Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Noam Chomsky

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    evolving_doors wrote: »
    About 20 years ago he was saying that General Electric were the real illuminati. Is that still a thing?

    In fairness to Chomsky he has done an enormous service to our understanding of economics by shifting the focus from the cost of social welfare to the cost of corporate welfare.

    The hundreds of billions of taxpayers' money given to bail out various corporations, laws designed for corporations to pay as little tax as possible while benefitting from taxpayer-funded educational, technological and infrastructural systems, and state payments to incentivise corporations in a way to benefit them more than the state (e.g. state subsidies to employ people which last for 6 months, but which result in the company letting them go after 6 months so that they can have new workers subsidised).

    We still have a long way to go before the concept of corporate welfare is as known as social welfare, but Chomsky has done his part to highlight it.


  • Options
    #63
    Charmeleon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 437 ✭✭Charmeleon


    Deleted User wrote: »
    In fairness to Chomsky he has done an enormous service to our understanding of economics by shifting the focus from the cost of social welfare to the cost of corporate welfare.

    The hundreds of billions of taxpayers' money given to bail out various corporations, laws designed for corporations to pay as little tax as possible while benefitting from taxpayer-funded educational, technological and infrastructural systems, and state payments to incentivise corporations in a way to benefit them more than the state (e.g. state subsidies to employ people which last for 6 months, but which result in the company letting them go after 6 months so that they can have new workers subsidised).

    We still have a long way to go before the concept of corporate welfare is as known as social welfare, but Chomsky has done his part to highlight it.

    I would think people already know this but don't conceptualise it the same way as a far-left anarchist. We have the IDA here for years waving money in the faces of corporations and are very proud of it, never missing an opportunity to publicise how their incentives have attracted investment.

    The fact is, 'corporate welfare' creates jobs and net tax income for the state, social welfare not so much.


  • Options
    #64
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    Gringo180 wrote: »
    Carling is another genius.

    Good rugby player. I'll give you that, but a genius?


  • Options
    #65
    Junkyard Tom
    Registered Users Posts: 10,117 ✭✭✭✭Junkyard Tom


    Gringo180 wrote: »
    Capitalism in its early days was fine but it has now evolved into Corporationism. The rich are getting richer and the poor poorer. Big difference.

    Transnational mega-corporations are anything but Capitalist. It's no coincidence that the two greatest Colonial empires the world has ever known (Britain and the US) were also enormous naval powers who ensured the upward distribution of wealth from the many to the few.

    It's not so much the hidden hand of the free market as the not-so-hidden fist of Capitalism.


  • Options
    #66
    Charmeleon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 437 ✭✭Charmeleon


    Junkyard Tom wrote: »
    Transnational mega-corporations are anything but Capitalist. It's no coincidence that the two greatest Colonial empires the world has ever known (Britain and the US) were also enormous naval powers who ensured the upward distribution of wealth from the many to the few.

    It's not so much the hidden hand of the free market as the not-so-hidden fist of Capitalism.

    Interestingly, the global poverty and extreme poverty trends have been sharply downwards. There’s never been a point since the 1820s when global poverty showed an upward trend. We just care more about it when we see it.World-Poverty-Since-1820.png


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Junkyard Tom
    Registered Users Posts: 10,117 ✭✭✭✭Junkyard Tom


    Charmeleon wrote: »
    Interestingly, the global poverty and extreme poverty trends have been sharply downwards.

    Your point as it relates to what I wrote?


  • Options
    #68
    Charmeleon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 437 ✭✭Charmeleon


    Junkyard Tom wrote: »
    Your point as it relates to what I wrote?

    If there was a massive transfer of wealth from the many to the few then it is hard to see how global poverty has been rapidly decreasing at the same time. If trans-national mega-corporations are sucking wealth out of poorer countries, how are the poorest people becoming far less poor?


  • Options
    #69
    s7ryf3925pivug
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,007 ✭✭✭s7ryf3925pivug


    What's wrong with regularly buying new e-cars or hybrids? Presumably the old ones are sold on, so it would just result in greater availability of green cars overall. The notion that e-cars actually involve greater pollution is not true, if that's the angle.


  • Options
    #70
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,099 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Briggs Straight Stack wrote: »
    What's wrong with regularly buying new e-cars or hybrids? Presumably the old ones are sold on, so it would just result in greater availability of green cars overall. The notion that e-cars actually involve greater pollution is not true, if that's the angle.
    No angle required. However they are not the "green" machines to the degree that is promoted or believed. It's not just battery cars. In any case they make up a tiny percentage of worldwide sales. I thought it should be obvious that it's the churn in new cars full stop. As for being sold on, that's largely a dead end. Might get two, maybe three owners before they're scrapped. I can bring you to large yards in Dublin where you will find many hundreds of cars that are at or over ten years old and essentially worthless. Going electric won't change this, though it should as electric motors should run for decades..

    Sure it'll make people feel better about themselves. That's about it, but the three year product cycle of manufacturing will continue. Too many entities require it to continue. The manufacturers of course. The dealer network. The financial industry that backs the loans on the purchases. The government who gets the tax cut. The concern for the environment is only for election posters.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Options
    #71
    s7ryf3925pivug
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,007 ✭✭✭s7ryf3925pivug


    Wibbs wrote: »
    No angle required. However they are not the "green" machines to the degree that is promoted or believed. It's not just battery cars. In any case they make up a tiny percentage of worldwide sales. I thought it should be obvious that it's the churn in new cars full stop. As for being sold on, that's largely a dead end. Might get two, maybe three owners before they're scrapped. I can bring you to large yards in Dublin where you will find many hundreds of cars that are at or over ten years old and essentially worthless. Going electric won't change this, though it should as electric motors should run for decades..

    Sure it'll make people feel better about themselves. That's about it, but the three year product cycle of manufacturing will continue. Too many entities require it to continue. The manufacturers of course. The dealer network. The financial industry that backs the loans on the purchases. The government who gets the tax cut. The concern for the environment is only for election posters.
    He's not scrapping them though. He's not causing the old ones to go to waste by buying new ones. He's just adding them to the pool of vehicles. In any case, the environmental cost of manufacturing and scrapping them is less than the benefits of using them over their lifespan in place of a petrol or diesel car.

    I agree with the point in general though. One factor is that the insurance on cars increases sharply when they're over 13 years old. Can make it prohibitively expensive to keep a car longer than that, regardless of quality or condition. So perfectly good cars do end up being scrapped..

    I also agree in a broader sense again - that people are more and more inclined to treat all products as disposable.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement