad hominem attack showing a real lack of actual argument.

+Rick Hagedorn You are absolutely right! Ask Chile about the infamous Chicago Boys. I get a kick out of listening to neocons saying that Venezuela's economy depends solely on one commodity, oil; but they fail to mention that their neoliberal poster-child in Latin America, Chile, also depends on one commodity, copper. It represents 60% of its exports. Who are they kidding!

+Rick Hagedorn People virtually everywhere and in every circle (including followers of Milton) wrongly equate any involvement he's had with governments and economies with credit to him. The problem is, Milton has said himself for virtually his entire career "Yes, I've offered my advice many times, but it's never been taken". His ideals have never been intentionally practiced, his advice never been taken. It's only been by dumb luck or fringe circumstances that his ideal free markets have ever come about, and in those rare examples that he himself has cited, they've been unconditionally successful. (I believe one of them was Hong Kong for much of the 20th century). TL;DR. Milton Friedman has offered his advice and intellectual expertise several times, but it's never once been followed or taken.

+Edward Murdoch And yet one is booming, and the other has been a cesspool.

+John McClane If Friedman really said that his advice had never been taken how does he explain Thatcher and Reagan following his policies completely including busting unions and lowering the tax rate for the rich by 40%? Reagan's bible was Friedman's book, "Capitalism and Freedom". Pinochet was Friedman's puppet. Many of Friedman's students at the University of Chicago ran the economy under Augusto. Maybe Friedman said it but it doesn't square with his worldwide influence.

+Rick HagedornTheir yeah, 700% hyperinflation and falling incomes. Yeah those were the good times. Their economy has boomed since then. You act like Chile is this country in peril when it has an unemployment rate o around f 6.4% and a growth rate of around 2.5.. You obviously have no clue what you are talking about

+sir_NICKS_allot_ment Oh slavery is inefficient for slaves and compared to technology today. Way to create a fucked up premise than argue against it. Thats cute but yeah, obviously for slave masters, slavery would be a no brainer. You are aware that they didnt have computers and robots and shit back then, right?

+justin vaughn do some research, you might understand the premise properly. then you can start your journey of freedom from empty liberal sarcasm towards information based discussions. safe travels...

Umm no, you are committing the historians fallacy by trying to make the claim that slavery is 'inefficient'. Which is 100% false. yes its inefficient compared to networks of robots, but it seems like you are not aware that those did not exist 100 years ago. So in conclusion, derp, it was 'efficient' at 'the time'. /endderp

+justin vaughn the countries and states that left the practices of slavery were the quickest to advance and modernize, across the board. agree or disagree, it's of no concern to me going forward.

While it's true a lot of business owners in the South still wanted slavery, it was understood by the smartest of them that the costs were rising significantly. Slaves were never free, you bought them, in todays dollars for like $40,000. You had to be rich to have slaves and the costs didn't end there. The labor was free, but the food was not, chasing constant runaways and paying people to find and return them was not, the medical care was not, there were many ongoing costs in having slaves, just like keeping healthy livestock. The horses may not draw a paycheck, but they still cost a lot of money to maintain. The system we have today is actually no different dollar for dollar. Many economists have determined that the costs to purchase and keep a slave working for you is right on par with the current minimum wage, the money never changed and in fact has worked out far better for the masters because the minimum wage is controlled, it inches up a tiny bit over each decade but yet the profits grow by leaps and bounds per decade. Economic slavery allows the slaves to work for different masters that they "choose" but there are always plenty of slaves willing to take his or her spot. So the cost is roughly the same, but the slaves feed and house themselves, provide their own medical care. You don't have to worry about them running away and having to go find them, you don't have to worry about them slitting your throat in your sleep. I'm not anti-capitalism, the truth is, the few who choose to, can work their way up to better opportunities, they can also choose to live frugally very well on lower wages without taking on massive debt and living costs, but the system knows that the majority will remain enslaved because they are weak minded and weak willed. The reality is, even the "middle class" worker is enslaved, they HAVE to earn that paycheck. The average american has less than $5000 in the bank and is a couple missed paychecks away from total collapse. So perhaps they live in a gilded cage compared to the walmart worker but they have the same level of stress and misery, the same amount of chain around their neck. Only a few people out of every thousand will choose to become a master, either of themselves with self employment and frugal living, or of others, by building a business that exploits labor (I pay you $9 per hour to make me $50 per hour) They system still profits off of those few thanks to taxation so even the richest of the slaves will still pay incredible amounts of his or her wealth back to the masters forever. There is a reason no one can actually own property and have true freedom. No matter what piece of dirt they "sell" you, you will pay your taxes or they will take it from you. If your land is worth $10,000 and you owe them only $300, they can steal your land and sell it to someone else. I think it's important to understand that the system didn't become this way by accident, it has been well thought out and constantly changed each decade with new laws and rules to assume more and more control of all the wealth and labor. You can beat the system to some degree by making far more than you spend, so that perhaps the constant shakedown doesn't affect your quality of life, but most people never get there, and if you do, you are still in fact a slave, you just have a better deal than most of the other slaves, you get to be a house negro instead of a field negro.?

Who did Friedman debate of merit? Chomsky would destroy Friedman.

On what subject? I will break out laughing if you say economics.

Friedman is a fraud. Enough with that clown

@@Maximilian-Robespierre really?? I think you mean Chomsky loo

Chomsky destroyed Bill Buckley. Friedman wasn't much smarter than that clown.

John Doily it’s successful in spite of the corporatist interference.

The US interferes and has interfered historically very little compared to other nations.

@@VeritasAtlatic Its successfull because of state interference.

@@daveruda No it's not. The countries with the least government control do the best.

Government control/regulations is what got rid of child labour, increased the safety of medicines, our food and protects our environment.. Why would you leaves foxes to guard hens by allowing corporations to voluntarily regulate themselves? Removing the social cost and disincentives to negative behaviour is a recipe for disaster and what corporations and a few weslthy billionaires have lobbied hard for as Jane Meyer explains in her book Dark Money.

Dude, Chomsky is nobody compared to Milton. There is no reason why Milton would degrade to that level.

@@DataLog Ok edgelord.

@@MonkeyDIvan it's true though, hear this tripe contrasted with the genuine thing would save a lot of idiots who think this man is worth listening to a lot of time :)

@@ayyleeuz4892 dude is a nut. But people still praise him

That encounter would have broken the universe 😆

Oh dear .. you’ve rather badly misunderstood what he’s saying ... he’s saying defenders of markets use non-market systems as examples of the success of markets .. it doesn’t work as an argument

Dear god how could you miss such a simple point?!?! He says that no major economy has developed using free markets: England, USA, Japan - all developed using a mixture of tarrifs, government guaranteed markets and violent intervention in trade (even aside from flat out slavery) This does contradict a dogma of free market economics

@@edwardjones2202 I mean throughout history markets have been part of countries, along with the state and other factors. That's why they say the freer the market the freer the people. For a long time they used to just call the study of economics political economy because of the mixture between how they both work before branching them off into their own social sciences.

It's always fun to see these dummies trying to defy Chomsky's brilliance.

@@jsquire5pa that's just absurdly wrong. Friedman 's idea was that the freer a market is the better it will get. And economists measuring the relations between freedom in the markets and economic prosperity affirm that. Of course there is no completetly unregulated market out there, but that doesn't mean that markets with less restrictions don't provide a sound example which promote the free markets. Chomsky is just wrong in his assesment and shows his misunderstanding of what a ''free market'' means when used by economists.

He was a very eloquent public speaker and debater, but Monetarism is a highly flawed theory

+william baker Are you a troll? Friedman was the central architect of the theory of Monetarism.

+NeptuneNexus Im sensing a lot of paid trolls on these threads

+justin vaughn It's weird isn't it? Like this guy here, who on earth could possibly think Friedman wasn't the foremost developer of Monetarism, let alone that he opposed it. I do actually suspect there's something odd going on, possibly paid trolling. But paid for by who?

+NeptuneNexus Yep totally agree. I think its important to point out that back in the days of slavery, the slave-owners could count on the good slaves to keep each other in line because "freedom is too scurry massah". So it may be a little of that as well.

Yeah, Friedman argues against state intervention and then Chomsky blames him for it.

​@@gwynedd1 Chomsky is pointing out that state intervention plays a much larger role than Friedman assumed and believed how the modern world developed. Friedman used the wealth of nations as his basically bible for capitalists as socialists use Das Kapital as a bible. The problem is The Wealth of Nations was a hypothetical analysis of niche market systems that would accumulate so much wealth they are to become wise to spill it into a globalized free market or it will become wasted wealth. Chomsky isn't wrong. Before the foundations of the ideas behind capitalism were founded, literal human slavery was a capitalists capital to be used up.

