Notice that it is impossible for either of these claims to be true, and it does not take a careful analysis to understand why.
In the video clip below, showing an interview with Chomsky from September 2011, Chomsky either lied, or he displayed a disgusting level of arrogance, by making massively ignorant statements as if they are obviously incontrovertible — in any case, Chomsky makes it impossible for one to view him as honest, because there is no evidence to indicate that what he said regarding Social Security is true.
Chomsky's character is on display here, and it is not one any person should choose to emulate.
Do these criticisms seem too harsh? But to understand that Chomsky's claims are false, all one needs to know is that once any government security is purchased, a taxpayer debt is created — i.e. the buyer of any government security is lending the government money to spend, and that lender must be paid back by taxpayers when the security matures. But in this case the buyer, or lender, was U.S. taxpayers, via the surplus Social Security payroll deductions collected in past years (the collections not paid directly to retirees) — that is, the purchase of government securities with surplus Social Security payroll deductions gave the U.S. government the retirement savings of future taxpayers to spend at will, and so what should have been savings is now a debt of future taxpayers.
I've written numerous posts about the problems with Social Security, and the dishonest way that people describe it, but the post at this link specifically addresses the main points that Chomsky made in the interview in the video below regarding the trust fund and its affect on the Federal debt —
http://maxautonomy.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-trust-fund-tolls-for-thee.html
Notice that the post above references content on the Social Security Administration's own web site, and that the statements provided by the Social Security Administration directly contradict Chomsky's statements.
In short, since the Social Security trust fund is simply a claim on the earnings of taxpayers (as is the case with all government securities), it is impossible for the trust fund to pay benefits to taxpayers — taxpayers owe that money, and they will pay (or borrow more) as those securities are redeemed. So if the money represented by the 'trust fund' is to be spent, it follows directly that Social Security must add to the Federal debt, since the redemption of trust fund bonds does not raise revenue for the U.S. Treasury. A redemption of any government security requires new taxes, offsetting spending cuts, or borrowing, and the bonds in the Social Security 'trust fund' are no different — again, all government securities represent a promise of payment from taxpayers.
To quote the Social Security Administration again (emphasis added) --
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/
https://archive.is/w6Hv8
...
Each of these trust funds’ operations will contribute increasing amounts to Federal unified budget deficits in future years.
...
Redemption of trust fund bonds, interest paid on those bonds, and transfers from the General Fund provide no new net income to the Treasury, which must finance these payments through some combination of increased taxation, reductions in other government spending, or additional borrowing from the public.
...
Each of these trust funds’ operations will contribute increasing amounts to Federal unified budget deficits in future years.
...
Redemption of trust fund bonds, interest paid on those bonds, and transfers from the General Fund provide no new net income to the Treasury, which must finance these payments through some combination of increased taxation, reductions in other government spending, or additional borrowing from the public.
...
Notice that Chomsky has been an academic most of his life, working as a professor at the 'Massachusetts Institute of Technology' since the mid 1950's — if an accomplished academic like Chomsky is unable to get the details of something as simple as Social Security correct, how can he get anything correct?
Chomsky loves to moralize and pontificate about political issues, so it is instructive to watch him speak here in such an embarrassingly sloppy way, on a subject that requires so little understanding, that even if you knew nothing about it, you could prove Chomsky's statements false with just an hour of research, and that's if you are a slow reader (again, you just need to understand that all government securities are taxpayer debt).
So much for the prestige of Noam Chomsky and the much vaunted 'MIT'.
For emphasis, here are statements that Chomsky made in the interview which directly contradict the Social Security Administration description of how Social Security operates —
Social Security is not in any crisis, I mean the trust fund alone will fully pay benefits for I think another 30 years or so, then after that taxes will give almost the same benefits. To worry about a possible problem 30 years from now — which can incidentally be fixed with a little bit of tampering here and there, as was done in 1983 — to worry about that just makes absolutely no sense, unless you're trying to destroy the program. It's a very successful program, a large number of people rely on it. It doesn't pay munificently, but it at least keeps people alive, not just retired people, people with disabilities, and others. Very low administrative costs, extremely efficient. And no burden on the deficit — it doesn't add to the deficit. ...
As pointed out previously, the trust fund does not pay benefits, and redemption of the trust's securities adds to the deficit, unless offsetting cuts to other spending are made, or taxes are raised — just as quoted above from the Social Security Administration web site.
Chomsky's mention of Social Security helping people is a red herring fallacy, since it has no relevance to the question of Social Security being in crisis. That Social Security supposedly helps people will do nothing to prevent it from failing.
But what is more fascinating is how Chomsky justifies a government initiation of force to make people participate in these poorly constructed social welfare programs as a demonstration of kindness and compassion —
Social Security is based on a principle, it's based on the principle that you care about other people. You care whether the widow across town, the disabled widow, is going to be able to have food to eat. And that's a notion you have to drive out of people's heads — the idea of solidarity, sympathy, mutual support — that's doctrinally dangerous. The preferred doctrines are just care about yourself, don't care about anyone else. That's a very good way to trap and control people.
