Transcript: http://truth-out.org/news/item/27901-noam-chomsky-talks-us-militarism-and-capitalism-at-home-and-abroad

God the US will miss Chomsky when he's gone.

So will the ROW (the 19 out of 20 people on Earth that US power considers disposable meat..)

BTW from the outside it looks like the last days of Rome.. crazy all round, torture, non-judicial murder, mobs burning things, unchecked power, total obfuscation and confusion sown all around by rogue members of the powerbase for their own reasons, xenophobia, public statements of religious eschatology.. ..

Take it from a Brit - the end of total global power does not HAVE to be an apocalypse.. you guys need to get into tea and cricket, stat..

There is a demonstrated bias towards equity investment domestically which is probably what Adam Smith was talking about, which is rather different to tax havens and global supply chains which would not have been as feasible back in the 18th century.

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

Chomsky is also not really correct as Adam Smith does use it in the more general sense that it is referred to today in The Theory of Moral Sentiments. That it took me a couple of minutes to contradict this video with wikipedia does not bode well for the fact checking of TYT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand#Other_uses_of_the_phrase_by_Smith

I think it's also worth pointing out that Smith's position wasn't that of unrestrained market activity. The general principle of the invisible hand is sound if you accept that point. As far as his actual position on the role of government, it's open to interpretation. It's also worth pointing out that you can't expect a concept to not need some adjustment after 250 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith#As_a_symbol_of_free_market_economics

Chomsky was a good listen, but I sure didn't like the dude after.

I think he's right, in the same way that Chomsky is right. He's also just like Chomsky in not offering a way forward.

*quality Chomsky, as always

The question at 44:03 is just as relevant today as it was a quarter of a century ago.

I would argue that a precarious situation with regards to your income is just as effective a pacifier as the usual bread & games are. A zero-hour contract, or a wage that requires you to get a second/third job, effectively prevents you from participating in civil society. You don't have the time nor the energy to become informed, and you sure as hell are not going to become involved, either. And everything's left for the good old boys club to decide...

Maybe they've overcooked it in Greece and Spain, maybe not. But it works like a charm in Germany, where a great number of people are struggling enough to prevent them from getting any funky ideas, yet not enough to have them pick up their pitchforks and torches.

Why doesn't Chomsky find a nice socialist system he can believe in, and fucking MOVE there!?

No, he has to live here, where he is free to spew his BS because he won't be happy until the US is a third-world shithole where everyone is miserable.

This talking-head linguist wants high energy prices, that will save the future. Give me a break. If he paid $4 a gallon for gas, he'd be blasting the oil industry. Now gas is a smidge cheaper, he's blasting production. He can't make up his mind. Maybe he can magic his ass from place to place.

I don't think anyone outside of a Noam Chomsky bootlicker really believes that Israel is ordering the wholesale slaughter of children.

Actually where I mostly get my news is Noam Chomsky so I think I'm in good company. Now I have to ask, are you being paid for your posts? I think you should look into it, you could be making some money. Unlike anyone defending Palestinians. You should note I'm saying Palestinians and not Hamas.

Yes I can say wrong side of history with a straight face. The entire world wants Israel to accept a two state solution and they chose specifically to use force because they had the backing of the United States. Israel and the US have blocked peace for 40 years, and that's a fact.

The Chomsky is strong in that one -- and concise.

Then don't get an "Official" US media constantly report the Official view on many things. Just open a New York Times article on some controversial thing the US is involved in, you'll constantly find quotes like "Officials say...an official said...Pentagon Officials say."

There are other commentators you can go to. Really respected ones who could be given an hour on the topic and it would be tremendously educational. That won't happen and it's not just because of balance, it's because of Concision. Concision is used to help keep complex viewpoints or opinions and facts that don't fit the narrative out of the conversation completely.

I've always loved this Chomsky blurb on concision in US media.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlL2Jj-kCNU

Just wrong huh, Ok then this is gonna be fun.

Firstly I was answering the question posed by Russell Brand "Is Fox News more dangerous than ISIS?" Which any reasonable person, especially those who have had a family member blown away in Iraq recently can say NO They are NOT.

Second Point, was it Fox that was convincing the American Public of WMDs and warmongering, or was it everyone? There wasn't a channel you could find that wasn't fully behind the government because that is what they do. In this area Fox isn't special, you could've turned on CNN and MSNBC at anytime and seen a 95% to 5% reporting in for the war and against.

Also the fact that the public was much of a factor in the run up to war, not as much as you'd think. There was simply a lot of ambivalence but support for our troops. Due to the fact that we have an all volunteer mercenary force it's just a lot easier to ignore that Johnny is being marched off to war. It's not right, it's just how it is.

In conclusion, Fox, the News Network isn't worse than ISIS. They're just not, end of.

EDIT: Also it doesn't seem like I should have to point this out to people but I guess I do. Russell Brand is a funny comedian, he is not fucking Noam Chomsky. He isn't around to provide cogent analysis and if I met him I would agree with some things he says and destroy him on his ridiculous hyperbole. He's not meant to report to us in an honest way, that's not what he does that's not what he's known for. Look for people like this to inject insight into the discussion and you get exactly what you deserve.

Your video, Chris Hedges Interviews Noam Chomsky (1/3), has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Chris Hedges Interviews Noam Chomsky (3/3) has been added as a related post - related requested by lurgee on that post.

Chris Hedges Interviews Noam Chomsky (3/3) has been added as a related post - related requested by lurgee on that post.