Very coherent and nuanced article and rightfully critical about Chomsky, that however is my hero, but now making a big miscalculation. I hope he will read it and adapt his point of view. Well done Nolan.
Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU for writing this well-reasoned and well-researched piece. I have been so frustrated with Chomsky (not to mention Cornell West) even though I generally respect him greatly.
I haven't had the energy to speak my mind on this topic openly anymore after being dogpiled on recently in Instagram comments by a bunch of "Leftists" that were so rabid and hateful I concluded most had to be Russian troll farm operatives.
I wish more people could see how nuanced and complicated situations are instead of making everything black and white, good vs evil, etc. The world just isn't that simple.
Tom Wolfe just tore Chomsky a new one in his recently published The Kingdom of Speech. Wolfe's argument is that Chomsky hasn't even succeeded in explaining the human acquisition of speech after decades of failed theories, which is his core expertise. Why is he any better qualified to tell us how the world should be managed? Chomsky reminds me of the embarrassing Paul Ehrlich, who has made so many wrong predictions about the end of the world by mass starvation because of overpopulation that maybe he should finally shut up. Apparently anyone is qualified to be a prophet of doom, even a Swedish high school drop out who exists somewhere on the spectrum. There is no penalty for being loudly, stupidly wrong.
Russian is, as they say, a third world shithole with the illusion of a first world military. But the initial Kiev offensive, which ground to a halt on rotted Chinese truck tires, is a metaphor for the entire Russian military. My personal experience after living and working in the FSU is that the entire Soviet experiment ruined everything, from civil society to the environment. It was a disaster in every possible way (other than they did get the AK47 right) and a pile of corpses is its greatest achievement. But the biggest problem is Russia's demographic implosion. In a few decades, the Russian Far East will be up for grabs, because the future belongs to those who breed.
China is no better. Its expansion into Africa is the worst kind of colonialism. Africans are growing increasingly bitter about their new Chinese overlords and when they finally lose patience, there will be new wars of liberation, and the Chinese colonists will flee the continent as hastily and haphazardly as the Portuguese and the Belgians. They will flee from Africa the same way investors are fleeing from China.
But here I am, some guy in Idaho, trying to out-prophesy Chomsky, Ehrlich, and poor Greta Thunberg.
"If you believe people should be paid for their research and work, please consider becoming a paid subscriber. I can’t sustain the hours I put into this without your support." >>> Well said, Nolan, and I understand your feelings. However, consider mine... I don't put as much into this as you do, but it certainly is time-consuming. I can't help noting you haven't subscribed to what I post, and I don't even ask for money. I can see that you're actually working at becoming a writer and I wish you the best of luck. But I must confess I'm quite underwhelmed by much of what happens in this platform. A lot of people are just asking to get paid for having opinions. I don't think I'll be staying too much longer. I've already published most of what I wanted before I came here. Best wishes.
Hi Ian, I'm happy to subscribe and read what you wrote. With the amount of people I subscribe to and interact with, I often miss pieces I want to read. If there is something specific you want me to read and share, you can always post a link in the comments or email me. I don't subscribe to everyone who subscribes to me, or I wouldn't have time to write. However, I always respond to people who send me something directly.
Chomsky’s greatest errors are in the field of economics, but we won’t go there. Your article fails to answer a question: without USA’s current debt levels, would it have dramatically higher inflation and be able to defend shipping routes worldwide? In other words, if Russia has a budget surplus while USA’s systems are unsustainable without massive debt denominated in its own currency, which has the more stable long-term future? Also, if USA’s systems are not sustainable without massive debt, is its expansion in the name of human rights a cover for saving itself?
As for the EU, is its healthcare system (and other benefits) sustainable without USA military R&D and protection?
You bring up some great points and questions that would take an entire essay to respond to, so I’ll just rapid-fire some point-form ideas. To be honest, I had to get into a discussion with my father and uncle to have something useful to say, so thank you.
About debt, I’m not an economist, but what I know from reading various economists is that there’s no clear answer, and everyone has different opinions. I’m drawn to the ideas in The Deficit Myth: Modern Monetary Theory and the Birth of the People’s Economy by Stephanie Kelton.