@@strongfp Given that I have read both those books and have a good idea of Milton Friedman, no offense meant, but I cannot agree with any of those points. I recall quite clearly that Adam Smith suggest slavery was dead capital because it would not innovate like Roman Freemen. There was also nothing hypothetical about Adam Smith. He analyzed both the past and the contemporary events of his time. The Spanish discovery of silver happened. The return of notes to specie for competing banks happened. The failed priced controls happened. He of course did not see a globalized money system that would prevent the exportation of metals from a saturated local market.... It was Marx that speculated into the future , which was where he went woefully wrong. He was in some ways an optimist. He never imagined the union of landed interests and the financial interests that were rivals during Ricardo's time. Now the FIRE sector is both the 1st and 2nd estate. Lastly Friedman believed in financial intervention in the role of government. I tend to agree that most monopolies are created by government. If they refuse to break up those monopoly then at the very least they should tax it to defray the public expense and untax labor and capital. However that is the Georgism that is bred into my beliefs which is something it seems neither the modern left or the modern right have even the faintest conception. Now where I disagree with Freidnman, and is again where you are mistaken. He uses Ricardo as his bible not Adam Smith. Trade in absolute advantage tends to leave a rent which stops race to the bottom, unlike comparative advantage style of trade complete with regulatory arbitrage. The winner may be the one that dumps crap into the river, for example. That is what may happen in a purely competitive market with unequal laws.

@@gwynedd1 For starters, Friedman is on camera many times stating he uses the wealth of nations as a logical guide to knowledge towards capitalism. "He analyzed both the past and the contemporary events of his time. The Spanish discovery of silver happened. The return of notes to specie for competing banks happened. The failed priced controls happened. He of course did not see a globalized money system that would prevent the exportation of metals from a saturated local market" This is only a segment of the story. Smith had an entire empire to analyze, and abolishment of slavery (in all forms) within' the empire and even outside the empire were a hot topic, remember rather "shortly" after his death, the royals abolished slavery completely, but not without a barrage of essays and letters from actual plantation and slave owners from the west indies. I do find it interesting how the next point: "It was Marx that speculated into the future , which was where he went woefully wrong. He was in some ways an optimist. He never imagined the union of landed interests and the financial interests that were rivals during Ricardo's time. Now the FIRE sector is both the 1st and 2nd estate. " Part of Marx's philosophy was purely based off materialistic dialectics. Meaning he used past events in history, to create a sort of prophetic thought process. I agree he was wrong in his predictions. but his overall analysis was rather spot on. And went in conjunction with Smith to be honest. " The winner may be the one that dumps crap into the river, for example. That is what may happen in a purely competitive market with unequal laws." This is not capitalism, and this goes against what Friedman ultimately promoted.

@@strongfp So? "For starters, Friedman is on camera many times stating he uses the wealth of nations as a logical guide to knowledge towards capitalism. " Does not mean he actually did. Every neoconservative uses Ricardian barter models. Obviously Adam Smith would be considered the most impactful father but they always used Ricardian refinements. "Part of Marx's philosophy was purely based off materialistic dialectics. Meaning he used past events in history, to create a sort of prophetic thought process. I agree he was wrong in his predictions. but his overall analysis was rather spot on. And went in conjunction with Smith to be honest. ' Indeed and easy to see where he got it from since I also read Hegel. The dielectric and the perfection of society. The easiest way to work one's way from that mythology is to read Schopenhauer who dispatched that idealistic nonsense into the trash bin. In fact most of what ruined Marx was that Hegelian BS. Marx's understanding of cost accounting and finance was actually quite good. I especially liked his understanding of loans to government being a form a soft money which was trade like gold only while robbing the state with interest. Marx was a great critic of Capitalism. He should have become a capitalism mechanic , not the pilot of the exploding moon rocket of communism which is good theory for a termite colony. "This is not capitalism, and this goes against what Friedman ultimately promoted." Well it is strictly speaking. Capitalism is giving the owner of capital the ability to make decisions. If your country decides it lets you employ children at the age of 12 then a capitalist will. My objection is that this regulatory arbitrage , makes it appear to the market that one is a better capitalist when its merely a different government imposed moral position with economic consequences. The importer should tend to enforce its own moral laws not shift them elsewhere and punish the local producer. That's were I differ from the free traders . In fact it opens the country to a scam. An international company can push for protective laws knowing it will shift production offshore and then enjoy destroying its local competition. Sure they will push for extreme standards to drive up local costs only to spew it out in China. That's what I would do were I an amoral capitalist. I don't just absorb economics books. I am also mildly a fan of chess. That''s how i would move the pieces.

That is what everybody should do. Economists describe the world, giving prognoses that are hardly ever turn out to be true. It's a human construct that can and should be questioned over and over, no matter if you're an electrician, plumber, linguist, economist, chemist etc. It becomes easier when you are a generalist like chomsky to critique because you have a broad overview over a variety of topics and you can adhere to the general rules of criticism.

@@krasssertyp No offense but you don't sound like you have much of a working knowledge of economics. There are fundamental principles in economics that nobody disputes. These are mostly the principles that were originally laid out by Adam Smith. The controversial areas are the ones that analyze human behavior at a large scale and how it affects economics at a macro level. These are controversial because they are really complex. People act with varying degrees of rationality, motivation, goals etc. I'll tell you what else is "a human construct" -math. That doesn't mean math is not a reflection of deeper truths and realities. At the end of the day, any field of study is a human construct in so far as we put it into a form that is comprehensible in human language. When you say that economists give prognoses that hardly ever turn out to be true, that shows how simplistic your view of economics is. Economics is an incredibly complex discipline and how accurate your prediction is depends on a lot of factors that are out of your control. For example, economists can make predictions about a recession but the actual outcome depends on things like actions by the fed, internal statistics within companies, actions by executives of large companies. You may make a prediction that is true based on the assumptions you've made but there are all these variables outside your control. A biologist wouldn't dare criticize a nobel-prize winning physicist about the validity of the theory of relativity but economics is so political that anybody can have ideas that will solve the world's problems :)

@@aarontewelde3577 I disagree because when it is right what you are saying then economics is not even predicting but fortune telling. Thus, I highly doubt one needs a field of study about fortune telling. But that's just my personal opinion. Please don't mix up hard sciences like mathematics, physics, biology and so forth with soft sciences like economics which tries to facilitate hard science's instruments, such as math, to its field of research. Math btw. is a paradox in itself (Russell's paradox). It works although it cannot state why it works. Economics outlines forms of human being and living in societies. This is why it can only be descriptive.

@@krasssertyp You're just throwing the baby out with the bathwater if you're going to dismiss the study of economics just because analysts get some predictions wrong. Even predictions have a method to them and they're not just "fortune telling". Sure it is an incredibly messy discipline but that only tells you that it is not wise for a few highly intelligent people to try and meddle around with an economy, especially one as large as the US. That is why people like Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell advocate for an economy to be modulated by individual interactions in a market place. Even the most brilliant economist that ever lived is not as wise as the invisible hand of the free market. I actually agree with Noam Chomsky that the US hasn't really been a completely free market economy. That is why we've had a lot of artificially created booms and busts. I still don't understand though why he thinks more government intervention is the solution. Some of his other claims like the impact of slavery, 19th century protectionism, foreign wars etc on the success of the American economy are just absurd.

Bold it might be, but nevertheless correct.

"hardcore factual knowledge" i doubt facts are either Chomsky insisting on slaves building the whole of civilisation, or Friedman insisting undiluted capitalism is all good, and not potentially rather greedy and dangerous if left to itself, without government. they're just two extremes.

Milton Friedman would spontaneously combust. His monetarist ideas are an ultimate failure.

There was no match between Prof Chomsky and Friedman. Friedman was a pipsqueek, a prosititute for the ruling class. He took the place of another prostitute, Friedrich Hayek.

yah u can say that when you're fucking braindead, this guy knows nothing about economics, his model is cuba, venezuela, argentina, etc.

chomsky is linguist and would get absolutley obiterated by friedman

Although we see the detrimental and gluttonous effect of the power of advertisements i.e. manufacturing superfluous "needs" and then feeding it; I think Mr. Friedman did not underestimate the power of advertisements. He was of the opinion that a free market economy would not enable 'power' to concentrate in the hands of a few. He emphasized this through the adage, "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". He was a proponent of free market economy as it protects two things - Diversity and individual freedom. He held that each would protect the other, thereby enabling a greater flowering of the human potential (and effectively, one's self-actualization) that would not only contribute to economic freedom but all other kinds of human freedom as well.

@@omni1008 "He was of the opinion that a free market economy would not enable 'power' to concentrate in the hands of a few" If he thought that he was plain wrong, it is the best way to concentrate power and wealth in the hands of a few and that's exactly what it has done both in the US and abroad.

So people are stupid and cant tell what a good advertisement for what they actually want is, are you suggesting everything people get thats advertised is bad. Are you implying that it isnt government regulation of advertising that keeps big corporations in power? Is it the consumer who chooses the advertising for super bowls? Is it the consumer that puts big corporations in power? Big corp uses government to keep there grip thru regulations. Analogy to what minimum wage laws do for unions especially a favored tools of racist.

