Monday, December 16, 2013

Noam Chomsky Defends Central Banking and Ben Bernanke

Occasional, Chomsky makes a good point. Here, he is at his worst. He doesn't seem to realize it, but his arguments are the core arguments of the banksters. For a scholar who claims to understand government and elitist propaganda, this guy is in the fog, big time, when it comes to economics.



(ht Jay Stephenson)

17 comments:

  1. Lol, well, that's the Idiot Left for you. When it comes to economics these bozos ALWAYS have their heads planted firmly up their ass. They're utterly CLUELESS.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Then, what is the purpose of his anti-establishment rhetoric? What a waste.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sadly, the very "purpose of his anti-establishment rhetoric" may be precisely to get that (sickeningly) enthusiastic applause from the college audience.... Start 'em off in the wrong direction from the start...

    ReplyDelete
  4. If an ignorant fool like I can see central banking for what it is, why can't a Professor Emeritus at MIT?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Making Empire possible for 3 centuries

    England's crushing defeat by France, the dominant naval power, in naval engagements culminating in the 1690 Battle of Beachy Head, became the catalyst for England's rebuilding itself as a global power. England had no choice but to build a powerful navy. No public funds were available, and the credit of William III's government was so low in London that it was impossible for it to borrow the £1,200,000 (at 8 per cent) that the government wanted.
    In order to induce subscription to the loan, the subscribers were to be incorporated by the name of the Governor and Company of the Bank of England. The Bank was given exclusive possession of the government's balances, and was the only limited-liability corporation allowed to issue bank notes.[14] The lenders would give the government cash (bullion) and issue notes against the government bonds, which can be lent again. The £1.2m was raised in 12 days; half of this was used to rebuild the navy.
    As a side effect, the huge industrial effort needed, from establishing iron-works to make more nails to agriculture feeding the quadrupled strength of the navy, started to transform the economy. This helped the new Kingdom of Great Britain – England and Scotland were formally united in 1707 – to become powerful. The power of the navy made Britain the dominant world power in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_England

    ReplyDelete


  6. Write to Congress to protest monetary metals market manipulation

    Our friend Kasey Warner of West Virginia wrote the other day to her
    members of Congress to ask them to investigate manipulation of the
    monetary metals markets, which is something that can be done by every
    U.S. citizen who is invested in the monetary metals or wants the
    restoration of free markets in the United States. With her permission
    the text of Kasey's letter is appended, and you're free to use it whole
    or adapt it.

    If you need help identifying your members of Congress or finding their
    postal addresses, visit the Project Vote Smart Internet site:

    http://votesmart.org/

    Please write to members of Congress only by regular U.S. mail; few members of Congress pay any attention to unsolicited e-mail.

    http://www.gata.org/node/13380

    ReplyDelete
  7. I was a liberal until I learned economics. During the Bush years, the Republicans wanted war and the liberals claimed to not want war. The liberals also didn't like capitalism. Because I agreed with the liberals on war (at that time), and I only knew about right versus left, I used the transitive property to conclude that capitalism must be bad too.

    The rub was that I didn't realize that Republicans didn't go for capitalism, either! I am embarrassed about my views in hindsight. I think many liberals are in a similar boat.

    Thank goodness for Bill Maher having Ron Paul on his show twice!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I was a liberal until I learned economics."

      Ok, notice what Eric wrote here. Look CAREFULLY. This says it all....period.

      And Eric, notice you drew a conclusion about capitalism BEFORE you even bothered to study economics. This is what I keep pounding on.

      For fucks sake people, study the damned subject before trying to pontificate on it! There is so much FREE material on the web to learn. Stop being lazy shits and start LEARNING! Hello? Got it people?

      And btw Eric, glad you finally got enough sense to start studying. Notice how much different your view is after studying it? In this game we have to use our BRAIN. Not just suck off talk show hosts or academic hypocrites.

      Delete
    2. same here Eric....sucks that most people like to keep their heads in the sand.

      -Gitz

      Delete
  8. Can't speak to his work in linguistics, which may be brilliant for all I know, but as a political, economic, and social analyst, dude is a complete intellectual fraud and always has been.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Noam Chomsky and the Willful Ignorance of 9/11"

    http://digwithin.net/2013/11/29/chomsky/

    nuff said

    ReplyDelete
  10. How do you defend this?


    Relationship Managers at the New York Fed and Citibank: The Job Function Ripe for Corruption

    In October, Segarra, a lawyer, filed a lawsuit alleging that Relationship Managers at the New York Fed, who were assigned to manage the relationship with Goldman Sachs, obstructed and interfered with her investigation of the firm and tried to bully her into changing her findings. When Segarra refused to change her findings, she was fired, according to the lawsuit.

    The U.S. Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations should pay close attention to the allegations in this lawsuit and open the same type of investigation it conducted in 1999 into the job function of Citibank’s Relationship Managers at its Private Bank.

    Roach further expounded on how the Relationship Manager’s need to “please the client” trumped their responsibilities under the law, stating that “After Mr. Salinas was arrested, Hubertus Rukavina, the head of Citibank Private Bank at the time, suggested that the Salinas accounts in London be transferred back to Switzerland because they would be afforded more secrecy there.”

    Amy Elliott, according to Roach, even advised Mrs. Salinas “that it might be wise to move the Trocca, Ltd. account out of Citibank because it might be more difficult for Mexican authorities to obtain account information from a non-U.S. bank.”

    The mountains of hubris at Citibank and Citigroup leading up to its collapse in 2008 suggest that, just possibly, its Relationship Managers at the New York Fed might have been wearing blinders.

    Relationship Managers might be appropriate positions for exclusive hotels – a super concierge service scurrying about to please high net worth guests. But on Wall Street and in private banking, it’s a job function that should have died with the release of the findings of the 1999 Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. The fact that the job function has now oozed its way into a major Wall Street regulator is serious cause for alarm.

    http://wallstreetonparade.com/2013/12/relationship-managers-at-the-new-york-fed-and-citibank-the-job-function-ripe-for-corruption/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you being rhetorical? Who is here is defending the current banking system?

      Delete
    2. Oh, of course. You are referring to Chomsky.

      Delete
  11. In order to induce subscription to the loan, the subscribers were to be incorporated by the name of the Governor and Company of the Bank of England. The Bank was given exclusive possession of the government's balances, and was the only limited-liability corporation allowed to issue bank notes.The lenders would give the government cash (bullion) and issue notes against the government bonds, which can be lent again. The £1.2m was raised in 12 days; half of this was used to rebuild the navy.
    As a side effect, the huge industrial effort needed, from establishing iron-works to make more nails to agriculture feeding the quadrupled strength of the navy, started to transform the economy. This helped the new Kingdom of Great Britain – England and Scotland were formally united in 1707 – to become powerful. The power of the navy made Britain the dominant world power in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries

    ReplyDelete
  12. Even more shocking than his economic ignorance, Chomsky thinks the two parties have moved to the right.

    ( I think the best part is when he reminds his audience of, supposedly, educated college students, that there's a difference between the national debt and the yearly deficit.)

    ReplyDelete
  13. For what it's worth, I think Chomsky is saying stuff that is basically right in line with what the MMT crowd is saying, and I don't believe they could be characterized as being on the same side as the banksters.

    ReplyDelete