Kelton challenges the conventional understanding of deficits as inherently bad and argues that deficits can actually strengthen economies and lead to faster growth.
The book challenges the common notion that taxes primarily fund government spending. According to Kelton, taxes serve multiple purposes, such as regulating aggregate demand, reducing income inequality, and promoting specific social and economic outcomes.
Kelton challenges the notion that taxes primarily fund government spending.
As for Europe, they had a slightly different attitude against communist danger by expanding our Rhineland model (social democratic welfare state) instead of spending everything in arms. (They could do so because the US was more interested in the growth of their military-industrial complex).
After 1989 they, unfortunately, stopped that and increasingly embraced the neoliberal agenda. They sold all their public goods and services to most American companies (because they paid the best). Instead of investing in public infrastructure, they pay out their shareholders. (Belgium — where my family is from — is lucky because their governments are so slow to implement this, and they like to obstruct each other, and that tends to keep our Rhineland model a bit longer by accident, let’s say).
But the Russian model is certainly not more sustainable. They also spent far too much on weapons, explaining the endless now rusty supply of tanks etc., and they did not invest in anything else than corruption.
And you’re right. Europe does rely on the USA. Europe always called the “US emergency number” in the Pentagon to solve European problems like the last Balkan war. And as long as the US showed solidarity with Europe, Russia behaved in Europe. So yes, Europe was able to spend much less on military power because they counted on the US to scare Russia. And today, the war in Ukraine proves again that Europe needs all the help it can get from the US.
And meanwhile, London is still the laundromat to wash all the dirty Russian money clean.
As do the Swiss banks to clean the mafia money from around the world.
And the European left was so against NATO, but when Trump wanted to blow up the solidarity with Europe, then NATO suddenly became so important to the political European left.
To sum up, I try to provide nuanced ideas and reporting, but we live in a fucked up world where narcissists rule.
Very coherent and nuanced article and rightfully critical about Chomsky, that however is my hero, but now making a big miscalculation. I hope he will read it and adapt his point of view. Well done Nolan.
Thank you, Frank! I wonder how I could get this into Chomsky's hands...
Interesting article, Nolan, and welcome escape from people who see everything in black and white. And some very interesting comments afterward.
Thank you, Ian!
Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU for writing this well-reasoned and well-researched piece. I have been so frustrated with Chomsky (not to mention Cornell West) even though I generally respect him greatly.
I haven't had the energy to speak my mind on this topic openly anymore after being dogpiled on recently in Instagram comments by a bunch of "Leftists" that were so rabid and hateful I concluded most had to be Russian troll farm operatives.
I wish more people could see how nuanced and complicated situations are instead of making everything black and white, good vs evil, etc. The world just isn't that simple.
Very well thought out article, you’ve given me a lot to think about. Thank you!
Thank you, Elle! I'm really happy to hear that.
Tom Wolfe just tore Chomsky a new one in his recently published The Kingdom of Speech. Wolfe's argument is that Chomsky hasn't even succeeded in explaining the human acquisition of speech after decades of failed theories, which is his core expertise. Why is he any better qualified to tell us how the world should be managed? Chomsky reminds me of the embarrassing Paul Ehrlich, who has made so many wrong predictions about the end of the world by mass starvation because of overpopulation that maybe he should finally shut up. Apparently anyone is qualified to be a prophet of doom, even a Swedish high school drop out who exists somewhere on the spectrum. There is no penalty for being loudly, stupidly wrong.
Russian is, as they say, a third world shithole with the illusion of a first world military. But the initial Kiev offensive, which ground to a halt on rotted Chinese truck tires, is a metaphor for the entire Russian military. My personal experience after living and working in the FSU is that the entire Soviet experiment ruined everything, from civil society to the environment. It was a disaster in every possible way (other than they did get the AK47 right) and a pile of corpses is its greatest achievement. But the biggest problem is Russia's demographic implosion. In a few decades, the Russian Far East will be up for grabs, because the future belongs to those who breed.
