Taxi Driver Online

He was saying people picked a couple of sentences from Smith rather than read the entire piece.........

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

Can't disagree with that, but he's also dismissing the validity of the couple of sentences just because he doesn't like them.

What he should be doing is acknowledging the validity of the sentences and then saying that in his judgment he doesn't like the ideas and their consequences.

It's a bit like expressing an opinion on whether or not restricted taxi numbers is a good or bad idea, but if the person expressing the opinion doesn't like the idea then they try to deny that it exists.

Basically it comes down to the difference between fact and opinion. Chomsky seems to dismiss the fact of the invisible hand because his opinion is that it's undesirable.

Maybe that's not his intention, but that's how he seems to articulate it.

I dont disagree....BUT (and there had to be a but) in respect to chompsky he doesnt actually have any power whatsoever.....I think he should be cut a little slack for that.

After all, the people he mentions taking a few sentences from Smith and taking it as gospel are doing so for their own selfish reasons and actually profiting from it.....whereas Chompsky may be equally selective....which is a moot point.....and that's all it is....a point thats moot.

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

So the author of 100 books, creator of numerous academic theories and someone who has millions of people eating out of his hand has no power whatsoever? You clearly use a very narrow definition of power.

What do you mean by 'power'? Does Wayne Casey have any?



So if I - most of the time earning less than the minimum wage - say that a taxi driver choosing a busy rank with no cars on it rather than a quiet rank with ten cars on it is an example of Adam Smith's invisible hand at work then I'm doing so for my own "selfish reasons and actually profiting from it"? Meanwhile, that multi-millionaire Noam Chomsky - who puts his assets in trusts for tax and estate planning reasons - should be "cut a bit of slack"?

I mean, Chomsky says in the video that Adam Smith thought governments should "end the division of labour" What a load of nonsense. Where does Smith say that? And why doesn't Chomsky practice what he preaches? I mean, he could spend a couple of minutes a day stacking shelves, a couple of minutes a day driving a taxi and a couple of minutes a day writing books (and stick a brush shaft up his backside and he can sweep the floor at the same time), in which case he'd be little better off than the rest of us. No, didn't think so! Of course, if it wasn't for the division of labour we'd still be living in caves so he wouldn't be able to drive a taxi anyway, perish the thought.

But one of his last statements in the video nicely sums up the whole thing:

"Even to talk about trade, or free trade, or entreprenurial values, or consumer choice, or democratic functioning is putting us in a world of delusion and fantasy...."

Well of course it's perfectly legitimate to question such concepts, but to call them "delusion and fantasy" is just crude political rhetoric and hyperbole.

Indeed, Chomsky will be well aware of that, but let's not let that get in the way of our own propoganda.

Of course, one of the numerous things he's well known for is critiquing the propaganda tools of business and government, which is probably why he's so good at them himself

Dusty, you can talk some shi*e when you put your mind to it.

And it's not often you're completely lost for words two posts running Skull

By the way, I was on a forum the other day and they were deleting posts for the like of the lack of netiquette demonstrated above.

And it's not like it's a particularly busy forum either - obviously they put quality before quantity

If your earning less than the minimum wage.....due to the market being oversupplied.....what has that got to do with Chompsky....he's merely pointing out?

In terms of economics the invisible hand is syupposed to be the market regulating itself......which is more or less what free marketeers such as your self want isnt it?

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

Didn't you make out that those citing the 'invisible hand' are the ones doing well out of it? Well I was just pointing out that I cite the invisible hand but am not doing well out of it, unlike Chomsky.....




I'd hardly call myself a free marketeer, indeed I'm all for quality control in the trade, as you should know by now after ten years

The point with the invisible hand is that it has benefits and weaknesses, which was why I said earlier that it was a good slave but a bad master - ie it should be utilised when it brings benefits, but put in its place when it doesn't, ie where there's market failure.

Indeed, that's essentially Adam Smith's view - he points out how the invisible hand works, but also underlines when it doesn't work.

There are two arguments, the first is the academic interpretation of Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations and Neoclassical Economics. Chomsky makes the argument, while both are worshipped, Smith is not read, and are, in fact, radically different. I think this is best left to the academics to fight over.

The second is a more practical argument where people that are forced to work, under the control of command economies are reduced to nothing more than the role of machines. Free trade or entrepreneurial spirit, is therefore, stifled and is merely an illusion or fantasy perpetrated through human rights abuses.

I wouldn't even dip my toe in the water with regards to the first part of the argument, but as for the second, I don't really believe there is anything to debate.

Not really, because it's quite straightforward. Smith's invisible hand is cited primarily by neoclassical economists while they downplay the rest of his arguments, and vice versa with those more left-leaning.

Chomsky's problem is to dismiss some of Smith's notions entirely, but the whole thing is a bit more nuanced than that.

Essentially he accuses the neoclassicals of a one-sided interpretation of Chomsky, then does precisely the same himself.



Indeed, but again this there's just too much rhetoric and hyperbole here to take that entirely seriously. I mean, you say entreprenurial spirit is ""stifled", then that it's an "illusion or fantasy"; it can't be all three. Perhaps if you and Chomsky had stuck with the "stifled" then it would seem like a more reasonable argument.



But if you try to portray mere opinion as black and white then there's always something to debate.

I dont think it is an argument best left to academics.....they aint the ones on the brunt end.....unless what you're saying is that academics should debate because ordinary folks are window lickers? (there you go dusty 'window licker' argument deployed).

The whole free trade argument is nonsense, there is, according to the capitalist system no such thing as free trade.......unless they mean a system where the trade is free from rudimentary local taxation.......but even then, the system is based upon a false phrophet which is......at least according to dustys supposed beliefs....the market.

Again the free market should drive down consumer costs.....but invariably and as we have witnessed the market is dependant upon many variables.....the biggest being supermarkets who arguably have more than a fair control of not only supply but ultimately demand......if they cant supply it the consumer is so dumb as to either pay a premium or wait......ultimately it is the little guy.....the small time farmer wanting to sell goods....to which the supermarket determines the prices, or even the cab driver.....given deregulation.......that pays.

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

Out of a matter of interest, have you ever had a conversation with some of these academic types? I have and let me tell you, I'm amazed some of them can cross the road on their own. They live in a bubble and have little idea how the real-world works. Chomsky, is one of the few notable exceptions.

Dusty writes:

Once again, you are going down the academic route, but even if the above was the case, what does it matter?



Chomsky doesn't dismiss, he reinterprets, based on the further investigation into Smith's work, something he points out, is radically different to what most people want to believe.



No he doesn't, he makes comment, on Smith's view of the division of labour, efficiency and productivity, etc. Then upon further investigation, takes Smith's division of labour argument to its logical conclusion of monstrous human rights abuses, requiring government intervention to stop it happening.

Chomsky then talks about markets and the lack of real trade and entrepreneurial spirit in command economies.

There's more than one argument, and if you watch the video, it jumps from academic theories to their practical application in command economies.

I wonder if Noam empathises wae’ your pain Skull ? I hope so...

Ah, I see. A free market, but only when it suits YOU?



Can you honestly believe you wrote this pash?