Noam Chomsky is full of shit

[Parsifal]

We already knew that
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-recursive-mind/201803/whos-afraid-noam-chomsky

[plainolamerican]

What is it about Chomsky that upsets you?

There's no arguing that he has been a valuable contributor in the areas of language, human rights and global social justice.

[Minister Rebel]

He is successful, Spud hates success.

[Irie]

Noam Chomsky: Neoliberalism Is Destroying Our Democracy | The ...

https://www.thenation.com/.../noam-chomsky-neoliberalism-destroying-democracy/

Jun 2, 2017 - For 50 years, Noam Chomsky, has been America's Socrates, our public pest with questions that sting. He speaks not to the city square of Athens but to a vast global village in pain and now, it seems, in danger. Ad Policy. This interview comes from Open Source with Christopher Lydon, a weekly program ...

[plainolamerican]

Neoliberalism or neo-liberalism^[1] refers primarily to the 20th-century resurgence of 19th-century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism.^[2]:7Those ideas include economic liberalization policies such as privatization, austerity, deregulation, free trade^[3] and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society.^[11] These market-based ideas and the policies they inspired constitute a paradigm shift away from the post-war Keynesian consensus which lasted from 1945 to 1980.^[12][13]

English-speakers have used the term "neoliberalism" since the start of the 20th century with different meanings,^[14] but it became more prevalent in its current meaning in the 1970s and 1980s, used by scholars in a wide variety of social sciences^[15][16] as well as by critics.^[17][18] Modern advocates of free market policies avoid the term "neoliberal"^[19] and some scholars have described the term as meaning different things to different people^[20][21] as neoliberalism "mutated" into geopolitically distinct hybrids as it travelled around the world.^[4] As such, neoliberalism shares many attributes with other concepts that have contested meanings, including democracy.^[22]

The definition and usage of the term have changed over time.^[5] As an economic philosophy, neoliberalism emerged among European liberal scholars in the 1930s as they attempted to trace a so-called "third" or "middle" way between the conflicting philosophies of classical liberalism and socialist planning.^[23]:14–5 The impetus for this development arose from a desire to avoid repeating the economic failures of the early 1930s, which neoliberals mostly blamed on the economic policy of classical liberalism. In the decades that followed, the use of the term "neoliberal" tended to refer to theories which diverged from the more laissez-faire doctrine of classical liberalism and which promoted instead a market economy under the guidance and rules of a strong state, a model which came to be known as the social market economy.

Counterpoints to neoliberalism:

• Globalization can subvert nations' ability for self-determination.^[151]
• The replacement of a government-owned monopoly with private companies, each supposedly trying to provide the consumer with better value service than all of its private competitors, removes the efficiency that can be gained from the economy of scale.^[152]
• Even if it could be shown that neoliberal capitalism increases productivity, it erodes the conditions in which production occurs long term, i.e. resources/nature, requiring expansion into new areas. It is therefore not sustainable within the world's limited geographical space.^[153]
• Exploitation: critics consider neoliberal economics to promote exploitation and social injustice.^[154]
• Negative economic consequences: Critics argue that neoliberal policies produce economic inequality.^[2]:7
• Mass incarceration of the poor: some critics claim that neoliberal policies result in an expanding carceral state and the criminalization of poverty.^{[2]:3, 346[118]}
• Increase in corporate power: some organizations and economists believe neoliberalism, unlike liberalism, changes economic and government policies to increase the power of corporations and a shift to benefit the upper classes.^[155][156]
• Anti-democratic: some scholars contend that neoliberalism undermines the basic elements of democracy.^[104][157]
• Urban citizens are increasingly deprived of the power to shape the basic conditions of daily life, which are instead being shaped exclusively by companies involved in competitive economy.^[158]
• Trade-led, unregulated economic activity and lax state regulation of pollution lead to environmental impacts or degradation.^[159]
• Deregulation of the labor market produces flexibilization and casualization of labor, greater informal employment and a considerable increase in industrial accidents and occupational diseases.^[160]
• Mass extinction: according to David Harvey, "the era of neoliberalization also happens to be the era of the fastest mass extinction of species in the Earth's recent history".^[68]:173

Instead of citizens, it produces consumers. Instead of communities, it produces shopping malls. The net result is an atomized society of disengaged individuals who feel demoralized and socially powerless.