​@@Mr.Witness There have been significant and nuanced studies on the matter of the indoctrinative properties of advertising. If you care to just open your eye you will see how evident it is; clever marketting, targetted marketting, collection of user data, these are all things they are rallying together to control mankind. Nobody is saying people are stupid or that they can't know if it's something they don't actually want, but the thing is we are raised being told what to buy, what to want, and what to need. Namely, the main principle of market transactions is rational consumers buying good products. That's not what we have, we have quite the contrary; the advertisers make flashy ads with people that are recognised, they manipulate psychology, they have marketting teams, advertising teams, that do well more than just inform about a product. They implant the want into your head. And by the same token, instead of rational consumers buying good products, you have irrational consumers buying bad products. Products we throw out, products we don't use, products we don't need, and so forth. The government isn't so much the type of government most people here would be referring to. Most people refer to government as an extension and centralisation of public power; that's not what US government is, or for the matter any capitalist government. It's a corporate government, controlled by the rich, and working for the rich, that's their real constituency. If you look at the history of US government regulation, most regulatory apparatus has in fact been launched by the corporate-sector; the reasoning is quite simple, they figure that eventually they can end up running the regulators. It ends up with "regulatory capture", where the corporate sector is writing regulations and legislation to enhance their power -- which is what I think you're referring to. Bank lobbyists are actually writing laws of financial regulation, it goes to that extent.

Dird so your answer is take away peoples right to choose. Btw the only way the general public stays uninformed is by the various levels of government intervention and regulation preventing such widespread dissemination and onformation. You know most companies dont have any real estate on their actual product pack aging. You can track peoples behaviors all you want , it still isnt right or effective to justify imposing cost and control on a market. You people just want to run peoples lives under the guise of egalitarianism.

@Jaskaran Singh The secret ingredient is that Chomsky is wrong, but people will cheer on Chomsky because he presupposes their values.

Lol. Chomsky basically admits that the only alternative to the free market is imperialism or slavery. Brilliant argument for capitalism indeed

@Karl Marx Agreed. A lot of people don’t realise that, but also most socialists you see protesting on the streets don’t support free market socialism, they want forced redistribution of property and other forms of wealth. More over it would be very different from free market capitalism as depending on the type of socialism were totalling about communism? Then what type of communism? Marxism? Anarch-communism? See these things would tell us whether private/personal or public would exist and how and depending on that how free trade would occur. Under communism where no private property exists and is rather owned collectively and money doesn’t exist it would be barter but unregulated and free under anarchism communism, however I’m not sure if communal regulations would be allowed to exist, as that would mean it might risk it being free trade.

@Karl Marx Could you explain to me how free markets can exist in socialism?

@Karl Marx Not all socialists are Marxists and those that are, are mostly authoritarian rather than libertarian (Marxists) and that's the problem with today's society - authoritarianism and it's happening on both sides left and right but the real struggle isn't between left and right - but authoritarianism (left and right) and libertarianism (anarchism) left and right anarchists have more in common and can actually coexist peacefully unlike auth-right and left.

+Scow Moth Sailing Exactly.

You actually are not understanding what Chomsky is saying. He's criticizing Friedman for giving all the credit on our developed economy to the market while disregarding other huge factors. Of course he's saying nothing about what Friedman advocated because he's pointing out what Friedman didn't take in account. That's the main criticism here. You clearly don't understand Chomsky's argument.

I haven't been able to find a person who did not understand Chomsky. A third grader can understand him a become a proponent of anarcho syndycalism after night and claim moral superiority.

Chomsky is arguing that his value system and believe in markets as the source of wealth is drastically flawed.

There is no such thing as Friedman's theories. He is just a dude paid by economic elites to convince idiots

But thats just nonsense...and a serious misreading of history. The government was the actor that bought most of the land (via such acquisitions like the Louisiana Purchase) that formed critical parts of our economy. These weren't private individuals acting in their own best interest...this was a brand strategic goal of "manifest destiny" that many Americans shared together, and their will was enacted through the governmental bururacracy, which has existed since day one. There was no "libertarian dreamland" in the early 19th century...half our country's economy at the time.was built in the backs of slaves kidnapped and.sold into slavery from Africa. Friedman's ideas exist outside the realm of.reality...its libertarian fiction, plain and.simple. I believed as you did only a few years ago...but the reality of.the world around me.forced.me.to see things as they are, rather than how I had hoped they would work.

@@bernlin2000 This is incorrect. The southern economy was primarily hindered by slavery. The production of the south wasn't even half of the US economy. It was between 1 and 1.5 percent of the US' economy. www.the-american-interest.com/2016/01/11/was-america-built-by-slaves/

Tending toward a free market society greatly increases economic inequalities. To Friedman it's not a problem, because people who aren't competitive in a free market system deserve to be poor. It's more a disagreement over a value system than over facts. I personally don't think (as Chomsky said) that these values are good for humankind.

Yeah, exactly

How did he digress? He was addressing the false notion that the US was built on "Free Market" forces and efficient, unabated capitalism.

@@Mmmmkay126 A linguist lecturing a Noble Prize Winning economist on economics. Chomsky has no idea what he is talking about or is just lying. I actually had the honor of listening to some of Milton Friedman`s public lectures. He talks about a lot of this stuff. 1. Milton Friedman was never a protectionist. He did several documentaries on this actually and wrote many books. 2. Both non capitalist and capitalist societies had slaves. India had more slaves than the entire Western Hemisphere. China had even more slaves than them. Berbers sold more white people into slavery in Africa than there were black slaves in the Americas. 3. Colonization actually saw an economic increase for the colonies and an economic decrease after decolonization. Example: India 4. It was usually more expensive for Britain to keep a colony than the value it got out of it. 5. Slavery generally speaking doesn`t produce wealth. A good example is the industrialized and capitalist North when fighting the slave holding poorer South in the Civil War. I could go on.

Chomsky thinks USSR wasn't real socialism. Lmao no one should take him seriously

@@gabbar51ngh what's your argument as to why it was real Socialism?

Why would you think he wouldn't? Why does explaining US history mean that he you think he doesn't understand world history? He even explains that France is built on the exploitation of Haiti.

Youre missing the point

@@RickyHarline class struggle, violent revolution, seizing of means of production and Dictatorship of the proletariat was all present there. Maybe I should send an article what Bolshevik revolution was about or on what basis USSR was formed. Denial of USSR not being socialist is silly, dishonest and shows how much of a no true Scotsman fallacy is seen as a logic in the minds of socialists.

@Calum Tatum how can a libertarian be a left wing? isn't left wing (especially US left wing) is in favor of a bigger government role in the economy while right in is in favor of smaller government? Heck, even US left wing is much closer to full blown socialist than europe ( such as AOC and Bernie Sanders (his healthcare proposal including fully abolish private insurance, that no countries in europe with 'free healthcare' even stupid enough to do)).

@Calum Tatum 'Decentralisation of power through reforms such as welfare.' Sorry, what? Welfare is about as big state as it gets.

Sipri M No, libertarian and authoritarian are on the Y praxis of the political views, left and right are on the X axis. Anarcocommunists are the furthest you can go with libertarian leftists, whereas the so called “Anarco-capitalists” are the furthest you can go with libertarian right wingers. State communism and anarco-communism are both extremely left wing but totally opposites in regards to the Y praxis

@@reneelucero2923 What would anarcho-communism have in common with state-communism?

@@yy08nbd Delusion?

That's not what he said , he's saying how much more efficient the slavery was for the southerners , not that it made them more powerful relatively

so your point is what? That slavery was of no economic advantage? Why did they do it then.

The South was rich, or a small group of Southerns were extremely rich, but that wealth was tied up in assets that didn’t translate to military power. The North had industry and population. I don’t know which region was as a whole richer, but Mississippi had more millionaires per (white) capita than anywhere on earth, of course everyone else in that system, be it poor whites and especially enslaved blacks, had little to no wealth. The South was an Agrarian economy, the North was industrialized, these two economic systems with all the great and terrible things that accompanied them went to war and Agrarianism didn’t stand a chance.

@@zackwhite501 I think a commodity like cotton was the reason for it. Mississippi was the cotton silicone valley.

+100milnic Actually economics is primarily a positive science if you've actually read any research. And the mathematics and statistics that are used are not pretense. You can use mathematics and statistics to prove the quantity theory of money or comparative advantage for example.

+100milnic You're so right. I've been trying to put this into words for a while. And you just did it rather well atcually. I have two degrees in mathematics and after college I became interested in economics. And when I tried to argue with some people in economics about the fact that the US economy is sort of exhibiting a vicious cycle of hyperinflation which is being siphoned to the super rich who are now backed and insured by the government- they typically go into the Milton Friedman like ultimately antidemocratic spiel that the government is the source of all corruption etc. and that the private sector deserves ALL of the tax cuts and subsidies and handouts and control of the government that they can get because they make profits and make the wheels go round. So of course I brought up the public sector and how it is gutted year after year despite being the source of the lion's share of innovations in science and technology as well as the largest employer in the country by frequency either directly or through private contracts etc. This is when they usually sort of talk about how some people are worth the money they make and how the market will decide and double back down on the idea that the government is the problem. Nevermind the idea that the government should be held accountable through due process and the democratic process etc. The problem is that there are too many moneyed interests for economics to ever really be a legitimate "science". Because they basically start their own think tanks and fund research to use the objective ideal and mathematics to propose their assumptions, get them to be accepted as true, whether they are or not, and that leads to the conclusions that they want to see. It's basically a kind of assuming the conclusion fallacy. The way Milton Friedman does it is to just declare it- "the best results will come from the market." and "get the government out of the way" "the government isn't the solution to the problem the government is the problem" Well this would be nice, but it is not democracy. Meanwhile "The golden never-do-wrong free market will save us all- and will need no oversight whatsoever." The people that use this rhetoric are the SAME people that then when they are in power pass legislation that enforces market controls thereby killing the actual free market. But to be clear there can never be any free market because anyone with enough leverage, means of production and power can control the market. There is nothing inherently wrong with market controls. Reagan, despite his economic neoliberlism, for example practiced some protectionism for US industry. Of course many of his backers eventually pushed for the trade deals that lead to the shipping of industry overseas. Obviously the root problem is corruption, and many forms of corruption are entirely legal in the US. There is really no peace without justice and that is what we lack here in finance, politics etc. Anyways to wrap this up economic worldviews are often sold on a moralizing narrative. Which sometimes approaches demagoguery and classism. The irony is that many of them like Milton Friedman have argued against ethics and understanding in the market- they say that it is tyrannical for a government to enforce JUSTICE, and we are supposed to believe that the best outcome will inevitably happen. The outcome that will happen is that the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer unless the system itself changes. Many economists assume Malthusian fixed scarcity, Social Darwinism, Just World Hypothesis, and numerous other ideas in some schools of economic theory. They often totally ignore the sustainable long term gain over the short term maximal gain- and work really hard to minimize the study of the fallout that inevitably happens due to having washed their hands of social awareness, ethics, and mindfulness in business.

+James Gant I really, really enjoyed reading this. I also studied Economics in college (dual-degree with Computer Science), and was trained to speak of Economics as a "hard science"--a science that, by its own fortune, can always eradicate poor opinion with enough data. Unfortunately that's just not the case, and has become steadily more apparent the longer we spend merging the studies of Economics and Behavioral Science in to one another; the notion of equilibrium, rational actors, and phenomena like Malthusian scarcity (like you mentioned) in a traditional economy is getting thrown by the wayside as we figure out, with growing certainty, that a free market not only isn't truly free, but also a detriment to itself WITHOUT government. I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn't think certain government processes are grossly inefficient, which is why it baffles me that we spend so much time arguing between the free market and government as though they're paradoxical to one another's existence, and not on ways in which to make current processes less inefficient (capital intensive. corrupt, etc.).

+Collin Graves Well said. Your comment reminded me of the idea of the scarcity assumption. Because you brought up how inefficient the government can be, and I was hit with the idea of relative efficiency and how scarcity and efficiency of a kind can drive a product into being worth less and less to society. So efficiency is really rather relative to what is being spent and what is being gained. There are some instances when making money scarce causes the product to become extremely white washed, cheap, and dumbed down in case of like education for example. So with the education example- each semester the school has to make cuts due to austerity or whatever reason so they make cuts to wages and salaries of teachers and they replace lectures with labs, and they throw 5 classes into one lab and the computer teaches them. To a certain extent there is nothing wrong with this. But professors for example were once middle class jobs and they were seen as pillars of the community etc. Now 3 out 5 professors are adjuncts, paid hourly per contact hour. So they are paid just at poverty level wages. This matters because it amounts to several MILLIONS of jobs in the US that were once middle class wages now poverty level, and this hurts the local economies in the way of wage based consumerism. When it comes to education the quality of the product should be valued more than the cost. Certainly nobody wants their government to throw away money, but an education was at one time seen as a public investment into individuals which would lead ot more employment and higher wages overall. We knew at one time that wage based consumerism was more sustainable growth and source of profits. So according to PEW Research most wages have declined vs the cost of living etc. And what that amounts to is less and less wage based consumerism and more credit based consumerism. Indeed the big banks own about 60% of the US GDP in 2015. Much of this is just speculative driven profits- it is essentially a casino in which they move most of the leverage behind what is being bet for or against. While some of this is good for an economy. Too much of this kind of high risk (yet government insured) investment banking is disastrous and is what makes them too big to fail. It is a self sustaining mutual detriment- it is kind of like a drug addict holding a gun to the economy's head to get it's fix of subsidies and hand outs, tax breaks, and lack of government oversight and the government has to payoff the gunman or the whole world economy collapse. Meanwhile mainstreet runs on a small portion of all the currency. Supposedly every single cent of claimed big bank profits have been due to government subsidies since 2010. It is essentially government backed corporatism. Anyways as far as economics goes I think that it can be solved, possibly not well solved, but economics is just like any other game theory - certainly there are many factors involved, but there are probabilistic outcomes based on initial conditions. The narrative that is taught that capitalism cannot ever become a corporatism or support oligarchy or any other kind of tyranny is just not realistic. But I THINK this is the difference between economics and special interests who masquerade as economists. At the same time there are those who are bought just like with scientists in climate science or energy science and the fossil fuels industry.

+Able-bodied Jew You should see the equations they have come up with- it uses some pretty advanced math. That Noam Chomsky is a linguist is really just like his job. His role to society is as an intellectual- ammitedly kind of a dumb word, but accurate for him as he is very very clear and makes very cogent arguments about vast amounts of information. I think Sam Harris is an example of somebody who speaks very well, and is really well written but the ideas he presents are dubious, nonsensical, they often fail even the most basic analysis of assumptions etc. ....

economics, government spending always comes at an opportunity cost. what you see is what the government gave money to. What you don't see is what otherwise would have been created. see this article for more analysis: scottishlibertarians.com/more-government-spending-will-not-create-jobs/

I'm satisfied with the evidence.

no I just don't take you seriously because your comments are belligerent and passive aggressive. After an 10 year study of economics and history I'm satisfied with the evidence.

@@TheProgressiveParent a lot of people dont understand what opportunity cost is. they think its what you spend in order to gain something, not realising its what you cant pursue while focused on a particular goal.

that's the stupidest comment ever. if you agree with Milton simply because of his Nobel Prize then you're just being intellectually dishonest to yourself. Btw you should know more about Chomsky because he's more than a linguist.

yes, but none of his background is in economics. I don't agree with him because he has a nobel prize, he has a nobel prize and I agree with him simply because the evidence seems to be in his favor.

+Daniel Ospitia I mean they say he is a linguist, but what he did was really mathematics. And his understanding of economics, society, history, and social planning is rather unmatched as far as I can tell. I am glad they are doing these videos before he dies. I mean I can finish Milton Friedman's sentences for him. I KNOW those ideas like the back of my hand. It's not a matter of not understanding- it's just that what he says will lead to societal ruin. I know economic liberalism and neoliberalism like the back of my hand because it is basically the idea that money is right and will inevitably bring about what is net better or society. But this is aristocracy which has been sold to the american people. That is what it is really- aristocracy, and this was the reason the colonies revolted. Many bought that stuff because it was also sold along with demagoguery and classism and the just world view, a three tiered caste system with black people at the bottom where they belong because they deserve to be there. And many people actually like stark inequality because they like to think that they have won. When really most of their lives or likely outcomes are the result of the systems in place around them. Consider for example Obesity in the US which is largely due to putting sugar in the food, and companies selling addictive foods. Anyways economic neoliberalism just cannot work along side or for labor, the middle class, and common prosperity or democracy for that matter. Economic neoliberalism leads to oligopoly, plutocracy, oligarchy, and corporatism.

+guy man Henry Kissinger won a Nobel prize as well, and I'm sure there are many who have won you disagree with in general. Weak argument.

+guy man Argument from authority.

this interview is when milton died 10 years after, is way long past man, if you know economics then why milton woud not debate Maynard Keynes?

@@swanita9568 I do know that, I don't think chomsky should be debating milton. But this proves that Johnny comment is just stupid. is like saying why milton did not debated Keynes, Milton literally talk shit about Keynes right after his death. the double standard is unreal

@@swanita9568 Hayek and friedman have somewhat different different beliefs , Hayek belives in Austrian economic system (a rather slow system ) while friedman believes in neoliberal system . the difference of that is neoliberal advocate more on globalization , a more open free international market for the world , less tariff, less quota and allow any international corperation entering other country market . just like how easy for factories to build in india .

@@swanita9568 Marx and keynes hated protectionism yet it does not make them a free market enthusiast . the difference in policy between friedman and hayek . Hayek wants government to regulate monopoly and large corporation because large corporation destroy free market (which somehow makes him sound like keynes ) . Friedman believes that government is the reason for all these monopoly and should open border invite foreign monopolies to invade U.S so rather than monopoly than you have oligopoly, which is still not easy place for small business (which trump kinda oppose because he mention it would destroy domestic jobs) . See the difference between hayek and friedman , one of them wants government do more while the other told them do less .

