Well he can kiss my hairy glass.
Well he can kiss my hairy glass.
Okay for now let me try this:
Which products aren't discrete? Which cannot be examined for quality? Which cannot be duplicated by competition? Which affect the overall well being of an economy?
If an example can't be offered, what am I supposed to do? Make one up for you?
The claim about a water monopoly is rubbish, unless you can find an instance where this happened that wasn't a direct result of the use of force (government or physical).
The Chicago School is only slightly better than the bare Keynesians.
Both schools are based on the deeply flawed idea that human action can be represented accurately in a mathematical model, along with a few other deeply flawed ideas.
You're claiming I have utilized a "widget fallacy" (please provide a link because your explanation is useless to me), but have not described a true flaw in the logic, you are simply mad at a placeholder for real world goods in the logic. Maybe you ought to give me an example of a "widget" (or "widgets") that would show the flaw in the logic.
Just because something is backed by law does not mean it is granted by law.
"Are public lawyers slaves? Are soldiers slaves? How about road contractors? In essence, I think your argument is fundamentally flawed."
These people may not be slaves but their income was forcibly removed from the hands of someone(taxpayers). In essence they are funded by second-hand slavery.
"Here is the most fundamental misunderstanding of economics..."
The things that you listed are only barely provided adequately by government, and each and every one of them has been provided by private institutions at some point in history. Most of them right here in the U.S.
As for the 18th century comment, consider reading some Hans Hermann Hoppe, or Murray Rothbard.
A strawman fallacy means that I oversimplified your argument. I didn't, I simply pointed out that you are practicing a fallacy, and by responding the way you did (pointing out "truer Scotsmen") you confirmed my point.
"Oh, I'm sure other economics professors would be interested..."
Classic appeal to authority.
"That would imply, dare I say it, that there should be some non-monetary inputs in a given society..."
I never said otherwise.
Don't go all Facebook on us though, if there is a like button, we also need a dislike button.
Sorry, I haven't ran for office, or engaged in a strike (because my working conditions and wages are well within reason), I didn't mean to claim that I had.
1. ) Claiming competition isn't always feasible is a failure of imagination, nothing more.
2. ) Despite what people think monopolies only exist because the government is around to beat up their enemies. In the absence of government regulation monopolies are rare, and temporary, and of limited power. Business collusion is a rapidly deteriorating situation.
Imagine for a moment you can produce a widget at your company for $5 and your competitor can produce it for the same $5 as you, and you both currently collect $2 profit per widget, of course both of you being greedy, ignoble capitalists you collude to raise the price by $5 (to a total of $12). This will cause a decrease in demand, as people can afford fewer widgets now. Each of you will have excess capacity that could be used to produce widgets, one of you (or an upstart) will understand that if you lower the price back to the original price of $7, you will end up with a more profits than if you remained in collusion, simply by absorbing the demand of your competitor.
Bailing on contracts is a matter for courts, not regulations or regulators.
The bold parts of Chomsky's text actually highlights his misunderstanding of markets, and his near-religious belief in popular opinion.
"The best description of what I "agitate" for would be a well-regulated capitalist society that produced wealth in humane and environmentally sound ways, did not intervene in the sovereign affairs of other nations"
Sounds both desirable and agreeable.
"and made the universal health care, food, shelter, and access to information fundamental human rights"
I sense a deep misunderstanding of the nature of human rights in this sentence, but in a purely grammatical sense I agree with you. Access to these goods and services is a human right, in the same way that access to any other market is, through trade.
You see I don't have the right to defend myself, or to speak freely because the Constitution says so, I have thees rights because I am a living, thinking human being. You should re-read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, if you look carefully those documents do not grant us rights, they simply acknowledge them. Healthcare, food, and shelter are not human rights, they are products/services. Someone has to build them, someone has to do the labor. If you are claiming they are a right, in essence you are claiming that it is your right to hold the doctor, the homebuilder and the grocer as your slaves.
Information, however, is a different subject. Information itself is not a scarce resource (If I know something, it doesn't exclude you from knowing that same thing), yet just because information is not scarce does not mean that you have a right to every bit of information ever thought up, ever discovered, ever created. If information has been given to you, you have every natural right to, in turn, give it away. But if it hasn't been given to you, you have no right to pry it out of another private individuals mind, or off of their property.
I suppose you could mean that everyone ought to have a right to computers/internet access. If you mean that computers and internet access ought to be free, again you are saying that computer manufacturers and telecom companies ought to be slaves.
"Or you could vote, run for office, strike, protest... there are quite a few options. America is a bad example because we don't have a functioning democracy. The same entities pretty much run the government and the media, so it's game over until the system completely collapses and we start over."
I think you misunderstood by my original statement. You see, you can't cure someone who is sick of democracy by giving them more of it. It so happens that I do all of the things listed, yet I only do them in a defensive manner. When someone wants to take the wealth I've earned, I vote for someone else (preferably one who will undue past harmful legislation), when someone wants to "grant" new rights, I vote for someone who understands what rights are.
By the way claiming that we don't have a functioning democracy is a "no true Scotsman" fallacy, just because our democracy doesn't play out the way you like it, or involve the elements you prefer doesn't mean it isn't a democracy.
Finally, GDP numbers are garbage. They are such high-level aggregates that they say almost nothing about a given society.