“

”

Robert W. McChesney^[44]:11

American scholar and cultural critic Henry Giroux alleges neoliberalism holds that market forces should organize every facet of society, including economic and social life; and promotes a social Darwinist ethic which elevates self-interest over social needs.^{[161][162][163]}

According to the economists Howell and Diallo, neoliberal policies have contributed to a United States economy in which 30% of workers earn low wages (less than two-thirds the median wage for full-time workers) and 35% of the labor force is underemployed as only 40% of the working-age population in the country is adequately employed.^[164]

[Irie]

Well, you did ask why he's FOS, didn't you?

Here's another....

Noam Chomsky: "Hitler Was A Sincere, Dedicated Ideologue -- Trump ...

▶

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/.../noam_chomsky_hitler_was_a_si...

Nov 29, 2016

Linguistics professor Noam Chomsky speaks with al-Jazeera's Mehdi Hassan to discuss his expectations for ...

[plainolamerican]

Well, you did ask why he's FOS, didn't you?

--

no ... and your opinion has been noted.

I wouldn't expect a US imperialist exceptionalist capitalist to appreciate Norm or his promotion of peace and anti-war.

[Irie]

Well, at least you got the capitalist part right.......

[PirateLT]

If you earn a living and want to keep your money to support your family and such you are considered evil is appears by some.

[Irie]

Yep; by the aforementioned bread and circuses crowd.....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[plainolamerican]

so you don't see America as imperialist or exceptionalist?

I was going to also add zionist but it's also a foregone conclusion.

[PirateLT]

I see America is a nice place to live and earn a living.

[Minister Rebel]

Pirate is a lucky old son of a gun....pity millions do not see it his way.... especially those without work and on food stamps.

[PirateLT]

Millions do see it my way.  EVERY country has their poor and issues...........US

[plainolamerican]

I see America is a nice place to live and earn a living.

---

but not warmongering, imperialist or exceptionalist?

[Lobo]

<<Noam Chomsky is full of shit>>

<<We already knew that

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-recursive-mind/201803/whos-afraid-noam-chomsky>>

So, is it his views on linguistics that you have a problem with? (I have a few of my own there). Or his views on economics (anti-laissez-faire), foreign policy (anti-war), and other matters? If the former -- and your link would seem to imply so -- what in particular do you take exception to?

[plainolamerican]

Millions do see it my way.

---

with the ever increasing separation of wealth that number is dwindling every day.

[PirateLT]

Most countries have a history of intervention and war............We simply are bigger and stronger than most..........

[PirateLT]

Non wealthy people who make a fine living agree as well.  Your glass half empty is a poor focus.

[plainolamerican]

Non wealthy people who make a fine living agree as well.

---

JOB = Just Over Broke

Your glass half empty is a poor focus.

---

According to the research, optimists are prone to overestimate their own abilities and underestimate potential risks, unlike a pessismist who is more realistic and cautious in their decision making.

[PirateLT]

1.  Opinion noted not shared
2. In life you get what you focus on.  You focus on the obstacles you end up there. 

[plainolamerican]

Most countries have a history of intervention and war............We simply are bigger and stronger than most..........

---

and that's supposed to justify US warmongering, intervention and imperialism?

[Ragnar]

With 1% pushing towards owning 50% of the entire net worth of the US matey, you are full of shit 

On Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 10:15:01 AM UTC-5, PirateLT wrote:

[PirateLT]

I'm not of the 1% and know plenty that earn less than me that are happy to be here. 

[Ragnar]

That is not the point. The system has been pushing more and more into poverty. I am not demonizing the wealthy simply because they are. I am condemning those who think most poverty is the result of some Horatio Alger nonsense. The economy needs to work as best it can as similar to post WWII......we can't mimic that...but we can address the inequality in the system as does Germany and the Nordic countries. ...still capitalist, as is Australia where I just returned from. Minimum wage is over $18 AU and they have universal health care ...and it shows in Brisbane and Copenhagen....and I have visited both. 

I admire your honesty most of the time Pirate, and personally I am fine, though it has been scary in times past......historical economics reveals what we can do, and what we can't.....communism doesn't work, but neither does predator capitalism/oligarchy as practiced in the US. 

[plainolamerican]

That is not the point. The system has been pushing more and more into poverty. I am not demonizing the wealthy simply because they are. I am condemning those who think most poverty is the result of some Horatio Alger nonsense. The economy needs to work as best it can as similar to post WWII......we can't mimic that...but we can address the inequality in the system as does Germany and the Nordic countries. ...still capitalist, as is Australia where I just returned from. Minimum wage is over $18 AU and they have universal health care ...and it shows in Brisbane and Copenhagen....and I have visited both. 

---

very good!!!

[Lobo]

<<If you earn a living and want to keep your money to support your family and such you are considered evil is appears by some.>>

I don't know about "evil", but if enough money isn't returned back to the society, through taxation on the income of those who have benefited more from it -- more particularly on the income of those who have benefited the most from it -- to keep the economy working, few people will be earning much of a living to support their families with. Left to itself, without highly progressive taxation, and with tax laws that favor capital (or investment income) over labor (or earned income), and that exact little or no cost on great amounts of wealth being transferred from generation to generation (as in Estate Taxes), wealth and income tends to concentrate more and more into the hands of a tiny elite -- one that doesn't produce anything, but simply collects the income from inherited investments. Income, btw, that grows at twice the rate of income growth (GDP) in general, but that is taxed at a much lower rate than earned income.

The large, hugely prosperous American middle class -- with its well-distributed income and wealth -- that marked the years between WWII and the onset of Reagan's "supply-side" economics, did not happen by accident, or by any consequence of the laws of economics, but despite them. It was the result of deliberate government policies, including middle class support systems like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, the 40 hour workweek, the Minimum Wage, 1 1/2 times overtime pay, etc, but especially those that encouraged the growth of labor unions and collective bargaining, and tax laws that took a large bite out of incomes over a certain very large level -- with top marginal rates between 1917 and 1983 of between 70% to 94% -- and redistributed back into building the physical and social infrastructure that allowed business to thrive, and income at all levels to be created and increase. 

Because the economy is consumer-driven, what matters to its vitality is not how much those at the top can save, but how much consumers (ie, the middle class) are able to spend. That spending itself creates the money needed (upfront in the form of business loans) for the formation of capital investment in jobs-producing business. But wealth that is simply saved in the stock market (which is about the dollar value of a company, not necessarily its value in producing jobs or real wealth -- and nearly 90% of the value of which is owned by the top 1%), or in financial instruments like derivatives, is not money that is plowed back into general prosperity.

To put it another way: neoliberalism/laissez-faire/trickle-down economics -- whatever you want to call it -- does not work. It results in a super-elite, oligarchic, congenital class (actually a caste) of super-rich families that simply collect the rent from the rest of us, and pass it on to their families' next generations, with the wealth even more concentrated, and the middle class driven even more into poverty. Nor does pure Socialism, which redistributes wealth but discourages its production. But competitive free enterprise, leavened with a healthy dose of "socialist" laws, regulations, and policies, including strong anti-trust and bank regulation laws and enforcement -- as existed back during our nation's middle class, economic Golden Age, before GOPernomics took control -- not only does work, but produced the most prosperous society in human history -- one that has been and is being dismantled, piece by piece, before our very eyes, by Republicans in charge of the economy.

[Ragnar]

Very good Lobo! 

On Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 1:37:32 PM UTC-5, Lobo wrote:

<<If you earn a living and want to keep your money to support your family and such you are considered evil is appears by some.>>

I don't know about "evil", but if enough money isn't returned back to the society, through taxation on the income of those who have benefited more from it -- particularly on the income of those who have benefited most from it -- to keep the economy working, few people will be earning much of a living to support their families with. Left to itself, without highly progressive taxation, and with tax laws that favor capital (or investment income) over labor (or earned income), and that exact little or no cost on great amounts of wealth transferred from generation to generation (as in Estate Taxes), wealth and income tends to concentrate more and more into the hands of a tiny elite -- one that doesn't produce anything, but simply collects the income from inherited investments. Income, btw, that grows at twice the rate of income growth (GDP) in general, but that is taxed at a much lower rate than earned income.

The large, hugely prosperous American middle class -- with its well-distributed income and wealth -- that marked the years between WWII and the onset of Reagan's "supply-side" economics, did not happen by accident, or by any consequence of the laws of economics, but despite them. It was the result of deliberate government policies, including middle class support systems like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, the 40 hour workweek, the Minimum Wage, 1 1/2 times overtime pay, etc, but especially those that encouraged the growth of labor unions and collective bargaining, and tax laws that took a large bite out of incomes over a certain very large level (including the corporate income tax) -- with top marginal rates between 1917 and 1983 of between 70% to 94% -- and redistributed back into building the physical and social infrastructure that allowed business to thrive, and income at all levels to be created and increase. 

Because the economy is consumer-driven, what matters to its vitality is not how much those at the top can save, but how much consumers (ie, the middle class) are able to spend. That spending itself creates the money needed (upfront in the form of business loans) for the formation of capital investment in jobs-producing business. But wealth that is simply saved in the stock market (which is about the dollar value of a company, not necessarily its value in producing jobs or real wealth -- and nearly 90% of the value of which is owned by the top 1%), or in financial instruments like derivatives, is not money that is plowed back into general prosperity.

To put it another way: neoliberalism/laissez-faire/trickle-down economics -- whatever you want to call it -- does not work. It results in a super-elite, oligarchic, congenital class (actually a caste) of super-rich families that simply collect the rent from the rest of us, and pass it on to their families' next generations, with the wealth even more concentrated, and the middle class driven even more into poverty. Nor does pure Socialism, which redistributes wealth but discourages its production. But free enterprise, leavened with a healthy dose of "socialist" laws, regulations, and policies -- as existed back during our nation's middle class, economic Golden Age, before GOPernomics took control -- not only does work, but produced the most prosperous society in human history -- one that has been and is being dismantled, piece by piece, before our very eyes, by Republicans in charge of the economy.

[Lobo]

Gracias, Ragnar.

[PirateLT]

All those countries are capitalistic.  Of the 4 trillion dollar budget over 3 billion goes towards the citizens in the form of SS, Medicare, welfare, Housing, food stamps, etc.

[I-think4me]

Of the 4 trillion dollar budget over 3 billion goes...
------
? Was that 3 billion supposed to be trillion?

[PirateLT]

Whoops, yes trillion.

[plainolamerican]

I don't know about "evil", but if enough money isn't returned back to the society, through taxation on the income of those who have benefited more from it -- particularly on the income of those who have benefited most from it -- to keep the economy working, few people will be earning much of a living to support their families

---

that's it ... you've identified yourself as a socialist ... get ready for it.

[Lobo]

<<that's it ... you've identified yourself as a socialist ... get ready for it.>>

If FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, and Carter could take it, I suppose I can. (I'm not sure anyone ever called Nixon or Ford "Socialists" or Commies", but they generally supported the same "socialist" policies).

At least I don't have to deal with super-right wing billionaire families like the Texas Hunts, or the John Birch Society-Kochs, coming after me personally for pushing American middle class interests over theirs.

[Parsifal]

BoogerEater obviously didn’t read the article.
Which, . . . laid out the case that Chomsky’s nonpolitical “academic” papers are wrong, wrong, wrong.
So much for intellectual curiosity out in white trash regions.

On Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 8:13:39 AM UTC-4, plainolamerican wrote:
> What is it about Chomsky that upsets you?
>
> There's no arguing that he has been a valuable contributor in the areas of language, human rights and global social justice.

[Ragnar]

...and this is bad because? 

[PirateLT]

Point being we spend a good deal on people. This does not even include what state and local government spends.

[plainolamerican]

BoogerEater obviously didn’t read the article. 

--

wrong again, warmonger.

Which, . . . laid out the case that Chomsky’s nonpolitical “academic” papers are wrong, wrong, wrong.

---

opinion noted.

 
So much for intellectual curiosity out in white trash regions. 

---

like your home in redneck Texas where xians inbreed for kicks?

[Parsifal]

Oh, Chomsky is wrong about everything. It’s just funny to see his core work, and supposed expertise, totally refuted.

[plainolamerican]

Academic achievements, awards, and honors
In 1970, Chomsky was named one of the "makers of the twentieth century" by the London Times.[167] In early 1969, he delivered the John Locke Lectures at Oxford University; in January 1971, the Bertrand Russell Memorial Lecture at the University of Cambridge; in 1972, the Nehru Memorial Lecture in New Delhi;[301] in 1975, the Whidden Lectures at McMaster University;[110] in 1977, the Huizinga Lecture in Leiden; in 1978, the Woodbridge Lectures at Columbia University; in 1979, the Kant Lectures at Stanford University;[301] in 1988, the Massey Lectures at the University of Toronto; in 1997, The Davie Memorial Lecture on Academic Freedom in Cape Town;[302] in 2011, the Rickman Godlee Lecture at University College, London;[303] and many others.[301]

Chomsky has received honorary degrees from many colleges and universities around the world, including from the following:

American University of Beirut[304]
Amherst College[301]
Bard College[301]
Central Connecticut State University[305]
Columbia University[301]
Drexel University[306]
Georgetown University[301]
Harvard University[301]
International School for Advanced Studies[304]
Islamic University of Gaza[304]
Loyola University of Chicago[301]
McGill University[301]
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens[305]
National Autonomous University of Mexico[304]
National Tsing Hua University[304]
National University of Colombia[301]
National University of Comahue[304]
Peking University[304]
Rovira i Virgili University[301]
Santo Domingo Institute of Technology[304]
Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa[301]
Swarthmore College[301]
University of Bologna[305]
University of Buenos Aires[301]
University of Calcutta[301]
University of Cambridge[301]
University of Chicago[301]
University of Chile[304]
University of Connecticut[301]
University of Cyprus[304]
University of Florence[304]
University of La Frontera[304]
University of Ljubljana[304]
University of London[301]
University of Massachusetts[301]
University of Pennsylvania[301]
University of St Andrews[304]
University of Toronto[301]
University of Western Ontario[301]
Uppsala University[304]
Visva-Bharati University[167]
Vrije Universiteit Brussel[305]
In the United States, he is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the National Academy of Sciences, the Linguistic Society of America, the American Philosophical Association, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.[167] Abroad, he is a member of the Utrecht Society of Arts and Sciences, the Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina, a corresponding fellow of the British Academy, an honorary member of the British Psychological Society,[167] and a foreign member of the Department of Social Sciences of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts.[307] In addition, he is a recipient of a 1971 Guggenheim Fellowship, the 1984 American Psychological Association Award for Distinguished Contributions to Psychology, 1988 the Kyoto Prize in Basic Sciences,[167] the 1996 Helmholtz Medal, the 1999 Benjamin Franklin Medal in Computer and Cognitive Science, and the Dorothy Eldridge Peacemaker Award.[301] He is also a two-time winner of the Gustavus Myers Center Award, receiving the honor in both 1986 and 1988, and the NCTE George Orwell Award for Distinguished Contribution to Honesty and Clarity in Public Language, receiving the honor in both 1987 and 1989.[167] He has also received the Rabindranath Tagore Centenary Award from The Asiatic Society.[308]