@@swanita9568 I guess here we can agree, I do agree with your point that keynesian is inefficient in controlling monopoly but I still do think that neoliberal is also inefficient based on friedman style towards foreign monopoly and is outdated towards modern economic climate because friedman idea in a nutshell is basically making use of human 'Greed' . While Hayek has a more efficient and progressive economic style towards modern prpblem. like being more dependent on government towards international trade. You and I can agree that too much government intervention suck. but we also need them to do the basic like controlling the monopoly or demanding the rich to pay for 'added value taxes' which what every advance economic country have done except America. There's definitely need of government intervention in many things(but the intervention should gives more freedom towards 90 percent of population, not more freedom on the richest 10 percent) or else the country just be run by tycoons like Hong Kong

Meaning that, decades ago more people would have disliked it or liked it? 🧐

@@joyfulsavage9905 I am glad this wasn't long. I had to go back and watch it again since it was a month ago and I couldn't remember what he was talking about. I think Chomsky is right most of the time. But everyone has their opinion. You Tube has been around since 2005, so this is hardly decades ago. But if you tube was around decades ago I think you would find the same split. He was right about Haiti. I read about it earlier this year. France put Haiti in to debt. I think this was in the 1800's. For the “crime” of shaking off the yoke of involuntary servitude, Haiti dutifully paid France reparations over the course of nearly six generations - with interest. France should now do the right thing and return those payments, estimated to total $21 billion. Here is how it happened. www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2017/12/06/in-1825-haiti-gained-independence-from-france-for-21-billion-its-time-for-france-to-pay-it-back/#6d5b37312b31 And look up Chile and Freidman. It was his economic ideas that lead to Pinochet pretty much becoming a dictator and royally screwing up the economy.

@@sanford943 Because both Chomsky and Friedman are very competent and economically literate people, and thus both sides make sense.

I think I read about Hati and France on Consortium News. A great site by the way

@@joedenathan4775 I’m glad you say that. What makes me sad is when despite the fact that leftists can have the same level of economic literacy yet both of Chomsky’s and Friedman’s followers both make the other side to be complete idiots.

+David Lenz I think you're partially missing the point. The direct benefits were largely to those landed slaveowners, sure. But the materials used in northern textile manufacture surely gave US Industrial growth a significant edge over competing regions. Being in the lead is one of those things that has benefits beyond just the numerical margin of how far ahead you are. A lot of the benefits from this would be indirect. Also, don't forget that slavery affected all the slaves and their descendants in terms of wealth....that's not exactly a small portion of people, it's about 1/6th of the population of that time. Think about how much value they produced that they never benefited from. As far as his implication of causality, I'm not sure. I think in other places he's made it a bit clearer as our wealth resulting from general exploitation. To that end I think I'd agree with you. It's way more complicated than that, and there are a bunch of things that happened as mere chance that went in favor of the US that had nothing to do with slavery. But I feel like you're playing down its effect too much. There are other important factors, but paying less for labor always helps.

***** Everything that Chomsky said was true, but it never really addressed much about Friedman in particular. Point taken.

exactly, but that is hard because Chomsky is like a library. He knows so much and has studied so much thru 70 years it is almost impossible to counter him. He is one of the most brilliant minds. You are so lucky to have people like him.

+Bjarne Søegaard Unfortunately we have a lot more of his opposite (in the U.S.).

gm679 well, that will be difficult. 😊 But a continuous effort to stay informed from a multitude of different news platforms and view points supported by some actual studying of models and social science. Admittedly it is not easy when we have a full time job and other things to take care of. This is unfortunately another one of the big downsides with a totally business run society, it takes all you time awake to earn a days pay knowing that this way a population don't have the energy to rise up. As long as we have bread and a play 😊

Farhan Mckinnons then you don’t know anything about politics

@@puppy8125 yeah i support you. I think he should fucking swear to opposite side or just smile smirkly on his face if he wants to 'know politics'

Some people thought Manson was interesting

I have many problems with Chomsky.

Milton Friedman will never laureate Noam Chomsky on linguistic so please don't lecture Milton Friedman on economics. You are wrong. not only Slavery was bad and evil hurt the us economy by delaying invention of new technology.

Exactly. Thank you for arguing for chomsky

considering he supported violent intervention to maintain capitalist hegemony, he probably would

PaternoSter if your talking about Chile and the ‘Chicago boys’ your very wrong. Friedman has openly stated many times that he does not support the political regime of Chile but he does support the free market policies implemented due to their effects of lowering inflation, and how Chile became an economic powerhouse.

Exactly. He ALWAYS stated the opposite and against bailouts.

@@condaquan9459 that's a long-winded apologetic way of saying, yes he did support it

If you don't understand what he's saying, just say so.

Young Chomsky couldn't be touched.

slavery is inefficient compared to slave robots, you dork. you are committing a historical fallacy as you are trying to qualify slavery's 'efficiency' through the lense of today.

*historians fallacy, correction there.

Are you trying to make a point / counter-argument? What's with the "dork" comment? Are you a child?

no, I said you are a dork because your arguments are preposterous.

oh wait, I'm sorry, you didnt actually provide arguments. you just said preposterous things like claiming stupid arguments exist without backing them up.

Yes, and Freidman’s answer would be free market economy thrived despite (not because of) government intervention.

@@rezamajidi4711 and that wouldn't be the case either, since the American economy truly thrived during a period of incredible state intervention (1930 to 1970). would someone honestly argue the United States "thrived" in the decades before 1930? even separate from the Depression, the elderly lived mostly in poverty before social security, education wasn't accessible to as many children before public schools existed. true progress in this country came during the Progressive Era when the state expanded

Sure, let's make people slaves for centuries then say "oops", sorry we will end it.

You do know slavery went on for millennia ? People of all colour, religion and class have been captured and used as slaves. It wasn't created in the US or Britain you moron.. We're still slaves today when you think about it.

It still doesn't erase the fact that black people have suffered from slavery in America. Like Louis CK says, it isn't like everything has become amazing for black people since the slavery ended. I agree that we are still slaves.

Do you think blacks living in america today have it worse than the blacks left behind in Africa? Or even the blacks back in the days of slavery .. Im not advocating slavery in any way , its completely immoral .. im just asking a question.

It's true that black people owned slaves in Africa but the fact is European demand made it far worse. Just own it, white people fucked up. And blacks suffered from it. Not sure why you are trying so hard to justify it.

Exactly. Chomsky is popular not as a linguistic professor, but he's well known for subjects he doesn't even have mastery of.

It's called HUBRIS. I've encountered this kind of people who think they knew everything, very irritating. Dunning-Kruger effect?

lol. Chomsky is nothing but data.

"The economy" isn't some field of its own isolated from the critique of other disciplines. Don't engage in a reification fallacy. "The economy" is nothing more than the aggregate of human choices concerning material relations, justified and rationalized, something a linguist would be able to comment on.

It all comes down to externalities. If it is not lives that are squandered it is the environment, the very source of our livelyhood. There is always a huge pile (of money) that the delusional free-marketeers do not (want) to pay in order to secure it as (a) profit...

I'm not sure how else are poor countries expected to grow expect through international trade. yes forced labour exists - that is a political issue not a capitalist one. only a government can either honor property rights or take away individual rights. My understanding is that many factory workers in developing countries prefer working for companies than working in agriculture or subsistence farming - much safer and healthier. For many it's a choice like that. The best thing for those workers is for their goods to be bought by consumers who choose to buy them (regardless of language, country, or whatever) and for those countries to improve rule of law and rights. thats not something we have the right to enforce, but the economic incentives have worked historically. Hernando de soto's excellent book 'the mystery of capital' shows how poorer workers save huge amounts, but without security of contract, they cant invest (capitalise) on it. (this is what corporations were designed to do to - maintain trust over long distances). Asia shows that authoritianism can coexist with markets and economic growth though, interestingly. I would say the benefit to the poorer workers is as significant as it is to the consumers of cheaper goods, if maslow's pyramid still has any relevance.

​@@alexgibson2871 it's also a capitalist issue. as you know, the aim of the employer is to pay a worker as little as possible for the most amount of work. the aim of the worker is to work as little as possible for the most amount of money. forced labor and cheap labor is a clear imbalance of power where the likely multinational business is getting crippling hours of work from the worker and giving back the literal least amount they can that isn't nothing. capitalism says this is perfectly acceptable, damn worker's needs. capitalism simply requires the worker to get paid, cents an hour or dollars a day (if capitalism even requires pay at all, which is arguble in itself). in fact, capitalism says 14 hours of work in exchange for a burger and a tent is perfectly acceptable, regardless if the "worker" agreeing to these conditions is adept enough to understand that their compensation doesn't equate to the labor they put in. and in most cases if not all, the person agreeing to work in any given business isn't adept enough to understand the imbalance of what they receive in wages in relation to their labor because they don't have the same access to information that the company hiring them does. this is where it gets into the area of why exactly are CEO's making 300 times what their workers make, when workers are just as important to a business functioning as the CEO. and most of this isn't truly negotiated by the employee, wages are typically set by the employer anda range of what they're willing to give is advertised to a potential hire "My understanding is that many factory workers in developing countries prefer working for companies than working in agriculture or subsistence farming - much safer and healthier." >not necessrily always safer and healthier. machinery is incredibly dangerous and the fumes in factories can be far more detrimental to someone's health than being outside in a field. but of course no one is arguing for third world countries to remain agricultural and centered around farming and you're not saying that

What would that accomplish? We live under the neoliberal consensus, not the Maoist consensus.

