I don’t see much of interest, in what I’ve read. Seems like a lot of fluff. Maybe I’m wrong or am missing something.

No one seems to discuss his ideas or contributions, although he’s published books. Always makes me a little suspicious, but perhaps the ideas are so complex that it’s difficult to simplify. I know this is often the case with Heidegger and Hegel, so who knows.

Law is existentially nonsensical and unintelligible, for there is no human ontological rationality attendant upon the mistaken jurisprudential presupposition that language of law is determinative of behavior. — quintillus

To translate this awkward sentence:

Supposition: Language of law is determinative of behavior.

What does that mean? I don’t hear many arguing that the law, as its written, determines human behavior. It may encourage or discourage behavior.

Anyway…because there’s no “ontological rationality” underlining this supposition, law is unintelligible. That’s your claim.

What does ontological rationality mean?

Until these basic terms are explained, your thesis is very unclear and comes across as both “ridiculous” and incoherent.

Any idea why 55 year-old men have shrines of plastic figures four decades on? — Tom Storm

Nostalgia.

I'm curious what people think is behind the intense attraction and longevity of these movies and the wider Star Wars universe. Is it a new mythos, complete with life lessons? — Tom Storm

I loved them as a kid. Like (almost) any movie, there are some parts I don't like and never have, even as an adolescent. The dialogue is often cringey. But I think the reason it's so popular is because of the basic storyline -- it's a classic good vs evil story. You have a great bad guy in Darth Vader, and the stormtroopers, the empire, the Death Star -- all easy to digest and root against. A cool underdog hero.

Factor in the special effects, which were really cool at the time (blasters and lightsabers), and ideas like "The Force", which is also a cool amalgam of mostly eastern religious teachings and "science" (I guess), and you have a winner during a time of first summer blockbusters.

Alec Guinness really helps give some weight to the movie, as does James Earl Jones' voicework. None of the main actors are very good, though, in my opinion. I like them, but they're stiff in this one (the first one).

Anyway -- yeah, just a lot of things went right. Like Michael Jackson's Thriller, it came at the right time and made a lot of good choices.

Most of all, though, I think the choice of John Williams to score the film was by far the most important. What would this movie be without the music?

Obviously you don't like capitalism, but the fact is profit is given to those that are the owners. Workers get salaries, owners profits. — ssu

:lol:

Bye.

Terrible practice to make a profit? Terrible for business? — ssu

Making a profit is fine, provided it’s done morally. Giving those profits to the rich is morally wrong and terrible practice. It’s also not an investment. R/D, capex, raising wages, community programs — those are good investments potentially.

So yes, it’s terrible practice. We see the results for business, too. Maximizing short term profits and giving 90% back to shareholders, which is what’s been happening these last 40 years, has been a disaster. True, not a disaster for Carl Icahn and the like— if that’s what you mean by success, you’re welcome.

Going to close the thread for now. Thanks for all your questions. Any last minute ones I'll try to squeeze in, just PM me.

Stock companies try to make a profit for their owners. It's not a terrible investment, if they achieve doing that. — ssu

It’s not an investment in anything. And it’s a terrible practice. Terrible for businesses, in fact. To say nothing of the moral bankruptcy of the shareholder primacy view, which you seem to assume as a law of nature.

Basically if the company makes a profit, then it's a healthy company. — ssu

Just more nonsense.

Quarterly earnings tells you little about a company’s “health.” It only tells you it’s profitable this quarter.

Why would they be a terrible investment? — ssu

Because raising prices, which customers pay for, just to maintain profits, and then giving away 90% of those profits to shareholders is a terrible investment. It’s terrible for workers, customers, society, and, as has been studied, for businesses themselves.

To even call it an investment is misleading. It’s not investing anything, really. It’s trying to keep the profits and stock prices high.

It's really about just who can put this inflation into motion.... — ssu

Yes. Companies can. Wal Mart chose to absorb extra cost, for example. Others don’t.

The Fed printing money does inflate certain assets, yes. That’s only one part of overall inflation.

Companies that have the ability to put the highers costs into prices and protect their margins are actually quite good investments in this environment. — ssu

No they aren’t. They protect the profits, yes, which goes to shareholders. The consumers and workers get screwed, as always. It’s a terrible investment.

But are they really the sources, the main culprit, for inflation? — ssu

It’s a major contributor and, often, the main culprit, yes. In the case of food, it’s the main culprit. In the case of cars…It’s partly that but partly supply disruptions. Etc.

For example real estate doesn't have this ability — ssu

As I’ve said elsewhere, housing, stocks and bonds are all a different animal. The Fed is great at creating asset bubbles. Especially when moral hazard is factored in, which they’re exceptional at creating.

Does that mean that Noam Chomsky will only reply to questions which have been raised so far on this particular thread? I was coming from the angle that he would have more of a live presence like David Pearce did. — Jack Cummins

First part is correct. He will not be here live.

I may be expecting too much from such an important figure, so it is useful for know whether he will only look at what has been raised on the thread as I am wondering whether it will be closed, and whether a new one will be started for when he engages on the site. I was hoping that the thread here would be a starting point and that questions could emerge in relation to points which he makes. — Jack Cummins

Questions are for this thread and he’ll respond to them. I’m sending them along soon. So if you have one, I’d put one forward within the week.

