Noam Chomsky on privatization and nationalization:

[marmar]

"Privatization does not mean you take a public institution and give it to some nice person. It means you take a public institution and give it to an unaccountable tyranny. Public institutions have many side benefits. For one thing they may purposely run at a loss. They're not out for profit. They may purposely run at a loss because of the side benefits. So, for example if a public steel industry runs at a loss it's providing cheap steel to other industries. Maybe that's a good thing. Public institutions can have a counter cyclic property. So that means that they can maintain employment in periods of recession, which increases demand, which helps you to get out of recession. Private companies can't do that in a recession. Throw out the work force because that's the way you make money."

[napoleon_in_rags]

1. I love his analysis. nt

[navarth]

2. K & R

[Gregorian]

3. That's informative.

I like it when people give good succinct explanations.

I wish we heard more from Noam. If only we could see him on the tv rather than people like Rove. No wonder americans are confused.

[InternalDialogue]

4. marmar, from which of his books did that come?

(If it was a book -- otherwise, do you have an online reference?)

[marmar]

5. It's actually from the documentary "The Corporation"

Here's a link to that and other quotes from the film (a must-see, if you haven't):


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379225/quotes

[InternalDialogue]

6. Thank you.

That's a great film. I actually enjoyed the book a bit more, having read it first. I'll have to go see if the quote or something like it appears in the book, and maybe it's sourced to some of his writing.

:hi:

[Greyhound]

7. It is no coincidence that his area of expertise is linguistics.

Our language is the only method we have to express thoughts between each other and by allowing a small group or class to control, or destroy, language allows them to direct or confuse thought. (Seems like there was a book written shortly after WWII that uses this as it's central theme...)

We have seen, on this board for example, how many people use terms like capitalism, socialism, communism, markets, government, authority, economy, finance, and so on, with no clear definition or understanding of their meanings. We have had our thoughts and understanding so confused that effective communication becomes nearly impossible.