T S should be more discussion/education in our society about dangers of communism / socialism full stop Especially given we are now witnessing a generation removed by history showing signs of complete ignorance to the horrors humanity have suffered at the hands of this evil ideology. Ta

@@primeroultimo6776 Well, Chomsky said: “Of course, no one supposed that Mao literally murdered tens of millions of people [in the famine], or that he ‘intended’ that any die at all.". Which is interesting considering that whether it was intentional or not shouldn't matter according to his judgement of US foreign policy. Double standard again by Chomsky.

What is the context of the quote, and where can I find his statement that intent does not matter in the context of U.S. policy?

@@primeroultimo6776 Oh that's from his debate with Sam Harris. That's basically what they are debating. Sam is making the argument that intent matters and Chomsky says that it does not.

+B Steele I think he would laugh that you called him a libertarian.

Firstly, calling his views naïve is completely baseless. Secondly, calling him a hypocrite for not "practicing" libertarian socialism is just plain stupid. How does an individual go about practicing it? It's a social, political, and economic system, not a personal moral philosophy dumbass. Thirdly, I don't understand this concern with bias. We're talking about politics and economics, there are different schools of thought, everyone has an opinion, a bias. Friedman certainly did, and spent his career trying to propagate it. Chomsky is just betting on his horse, there's nothing wrong with that, considering all that he has learned which shaped those views. I'm certainly not going to call Friedman naïve for his views, even though they have at least by some measure have been unsuccessful. There's still a healthy debate on this and will just have to see what happens.

"I am a liberal who went to MIT" seems legit

He doesn't have a net worth of 25 million. A simple Google search will tell you that his net worth is more than 2 million and that's it. That's not a lot of money considering the fact that he works at one of the most prestigious institutions in the world.

Youre a fucking moron. Humans have succeeded through coordination and collaboration. Not competition, dumb fuck

competition force people to compete or die if they inefficient they wipe out so more business shape up or be bankrupted.

No. Chomsky doesn't believe in profits through torture and murder, as opposed to Friedman

first of all, you cant just transfer evolution competition to humans. just like you cant explain human affairs by evolution itself. second, antelopes dont throw anyone to the lions, it just happens that on average its a antelopes with certain characteristics. third, the success of human as a "race" is due to working together and all the consequences.

@Prasanth Thomas questionable. one dont necessarily need to compete with others to improve. first of all you can compete with your own goals. second you simply have other intrinsic reasons. third you just want to achieve something. if a father for example works hard for his family, he doesnt need to compete with anyone. competition has advantages and disadvantages. if a economical system has to primarily focus on that is questionable and historically not the case. also your USSR example can be attacked. especially in the beginning it has significant growth rates. it developed into a serious industrial economy starting from an agrarian society. also it has significant growth rates during the great depression etc. (which btw the white house national security council of the USA admired) regarding a stagnant economy (in general, not about USSR): one might argue that we need a stagnant economy because the planet reaches his limits regarding growth.

Friedman was just wrong. Economists often are. Read some modern day economists like Blyth.

@@jgmediting7770 You are just wrong

@@Sobieskicharge total ignorance. At the very least, freidman is outdated. His ideas don’t work in the real world, partly because his assumptions were wrong. They also don’t reflect the modern organisation of corporations.

@@jgmediting7770 his ideas haven’t been implemented. We still have welfare

@@tcskips that’s because his ideals can’t be fully implemented in a democratic nation. The last 40 years are the real world outcomes of implementing his ideals in a democracy. The historical fact is they produce too much anger, misery and resistance within a population. That’s probably why the billionaires and their right wing propaganda system are now pushing for fascism, to protect that system and further its ideals in the face of public reaction against it. We’ve seen the outcome of his ideals being able to go further when Britain was less democratic in the nineteenth century. It wasn’t good for the working class. He was a complete shill for the interests of capital. His theories don’t even work anyway, they’re based on incorrect or outdated assumptions about behaviour, organisation and decision making. The only reason he is still given prominence is because the theories suit the financial interests of the ruling class.

Shh! Don't tell them that!

@@brendanm4379 Haha yeah I couldn't get past that part, in the first half he really seems to be arguing that every single developed country got something like most of their wealth from slave labor... Like yeah slavery was a thing back in the day, but does any serious economist really think that it's a large fraction of what got us to where we are today? The industrial revolution was just getting started the last time slavery was in practice in the west, obviously most of our gains in both wealth and standard of living came much after slavery, often many generations after. I really don't think there's any evidence for his claims there

@@zse4cft6bhu8mko0 slavery wasn't even a thing back then. A few rich families had slaves because slaves were slaves not fallen leaves from a tree.

@Dave S Of course that stuff happened, those things are human universals, existing in primitive forms in more or less every culture at some point in history. The real question though is why did Western countries get so far ahead in the years since slavery was abolished, and why did other countries who similarly held slaves not experience the same increase in standard of living as the rest of the western world?

@Dave S Thank you for this most astute response to all these Ideological views of history. The true history is never as Fcaeticious a many would like to believe or assert. In fact, many of these comments also fail to account for something as simple, obvious, and in your face as the colonial occupation of other countries (which is another variation of slavery), its actually crazy how much cognitive dissonance permits us as humans to see a spade and call it a shovel.

Yes a great economist indeed, he supported and orchestrated the chilean quote unquote economic boom chile is now an economic disaster and one of the poorest countries of latin america , at the time of Pinochet ( a tyrant that Friedman supported and met ) only 1% of chilean population controlled 50% of the whole nations wealth, that's an economic boom for sure

Plus he literally went to china and adviced the then paramount leader of china deng xiaoping to abolish all forms of price control overnight, thanks god the Chinese ignored him , economists argue that if china went through the fast privatization and liberalization that Friedman advocated for the results would have been the death of tens millions over the decades and china as we now it today would have never existed

And let's not forget about shock therapy in post soviet republics when his dream of a fast privatization and liberalization finally come to existence , I don't think we should we talk about the results i mean the inequality rate skyrocketed, millions lost thier jobs and homes, life expectancy for men dropped by 6 years and immortality rate reached a new high

He's definitely a great economist 🙃

Chomsky is a linguist, not an economist. Its ridiculous to have this clown speak about one of the greatest economists in history

You know labor is extremely exploited in Chile right?

@@jeffreyblack6611 Yes, 30 years after their implemented free market policies were thrown out with the fall of Pinochet, what is your point?

@@zackerycooper1206 Look how many years its taken for Reagans policies and Neoliberalism to hit fever pitch

@@jeffreyblack6611 Reagan promised one thing and did another, he never listen to Friedman do you even know the history of your own country? And Neoliberalism isn't a thing why are you so ignorant?

Your missing the point. The point is that there's nothing 'free' about a market system. Markets are always and everywhere a political phenomenon. Without the backing of thugs in power, they'd cease to exist.

How do you call the wage in a economical system where the labor force is increasingly replaced by automation and machines? Would that also be a suppressed wage? The problem with free market is that it naturally leads to monopolies and oligopolies. It does not lead to Friedman's "promised land", also due to the reason that consumers are not rational(i.e. they don't have complete information)

The slave era was a lot freer market than anything we have today.

I think if you study the history of slavery and colonization, you'll see it cost more to maintain these abhorrent acts than to prosper from them. Hence, Friedman was correct.

Xez1919 “The problem with free market is that it naturally leads to monopolies and oligopolies.” That is soo far from correct, in nearly every instance a business has become a monopoly due to government favoritism. In a true free market there are very few barriers to entry so you will never have only one seller to choose from. Furthermore alternative products easily compete if a company becomes a monopoly. Mostly it has to depend on what your definition of monopoly is I will go over the two most common definitions. Firstly the most common is a company that owns the most market share. This is easily countered with little to no barriers to entry in a market along with competition. Secondly if your definition of a monopoly is a company that hikes a price of a commodity up to absurd nights than again it won’t last due to alternative products. If ford has a monopoly on the auto industry and attempts to squeeze more money out of us than we can buy a Toyota or etc. Also don’t respond with the classic argument people against the free market use which goes along the lines of “well what if there is a monopoly on something without an alternative like food and water?” My answer to that is it’s impossible to have monopolies on survival commodities due to how easily it is to get them. No one can monopolize food and the same goes with water and shelter.

@@condaquan9459 thats false.

Well if you remove slavery and WW2, USA wouldn't be the rich nation it is now.

​@@tdb517 Slavery? Really, slavery? Astounding how little thought went into that sentence. The cotton gin did more for GDP than slavery itself did, as hard as that is to accept that's just the truth. I suppose slavery is why Ford and the Wright brothers managed to bring forward a product which the world wanted. I suppose slavery is why Tesla came here and developed AC electricity? I suppose slavery is why Africa is the richest continent in the world since that's one of the only few places where slavery still exists? Except it's not, in fact that's where you find the poorest. If the US didn't help rebuild Europe there wouldn't be any nation to compare it to either so? like come on, think just a little.

@@chaselewis8473 Yeah right, slavery is not profitable. There's nothing to say to this.

@@tdb517 Well given that many countries around the world still participate in slavery and remain extremely poor (and many had higher levels of slavery and for much longer period of times than the US and didn't reach where the US is) proves that it isn't a sufficient condition for a country to be wealthy. You're right there isn't anything to say about it cause it's common sense, you just reach for appearing morally virtuous and smart. You're neither.

@@tdb517 Many actually argue for good reason that slavery was actually holding the US back from reaching the pinnacles it reached.

Nothing happened with the industries after slavery was gone. And slaves were not cheaper than paid labor, because their morale was zero.

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah are you kidding?

The US is still the richest nation today because it enforces the US Dollar and Petrodollar at the barrel of a gun. Any country that refuses to submit is attacked (Iraq, Libya, and now Venezuela and Iran). Iraq came off the US petrodollar in 2000. Libya did likewise. Venezuela did it in 2018 and Iran in en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar_recycling

@@cockoffgewgle4993 We are the richest nation in the world because if capitalism. Venezuela is just the latest example of failed socialism.

@@randomkid7390 Lol. Can't even understand propaganda when it's explained in simple terms to him.

@@cockoffgewgle4993 Communism always leads to starvation because when there is no recignistion of property rights there is no incentive to create anything. Capitalism simply recognises private property rights, and allows people to sign contracts to trade what they have built.

@T S He is educated in Linguistics. As far as economics goes, he is an idiot

@Mark Collins true lmao..

@T S "The definition of education" Ha! That's like someone saying that Lionel Messi is "the definition of sports" when someone points out that he needs to improve his basketball skills before offering his opinion on Lebron James' fundamentals.

he still promotes and legitimizes a system in which one's livelihood is directly linked to their ability to succeed in an environment of competition. The idea that in a free market, people are "free to choose" is ridiculous. People's choices are all but free in that they are heavily constrained by the necessity to fill basic needs, and limited by how their abilities allow them to perform compared to others.

@@furiousmat These right-wing libertarians are just extreme advocates for tyranny. It means power ought to be given into the hands of PRIVATE unaccountable tyranny. The corporate system as it has evolved in the 20th century is just pure tyranny. You are inside one of these institutions, you take orders from above, and you hand it down below. What these right-wing libertarians want is so that outside of these institutions, there is nothing you can say or do about it. These tyrannies get to do whatever they feel like. This is the extreme opposite of what “libertarian” means in other parts of the world.

@@franciscomendonca8 Virtually nothing you said is relevant to what I said. I take it that you didn't understand anything about the point I was making. Case in point, I said nothing about inequality, or about whether inequalities were desirable or not. The point of my comment wasn't to advocate for or against Friedman's position. It was to rebutte the OP's claim that Chomsky's characterization of one of Friedman's values as "the ability to succeed in a system of competition" was wrong. I then challenged his assessment that Friedman's main value was freedom by pointing out how the system he advocated was not based on freedom at all in practice. Thus when you say "of course it's constrained by needs", all you do is actually support my point. As for your liberal arts comment, I can't quite see why that's relevant at all. But at this point, one more irrelevant comment won't make much difference, will it? I'm not a liberal arts student, i'm an engineer and mathematician working in AI and data science. Just an advice. Next time instead of going around insulting people for having opinions you just made up in your head, how about you actually read what they wrote. Maybe that way you don't embarrass yourself by overconfidently attacking straw men.

@@franciscomendonca8 You didn't point to a single fallacy in my logic. You're arguing against a position I never voiced. And now you're doing it again. But if you want talk about logical fallacies, here's one for you: your claim that we can flatly have either equality of outcome or of opportunity is a pretty nice example of a false dichotomy. If you answer again, please, instead of pissing in the wind once more, cite the exact statements of mine in association with your "rebuttals". Maybe doing this will allow you to realize how unrelated what you're saying is to what I wrote.

@@franciscomendonca8 kzfaq.info/get/bejne/mJmdZ8SDtp-1poU.html

Oversimplification of a complex situation.

And yet britain abolished slavery in 1833. Britains hight of power was from around 1815-1914. Why would they abolish slavery if it was so imensly profitable? And if slavery as you claim created the wealth we see around the world today, wouldent slavery be a good thing? You do realise that holding huge amounts of land and people littelary on the other side of the globe is increadibly expensive? thats why the europeans didnt occopy china for instance even tho they clearly could. Infact the only profitabel colony was india. Colonies were more of prestige projects to impress other european monarks then profitable enterprices.

Slavery didn't end with civil war. And USA kept his wealth thanks to the 2 world wars, in which there was, as you may know, a huge government intervention.

+Zeno 42 nice try to re-write history. If you had dropped out of college sooner, you may have saved a couple bucks.

+justin vaughn your use of ad-hominem is interesting to say the least. If you read "the wealth of nations" you will understand how Adam Smith criticized the imperial mercantilists who established a system in which it was more plausible for a country to militaristically control other people rather than freely trade and cooperate with them. Later, in the nineteenth century, the United States carried over many of these principles in what was Henry Clay's American System. Despite this neo-mercantilism, the northern U.S proved to be the most opportunistic place to live for hundreds of thousands of former slaves and immigrants.

+Zeno 42 not an ad hominem. that was an insult dude.

+Zeno 42 FYI pointing out ad hominems is usually reserved for the delicate types

This is the point which even the greatest of intellectuals have missed out or simply just ignored. This is the best review in the comments section.

In other words: lobsters. 😁

In a nutshell: Stalinism, not Anarcho-Syndicalism, is the alternative to Capitalism. Sorry Noam. 😏

Exactly right. I’d cut off a leg to just discuss this with Chomsky, it boggles my mind that highly intellectual Marxists like him can just overlook these innate facts that I feel like I have to be missing something about the argument. I’ve seen Chomsky argue that wage labor is “slavery” as the worker is forced into a low wage job simply for survival. Ok, so take away all of modern society or even societal structure all together, were the nomadic Native Americans who hunted bison to survive under “slavery”? The human condition required them to slave away at hunting merely to survive. I think it’s quite clear the man has spent way too long in academia, which is valuable, but hasn’t gotten the balance and wisdom that comes from real world experience, he seems to completely miss the natural state of man in exchange for worshipping ideology.

Hobbes view of human nature is but one of many.

no one including Chomskey advocates for equality of outcome. it has always been equality of access. human beings will always be born to unequal circumstances. this can be as large and glaring as being born to a wealth or poor family, or it can be as small as two parents simply not caring for their child sufficiently. since these realities exist, it should be the aim of society to ensure that the child born to any of these circumstances has equality of access to something like education or food to offset the disadvantages they were born into. this has nothing to do with equality of outcome

It is. That is why Milton Friedman is not fond of the Federal Reserve.

@@lukacspolgar5988 problem with Friedman's view - who is supposed to break up monopolies? States. So market can't ever be fully free

@@dt6822 I've got news for you - the state is a monopoly. A monopoly is a producer that has total control over the ability to produce a market product. So the necessary result of such a condition is for such a producer to decrease product so as to decrease the total cost of production as well as increase scarcity to artificially increase price. But, since they can only earn value by exchanging their product with other parties that we call consumers, a monopoly requires that the consumer sees no limit to their demand of the monopolist's product. In other words, an equivalent definition of a monopolist is a producer whose product is perceived to have infinite value - "perceived" because nothing has no limit in value. This is what a state has - the citizens which are in this case the consumers of security and they believe that the government they happen to live under is the only alternative no matter the price. The price of security has only increased in the form of increased taxes, and through the devaluation of currency which is itself perceived to have infinite value again because the populous is using paper bills approved by their pet monopoly of security. If the bills were not valued without limit as a medium for savings then inflation would not be a problem because people would move completely to commodities as a medium of saving instead of holding onto their paper slips (or digits in the bank more like) whining about price increases. Since nothing can have no limit in value, monopolies are impossible without the delusion of the consumer. Look at industries in the 19th century when state intervention was a great deal less than today. All the iconic examples of the verdict "monopoly", from Vanderbilt to Rockefeller, were instances where the price of product _decreased_ precipitously rather than increased. See Thomas Dilorenzo's lecture on monopolization to see the research of past economics as well as his wherein he found that of the 17 industries accused of monopolization 15 had unprecedented decreases in price. There is no precedent for monopolization in the free economy. The only way a particular producer can become monopoly is if the consumer regards their product as infinitely valuable so as to categorically consider any hypothetical or actual alternative as unacceptable even if the cost is higher than its benefit. And the only industries to date that satisfy these requirements are those of governance provided by states and in turn the industries that those states prop up.

