ARNOLD KLING
August 14, 2011
The Top Political Contributors
August 11, 2011
Gender and the New Commanding Heights
August 11, 2011
Jamie Galbraith Makes an Assumption
August 11, 2011
Macroeconometrics: The Science of Hubris
August 10, 2011
Real and Nominal Bond Yields
BRYAN CAPLAN
August 14, 2011
The Effect of Thumb Sucking on Income
August 12, 2011
The Voice of Cold, Hard Truth to All Would-Be Educators
August 12, 2011
Ability, Morality, and Prosperity: A Paper and a Report
August 11, 2011
The Theory of Time and Frittering
August 10, 2011
Male Variance and the Remnants of the Gender Gap
DAVID HENDERSON
August 9, 2011
Hayek in "Unbroken", Part Two
August 8, 2011
Hayek in "Unbroken"
August 5, 2011
James Bovard on the Peace Corps
August 4, 2011
Summers Way Off on FDR and 1941
August 3, 2011
The "Amazon" Tax
SHARE
I liked that movie, even if it was silly.
Human lives are usually not as exciting or heroic as the stories we watch in the movies. We must sometimes wonder why. One theory is that we are not as noble or worthy as those story characters. Another theory is that stories give us a messed up idea of what nobility is. A third theory is that sinster forces have tricked us into not living up to our potential. Guess which theory is most likely to be defended in a story.
This seems like a bit of a strawman. Where does Chomsky say you should never get married? Where does he say you shouldn't buy anything?
My interpretation of Chomsky is that he challenges the notion of consumer sovereignty, as Galbraith did in the Affluent Society. The issue isn't whether advertising is counter to human nature. The issue is whether psychological and sociological forces influence our desire to consume.
Economics does a good job of comparing systems for allocating resources to provide the goods and services that people want. It does a relatively poor job of explaining why people want the things they do. Psychologists, sociologists, and (perhaps) linguists have better tools to answer that question, IMHO.
My best,
-- James
Its allways popular to attack Chomsky though. He often just makes observations, maybe with hints of opinions on the 'rightness or wrongness' of the way things are.
"Hints" is pretty generous.
I often agree with Chomsky's observations about politics and international afairs but I find kind of annoying the way he tries tu see politics in terms of right and wrong.
Chomsky's articles are usually denunciations of some sort of american hypocrisy (The US says one thing and does another). He describes how the noble purposes in american retorics are no more than cold interest, power struggles or domination ambitions. So what? hasn't he read Machiavelli?
Hey! I was James here first!
Anyway, I think the real trouble with Chomsky is that he speaks very clearly in discussing what he dislikes but is generally vague in discussing how he thinks things ought to be. Consequently, none of his views about how to improve from the problems of the present can be given much in the way of critical analysis. If he were to speak more clearly about how things ought to be, I doubt that he'd be as well respected as he presently is.
Chomsky is the Einstein of Linguistics but that doesn't make him and authority in everything he wants to talk about. He has made a following of millions of fans by supplying them with " antiimperialist and big- bussiness-doesnt-want-you-to-know" narratives.
Supply meets demand. He is good at it. Otherwise, I don't see a genius.
The movie plays like a copy of Adbusters sprung to ridiculous life. Add Naomi Klein and Kalle Lasn to the list moonbats. The film would be funny if we didn't know that many people don't take the film as a parody.
From IMBD, an 8 of 10 star reviewer writes:
"This film has a commentary as relevant today as in the 80s".
A 10 of 10 reviewer writes:
"Clever sci-fi film with current cultural relevance"
A no star reviewer writes:
"This movie is hilarious, unintentionally."
Many of the 10 star reviews are scarier/funnier than the movie.