In 2004 Chomsky received the Carl-von-Ossietzky Prize from the city of Oldenburg, Germany, to acknowledge his body of work as a political analyst and media critic.[309] In 2005, Chomsky received an honorary fellowship from the Literary and Historical Society.[310] In February 2008, he received the President's Medal from the Literary and Debating Society of the National University of Ireland, Galway.[311] Since 2009, he has been an honorary member of International Association of Professional Translators and Interpreters (IAPTI).[312]

In 2010, Chomsky received the Erich Fromm Prize in Stuttgart, Germany.[313] In April 2010, Chomsky became the third scholar to receive the University of Wisconsin's A.E. Havens Center's Award for Lifetime Contribution to Critical Scholarship.[314]


The Megachile chomskyi holotype, a bee that was named after Chomsky
Chomsky has an Erdős number of four.[315]

Chomsky was voted the world's leading public intellectual in The 2005 Global Intellectuals Poll jointly conducted by American magazine Foreign Policy and British magazine Prospect.[316] In a list compiled by the magazine New Statesman in 2006, he was voted seventh in the list of "Heroes of our time."[317]

Actor Viggo Mortensen and avant-garde guitarist Buckethead dedicated their 2003 album Pandemoniumfromamerica to Chomsky.[318] On January 22, 2010, a special honorary concert for Chomsky was given at Kresge Auditorium at MIT. The concert, attended by Chomsky and dozens of his family and friends, featured music composed by Edward Manukyan and speeches by Chomsky's colleagues, including David Pesetsky of MIT and Gennaro Chierchia, head of the linguistics department at Harvard University.[319]

In May 2007, Jamia Millia Islamia, a prestigious Indian university, named one of its complexes after Noam Chomsky.[320]

In June 2011, Chomsky was awarded the Sydney Peace Prize, which cited his "unfailing courage, critical analysis of power and promotion of human rights."[321] Also in 2011, Chomsky was inducted into IEEE Intelligent Systems' AI's Hall of Fame for "significant contributions to the field of AI and intelligent systems."[322]

In 2013, a newly described species of bee was named after him: Megachile chomskyi.[323]

In 2014, he was awarded the Neil and Saras Smith Medal for Linguistics by the British Academy: this medal is awarded "for lifetime achievement in the scholarly study of linguistics".[324]

In 2016, he was awarded the Int'l Courage of Conscience Award by the Peace Abbey: this award was bestowed at MIT "for his unrelenting critique of U.S. foreign policy, capitalism and the globalization of systems and structures of profit and greed".[325]

In 2017 he was one of three recipients awarded the Seán MacBride Peace Prize "for his tireless commitment to peace, his strong critiques to U.S. foreign policy, and his anti-imperialism.".[326]

Bibliography and filmography

[Lobo]

<<Oh, Chomsky is wrong about everything. It’s just funny to see his core work, and supposed expertise, totally refuted. >>

Your article doesn't do that. The author states his disagreement, and asks a few questions, but it's hardly what I'd call a "refutation" of a major work. Science is always in flux, subject to revision at all times. And while I have a few problems myself with Chomsky on it (though I'm hardly in a position to argue with him on equal terms), I have a few with the article's author too. Like:

<<Secondly, Chomsky maintains that this internal language of thought appeared in single momentous step in a single human, whom Chomsky whimsically names Prometheus, within the past 100,000 years—well after our species itself emerged. That sounds miraculous rather than scientific.

It also makes no sense in terms of evolution. Big changes don’t happen in a single step. >>

It depends on what kind of changes. Evolution does occur both gradually and in very big, quick steps (punctuated equilibrium). And mutations always occur in single individuals; if it's a good one, the individual is more likely to be able to pass the gene/trait to the group through reproduction and thereby change the group.

As for the other things: I haven't read everything he's ever written on every subject, of course, but what I have read on war and militarism, and on what is happening to our economy and society, I agree with entirely. What do disagree with in particular?.

[Celt]

Parsifal's in Texas? I have a vague memory of suspecting he was an Aggie.

Hey Pars, it's been a while. Like 14-15 years. Glad to see you're still above-ground.