China is no better. Its expansion into Africa is the worst kind of colonialism. Africans are growing increasingly bitter about their new Chinese overlords and when they finally lose patience, there will be new wars of liberation, and the Chinese colonists will flee the continent as hastily and haphazardly as the Portuguese and the Belgians. They will flee from Africa the same way investors are fleeing from China.
But here I am, some guy in Idaho, trying to out-prophesy Chomsky, Ehrlich, and poor Greta Thunberg.
"If you believe people should be paid for their research and work, please consider becoming a paid subscriber. I can’t sustain the hours I put into this without your support." >>> Well said, Nolan, and I understand your feelings. However, consider mine... I don't put as much into this as you do, but it certainly is time-consuming. I can't help noting you haven't subscribed to what I post, and I don't even ask for money. I can see that you're actually working at becoming a writer and I wish you the best of luck. But I must confess I'm quite underwhelmed by much of what happens in this platform. A lot of people are just asking to get paid for having opinions. I don't think I'll be staying too much longer. I've already published most of what I wanted before I came here. Best wishes.
Ian C.
Hi Ian, I'm happy to subscribe and read what you wrote. With the amount of people I subscribe to and interact with, I often miss pieces I want to read. If there is something specific you want me to read and share, you can always post a link in the comments or email me. I don't subscribe to everyone who subscribes to me, or I wouldn't have time to write. However, I always respond to people who send me something directly.
Chomsky’s greatest errors are in the field of economics, but we won’t go there. Your article fails to answer a question: without USA’s current debt levels, would it have dramatically higher inflation and be able to defend shipping routes worldwide? In other words, if Russia has a budget surplus while USA’s systems are unsustainable without massive debt denominated in its own currency, which has the more stable long-term future? Also, if USA’s systems are not sustainable without massive debt, is its expansion in the name of human rights a cover for saving itself?
As for the EU, is its healthcare system (and other benefits) sustainable without USA military R&D and protection?
You bring up some great points and questions that would take an entire essay to respond to, so I’ll just rapid-fire some point-form ideas. To be honest, I had to get into a discussion with my father and uncle to have something useful to say, so thank you.
About debt, I’m not an economist, but what I know from reading various economists is that there’s no clear answer, and everyone has different opinions. I’m drawn to the ideas in The Deficit Myth: Modern Monetary Theory and the Birth of the People’s Economy by Stephanie Kelton.
Kelton challenges the conventional understanding of deficits as inherently bad and argues that deficits can actually strengthen economies and lead to faster growth.
The book challenges the common notion that taxes primarily fund government spending. According to Kelton, taxes serve multiple purposes, such as regulating aggregate demand, reducing income inequality, and promoting specific social and economic outcomes.
Kelton challenges the notion that taxes primarily fund government spending.
As for Europe, they had a slightly different attitude against communist danger by expanding our Rhineland model (social democratic welfare state) instead of spending everything in arms. (They could do so because the US was more interested in the growth of their military-industrial complex).
After 1989 they, unfortunately, stopped that and increasingly embraced the neoliberal agenda. They sold all their public goods and services to most American companies (because they paid the best). Instead of investing in public infrastructure, they pay out their shareholders. (Belgium — where my family is from — is lucky because their governments are so slow to implement this, and they like to obstruct each other, and that tends to keep our Rhineland model a bit longer by accident, let’s say).
But the Russian model is certainly not more sustainable. They also spent far too much on weapons, explaining the endless now rusty supply of tanks etc., and they did not invest in anything else than corruption.
And you’re right. Europe does rely on the USA. Europe always called the “US emergency number” in the Pentagon to solve European problems like the last Balkan war. And as long as the US showed solidarity with Europe, Russia behaved in Europe. So yes, Europe was able to spend much less on military power because they counted on the US to scare Russia. And today, the war in Ukraine proves again that Europe needs all the help it can get from the US.
And meanwhile, London is still the laundromat to wash all the dirty Russian money clean.
As do the Swiss banks to clean the mafia money from around the world.
And the European left was so against NATO, but when Trump wanted to blow up the solidarity with Europe, then NATO suddenly became so important to the political European left.
To sum up, I try to provide nuanced ideas and reporting, but we live in a fucked up world where narcissists rule.