@@aab-pb4nq Ya, except that's all wron

@@dt6822 governments create monopolies it doesn't destroy them.

The whole point of Milton flying around the world and educating was to promote free markets because the USA is not that. The USA is a mixed economy

@@MrDanielfff777 well put.

and how do you compare that efficacy? based on what criteria?

@@MrDanielfff777 Free markets and mixed economy are not mutually exclusive. Without the government, there will be anarchy. Even Milton Friedman argued for a need for government as an imposer of voluntary contracts between individuals, keeping law and order intact and protecting the country from foreign threats.

Milton Friedman sparked the neoliberal era and led to the current state of loose regulations and few environmental protections. He is almost in direct opposition to everything that Chomsky speaks on. I don’t think one should apply the “good things from both sides” argument considering the circumstances and how that statement sounds like balance fallacy.

@@frankf3395 my point isnt that we should perfectly balance it and live in a fairytale world were we respect every opinion. however, we should have an open mind and take/learn the good things of overall bad things. its not about balancing it. contrary, its about evaluating whats worth it and whats not and dont ignore things just because they dont fit your general agenda

For this to happen, Chomsky would have to touch on anything Friedman actually said, but its hard to see how the comments might confine themselves to the actual arguments on a video in which one speaker scrupulously avoids the actual arguments of the thinker he is supposed to be discussing.

@@LeeKav he does though

BuGGyBoBerl every argument he made only touches the surface of what Friedman said and Friedman even adressed everything said here before he passed. A 7minute video on topics that need hours each to cover just makes Chomsky look like a fool hence the comments are against him.

& every other country in the world.

South Korea has not been effected by Imperialism? That's a hot take.

@@MWinston Read some history. South Korea has been conquered and brutally oppressed for a half a century before undergoing a civil war, after which they had no industry, very few educated people, and no infrastructure. They started off in far worse a position than many former colonized countries.

you sir have no idea how much money i would be willing to pay to see friedman vs chomsky debate

Milton would have eaten him alive.

Chomsky doesn't debate. He just preaches to the choir.

@@CLAudio-pn6qf If they talked strictly about economy, maybe. On any other topics, Chomsky would've EATEN Friedman.

@@tdb517 For example?

You should read angrynomics.

I think Chomsky thinks that Friedman is a conservative when he is just liberatarian. I do not think he would bail out banks. Chomsky was right about NAFTA and free trade in comparison to Friedman.

@@hnys7976 if a libertarian owned a bank and it was 2007, they would support a bailout too. it's not necessarily about sticking with your principles, it's more about the reality of what happens in a capitalist system (inherent recessions) and the fact that those who own capital and accumulate enough of it will inevitably use it to protect themselves. governments will likely always exist. since governments will always exist they will always have a relationship to the economy. therefore if the economic system is going to be a capitalist one, the most successful performers in that system will use the money they've amassed to influence the government to benefit themselves. many CEO's and heads of banks are also "libertarian" or advocate for the "free market". but the reality being that the same person is a wealthy owner of capital and they exist in a world where governments are the most powerful entity in a nation, they will support influencing a government to do something like a bailout

@@b1bbscraz3y all of these attacks on capitalism are straw men. We haven’t had a capitalist system for 100 years since we introduced central banks. The fed printing money out of thin air to loan out to banks + the fixed interest rates (price controls) are why we have this continual boom bust cycle. It’s also why everything is so dam expensive and why there’s such a massive wealth divide. If we didn’t have 100 years of unnecessary inflation because of money printing, the wealth today would be unimaginable #endthefed

@@samrichards880 the greatest recession in the history of the United States came at the edge of that "100 years ago". there have been constant recessions in the US economy as far back as 1802 if the capitalist system you dream for existed before 100 years ago and further into the past, meaning the year 1922 and previous, American capitalism subjected the United States to being one of the absolute worst places to live for the vast majority of people living in this country. the majority of citizens, who even counted as citizens, were incredibly poor. it's argued by some that the United States was nearly a third world country in the year 1900 and previous the American capitalist system with hardly any regulation, hardly any taxation compared to today, and the government was much smaller and less involved, the vision of capitalism, this country was a shithole. the wealthiest people living in this country had the same amount of influence over governance as they do today, perhaps arguably they had even more power being that there were no regulations if you want to argue about the fed printing money and how banks absolutely fuck the American economic system, that's one thing. but pretending like the United States was anywhere near a desirable place to live before the 1930's and going back further into the past where American capitalism was stronger and less restricted, is 100% ahistorical and totally lacking of any kind of perspective on the average citizen living in this country. literally the worst parts of the United States existed in the past when the government was weaker and capitalism was less restricted. these arguments you make for the living standards under a more capitalist system before the expansion of the state are asinine women, blacks, Jews, and other minorities couldn't go to school before the public school system expanded schooling to every child in the country, capitalism had no issue with it

@@b1bbscraz3y 109 years. The fed was created in 1913. If it was never created, we wouldn’t have had 100 years of pointless money printing which has caused sky rocketing inflation which is why everything is so expensive. Houses and everything else would still be affordable for people. The wealth would be unimaginable. People would have real freedom instead of being slaves to debt. They created this central banking system because it gives the banks & elite more power & control. Central banks & the centralised control of credit is literally straight out of the communist manifesto. The banks just print money out of thin air and loan it out with interest. They’re able to leverage themselves to the hilt because if they default, they can just print even more money out of thin air and have nothing to lose. The only people who lose are the people who lose their houses. Recessions just result in an even bigger wealth transfers to the banks. Every year, they print money, house prices go up & debt increases. The amount of money that people owe banks continues to increase year after year after year. More and more wealth for them and less and less wealth for the people. Printing money is deflating the currency and taking money directly out of your pocket. Inflation is literally stealing your money. The purchasing power parity of the US dollar has fallen by 95% in the last 100 years, all of that wealth has literally been stolen by the banks and is continuing to be stolen every single year. They’ve created this system on purpose to deflate the currency, steal money, create vast inequalities and give the banks, gov and corps as much power as possible. Corporations benefit from inflation too because they own everything, so price increases are good for them. Inflation just causes wealth transfers from the poor to the rich. Every year prices increase vs wages, so you have to pay a higher % of your wage to corporations. You get poorer and the people who own everything get richer every single year

would love to see you debate with chomsky

Probably brought it up because of how Friedman’s pet economic project, the Pinochet regime in Chile, went belly up and needed massive outside state subsidies-which only helped for a year or two before it flopped again.

@@comebackkid44723 Friedman did not support pinochet - but if you want to look it up you can. perhaps you prefer not to.

Chomsky lives in a bubble, where he is giving love from the left. He not only doesn’t understand anything outside linguistics, but comes with bold statements that contradicts all facts. He is a the product of cheerd stupidity

if you care about credentials more than content, sure, then you can ignore him

"USA would have developed to the giant it is with or without slavery, government protection, tariffs and other measures" >how could you make such a statement with no basis in reality to actually say this?

Exactly. Most notably, protectionism was one of the main causes of the Great Depression.

Jesus, you guys are as dumb as a box of spanner’s.

It's mind blowing to see someone not even understanding what they're criticizing. Chomsky is not claiming all these are the result of the free market. He's criticizing Friedman for giving all the credit of the success in our economy to the free market when there are many other major factors to consider. He's saying the government intervention have NOTHING TO DO with the market. Literally by definition you are wrong, archipelago93!

So you think anarchocapitalism works? XD You convinced slave masses are so funny (+ you did not even hear what he said, and you are out of the subject)

I think about former leftists that were purging while Friedman was on every major TV program.

we talk against hitler, mao and stalin when they cannot reply. because it is necessary to judge them based on the belief system they had that shaped the world and influenced masses.

He didn't fabricate any assertions made by Friedman. He simply went off his interpretation of Friedman's ideology and proceeded to state the reasons he disputes it's validity.

@@cartersmith8016 I didn't write that Chomsky fabricated anything. The sentence I wrote was very short and clear.

@@yossicordova2374 I understand the point you are making. I was just implying that Chomsky was stating Friedman's position accurately and that he refutes those specific points. I get what you are saying. Please don't mistake my original comment for a put down of your initial comment.

WRONG, what about picking up Friedman's book and read up?

If the US was a free market system then Friedman would have done something else! he describes it as a mixed economy. read 'capitalism and freedom' or 'free to choose'. both quick reads and really great.

Sure, your point is well taken. However, Milton describes the US economy as mixed. He notes periods of time when govt intervention was lowest to notice how people were free to succeed and thrive. He's fine to note specific failures on both sides and therefore comes to conclusions based on outcomes.

Dude the main problem is not wheter or not milton is absolutely right about everything. Obviously he isnt no one is which is fine. Actual economists are challenging Miltons ideas all the time and thats good they are experts bur who fuckin cares what Noam Chomsky has to say about Milton’s views. This guy is a politically active linguist, he is brilliant in his field but his thoughts on economy irrelevant. Might as well ask Ja Rule

Exactly, what Chomsky says require high amount of intuition coupled with previous knowledge. That's too much for the average narcissistic joe smoe.