Ah…You want a medal or something?

Why was the bloated, redundant military budget off limits in the debt limit negotiations between the militaristic GOP and Joe Biden? That’s over half the federal operating budget. Untouchable. Full of contractor rip offs and corruption. — Ralph Nader

God bless this man. Still plugging away.

True. I’ve softened my stance on religion over the years— it’s too big a category to make generalizations. On the other hand, things like the Christian evangelical movement in the US still angers me. I was one of them, once upon a time.

Among the Abrahamic religions, certainly. Not so sure about eastern religions.

Alright everyone— last call on questions. One more week.

People seem to forget that religion is the reason LGBT people, who merely just exist, fear for their lives and rights. — Darkneos

Some religion, yes. I’d be reluctant to categorize all religion as anti-LGBT though.

Here in the US, there’s a particularly vocal and powerful group of the evangelical persuasion that’s behind a lot of this— as well as being anti-abortion.

But you see it elsewhere, too. Uganda just passed a highly restrictive law, for example.

Well that was fun.

Now maybe we can get back to the important things— like fighting wokeness, Disney…arming teachers, banning books, restricting unions, gutting environmental regulations, etc. You know— the normal Republican agenda.

From the front page of the Times:

Companies Push Prices Higher, Protecting Profits but Adding to Inflation

Glad to see some attention to this glaring contributor to inflation.

That big retailers exploit their financial control over suppliers to hobble smaller competitors is a different phenomenon. — ssu

Right, a phenomenon which explains the inflation that matters for most people. Not stocks and bonds.

As I've said, prices can go up and down for many reasons that aren't related to inflation. And you can allways find new reasons to argue just why prices are up. — ssu

Prices going up over time is inflation.

And you're right, you can always find new reasons -- which is only right, considering the world is complicated. Which is why clinging to obsolete generalizations from yore is silly.

If you give it to people, inflation will happen sooner or later. Just as the example of giving 100 million dollars to everybody shows. — ssu

Except that’s not what’s happening. The article on food shows why.

It works in some cases, like housing and stocks. Those assets inflate, sure. You can see why. When attempting to explain the rise in food or gas, it just completely fails.

What’s irritating is that this story is so very convenient for corporate America.

Corporate greed, not wages, is behind inflation. It’s time for price controls

Food prices, gas prices, car prices…we now know why prices have gone up so much. Trying to fit it all nearly into “we’re printing too much money” is really a joke. I guess you have to be a Nobel winning economist to see it in such terms, and be so silly.

The underlying economic problem is profit-price inflation. It’s caused by corporations raising their prices above their increasing costs.
Corporations are using those increasing costs – of materials, components and labor – as excuses to increase their prices even higher, resulting in bigger profits. This is why corporate profits are close to levels not seen in over half a century.
Corporations have the power to raise prices without losing customers because they face so little competition. Since the 1980s, two-thirds of all American industries have become more concentrated.

The desire to increase profit margin is the only cause of inflation.

Wage increases are post hoc corrections for inflation. When the same goods and services cost far more than they used to, people cannot afford them any longer when and if they have the same earnings. To blame wage increases for inflation is to blame the bandaid for the bleeding cut. — creativesoul

:up: Well said.

Some common folks got 1200 bucks three years ago, and some raises for working during the pandemic, and now they must pay dearly for that. That’s all that’s happening. Blame the people for raising prices. Meanwhile corporate profits continue to soar.

A good example from the Times just today:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/29/opinion/inflation-groceries-pricing-walmart.html?unlocked_article_code=WjEk23ZSH7lfiOdBi1KQHWDZJWW3ygSsdjnAEabZBgexPhuyctNH2Bedpk13aaO19LOlAek-DYIlX7OC40G6dJCpbe_XKBNJzHshEgnGq6VDYHyjTiRZoAickk5VsW9d7aS6vIfjCk5gR0RNvI5NXDOHoVJFqlU7QAJFTPyNHV_KjvDUgsYXWx8U1fxJvhEeqb-atbiTIruDlEBUHYTz9vVp2kqvtDHZlfnClEuIAJKhpe79NwcVWOwAyvQPfsayytXe8LTeTdJqlG_QX-oFtjjwxFF3stF7jg-aBZGhZSteeD4vWlmmXZskFFWuN4XlhRIIQvYOKWHrJseYCbPFz8s2CENJ10e9_4_KFok&smid=url-share

If you think his campaign is “DOA,” you’re not paying attention. He’ll be the Republican nominee. I’ll wager money on it.

The rapidly ballooning field, combined with Mr. Trump’s seemingly unbreakable core of support, represents a grave threat to Mr. DeSantis, imperiling his ability to consolidate the non-Trump vote, and could mirror the dynamics that powered Mr. Trump’s takeover of the party in 2016.

It’s a matter of math: Each new entrant threatens to steal a small piece of Mr. DeSantis’s potential coalition — whether it be Mr. Pence with Iowa evangelicals or Mr. Scott with college-educated suburbanites. And these new candidates are unlikely to eat into Mr. Trump’s votes. The former president’s base — more than 30 percent of Republicans — remains strongly devoted to him.

Ny Times

I agree with this. It benefits Trump.

Maybe the RNC takes a page from the DNC playbook and consolidate around one person once it’s clear that the non-Trumps are splitting the votes.

And that’s that. Now let’s see what the deal is, and if the MAGA Republicans will accept it. I imagine McCarthy could get some democrats to help, but he seems to have said that’s out of the question…so who knows.

Paul Volcker, where are you? The current feds are too timid, IMO. — jgill

I don’t buy that this is mostly a monetary issue. Apologies to Friedman. So Vockler’s methods wouldn’t be appropriate here anyway.

We should abolish the debt ceiling. — GRWelsh

Yeah, it’s silly. The spending has already been made. If they want to cut the debt, then reject the budget.

Republicans don’t really care if shutdowns or debt gimmicks cause chaos and pain— they’re interested solely in making people as miserable as possible so they can blame the person in office.

Notice the language from McCarthy: “If president Biden allows a default…” It’s laughable.

Cutting it in half would be a good start. Cut it down to 100 billion, I say. Still too much. Now the deficit is 700 billion, which can easily be made up for by taxing the wealthy and corporations. Fairly easy, just not “politically viable” thanks to both parties— but mostly Republicans.

It’s also worth remembering that no one seemed to give a damn about the debt during Trump’s four years. Now the Republicans have to scream about it and cause a ruckus, which trickles down to us talking about it. Which is annoying, but unavoidable when it’s something this important (the debt ceiling that is).

No I agree. I was speaking specifically about military spending.

What’s frustrating is the obduracy of both parties on this matter. There’s some sounds coming from Bernie and others, but it’s ignored or treated as impossible.

There’s no reason we should be spending 858 billion dollars, a year, on the “military” - ie, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, etc. None.

Military Spending Emerges as Big Dispute in Debt-Limit Talks
President Biden has offered to freeze discretionary spending, including for defense. Republicans want to spend more for the military, and cut more elsewhere.

What a shocker. Can republicans make it any more obvious who they represent? It’s a joke.

From what I have heard of incels, I am reasonably comfortable to write them off - the way I would virulent racists or any other vile bigotry. — Tom Storm

:up:

Likewise. Very comfortable.

Given that the expected value of the unchosen envelope is greater than the value of the chosen envelope, it is rational to switch. — Michael

Seems like nonsense to me. There’s a 50% chance of choosing the envelope with the greater money. That’s it. That’s all we’re given. If we were given any other information, as in the Monty Hall problem, then perhaps switching is correct. But in that problem you start with a 1/3 chance of choosing the prize, and another option is revealed afterwards. In this case, however, nothing has changed.

So what we’re left with is the claim that going through the motion of picking one envelope and then — with absolutely nothing else changing— switching and picking up the other envelope is somehow rational. That’s simply wrong.

Is it worth doing? Yes. But we have no way of improving our choice by switching, any more than switching our call of “heads” to “tails”.

The expected value doesn’t matter. That just tells you it’s profitable to take the bet, especially in the long run. It doesn’t change the probability of choice. If I offer $1,000,000 if it comes up heads and you pay me $100 if it comes up tails, that’s a very profitable bet to take — especially if run many times. But it tells us nothing whatsoever about whether to switch our call, because the probability of choosing correctly is still 50/50. The simple act of changing our minds doesn’t magically change that.

Having chosen an envelope at will, but before inspecting it, you are given the chance to switch envelopes. Should you switch?

It’s like the Monty Hall problem. But in this case, there’s a 50/50 chance of choosing the envelope with the larger amount of money, so switching makes no sense. You’re not given any more information, so I really don’t follow the rest of the calculations.

[Edit — I see this has been gone over quite a bit, so forgive the late interjection.]

:up:

Where I personally differ is the assumption humans will be able to deflect the consequences to any substantial degree. — jgill

Okay. And that’s worth talking about. But it’s a different animal from what I was responding to.

The Earth's movement in our galaxy is beyond our present abilities to alter. — jgill

Yes— and how is this relevant to climate change?

Lowering CO2 emissions is well within our abilities.

What’s childish is being an 80-year-old coming to a philosophy forum and declaring that climate change is only “natural,” then chastising people for being “woke” and emotional for believing otherwise.

If you don’t want to be insulted, then stop insulting peoples intelligence. Next time take 10 minutes to learn something about the science of climate change.

Unlike you I have zero interest in convincing anyone of anything. — Varnaj42

So you just like announcing your unbiased skepticism about a topic you don’t understand. Cool. Maybe I’ll start one about how I think quantum mechanics are woke. I’m equally qualified to judge that field.

Sure the climate is changing. I disagree about the causes though. — Varnaj42

Several of these, in their normal movements, affect the atmosphere which, in turn, causes changes. — Varnaj42

Yeah, I’m sure the world’s climate scientists haven’t considered “normal movements” or natural variance. You’ve cracked the case.

We humans are a fear based species. — Varnaj42

We’re also a denial-based species, as you demonstrate well.