The very idea that we're in it together, that we care about each other, that we have responsibility for one another — that's sort of frightening to those who want a society which is dominated by power, authority, wealth, in which people are passive and obedient. I suspect — I don't know how to measure it exactly — but I think that that's a considerable part of the drive on the part of small privileged sectors to undermine a very efficient, very effective system on which a large part of the population relies — actually relies more than ever, because wealth, personal wealth was very much tied up in the housing market.
This is just another Orwellian double think — my freedom requires your oppression. This is a long time favorite propaganda technique of those who posture as moral crusaders for the little guy — people at large can only be free, if moral crusaders can force everyone to participate in some government program.
It is absolutely fascinating how Chomsky sets up such an obvious false dichotomy in the quote above, and how so many people accept such statements completely uncritically — either you support the government initiation of force, or you do not care about people. As if a society's mindless participation in a government program, as a result of being forced, demonstrates a concern for other people — rather than the passivity and obedience that Chomsky falsely attributes to those who do not want to be forced into a collective.
It is comical too that Chomsky would describe Social Security as a 'very effective' program, even though he also stated 'it doesn't pay munificently'. At least Chomsky was partially correct on that point, though the use of the term 'munificently' is certainly an overstatement. See this link for details on how Social Security compares with competing investments. In short, Social Security acts as a kind of enforced poverty, since a better return is easy to achieve — that is, you must live over 94 years, if you retire before age 70, to benefit more from Social Security, than a private account that simply used dollar cost averaging to invest your Social Security contributions in the S&P 500. And with the future cuts that will become necessary ('a little bit of tampering here and there', as Chomsky describes it), this negative return will only get worse. That the public sits idly by and does nothing to even understand the issue gives no indication that they feel any sort of 'responsibility for one another', as Chomsky contends. Now that's passivity and obedience.
And, of course, there is this glaring contradiction — if Social Security is such a beneficial social program, that reflects the kindness and compassion of the public at large, why must the government force the public at large to participate?
Chomsky provides a perfect demonstration of Ayn Rand's description of so-called humanitarians in her essay 'Collectivized Ethics', from 'The Virtue of Selfishness' --
http://www.aynrand.org/novels/virtue-of-selfishness
...
Since nature does not guarantee automatic security, success and survival to any human being, it is only the dictatorial presumptuousness and the moral cannibalism of the altruist-collectivist code that permits a man to suppose (or idly to daydream) that he can somehow guarantee such security to some men at the expense of others.
If a man speculates on what “society” should do for the poor, he accepts thereby the collectivist premise that men’s lives belong to society and that he, as a member of society, has the right to dispose of them, to set their goals or to plan the “distribution” of their efforts.
This is the psychological confession implied in such questions and in many issues of the same kind.
At best, it reveals a man’s psycho-epistemological chaos; it reveals a fallacy which may be termed “the fallacy of the frozen abstraction” and which consists of substituting some one particular concrete for the wider abstract class to which it belongs—in this case, substituting a specific ethics (altruism) for the wider abstraction of “ethics.” Thus, a man may reject the theory of altruism and assert that he has accepted a rational code—but, failing to integrate his ideas, he continues unthinkingly to approach ethical questions in terms established by altruism.
More often, however, that psychological confession reveals a deeper evil: it reveals the enormity of the extent to which altruism erodes men’s capacity to grasp the concept of rights or the value of an individual life; it reveals a mind from which the reality of a human being has been wiped out.
Humility and presumptuousness are always two sides of the same premise, and always share the task of filling the space vacated by self-esteem in a collectivized mentality. The man who is willing to serve as the means to the ends of others, will necessarily regard others as the means to his ends. The more neurotic he is or the more conscientious in the practice of altruism (and these two aspects of his psychology will act reciprocally to reinforce each other), the more he will tend to devise schemes “for the good of mankind” or of “society” or of “the public” or of “future generations” —or of anything except actual human beings.
Hence the appalling recklessness with which men propose, discuss and accept “humanitarian” projects which are to be imposed by political means, that is, by force, on an unlimited number of human beings. If, according to collectivist caricatures, the greedy rich indulged in profligate material luxury, on the premise of “price no object”—then the social progress brought by today’s collectivized mentalities consists of indulging in altruistic political planning, on the premise of “human lives no object.”
The hallmark of such mentalities is the advocacy of some grand scale public goal, without regard to context, costs or means. Out of context, such a goal can usually be shown to be desirable; it has to be public, because the costs are not to be earned, but to be expropriated; and a dense patch of venomous fog has to shroud the issue of means—because the means are to be human lives.
“Medicare” is an example of such a project. “Isn’t it desirable that the aged should have medical care in times of illness?” its advocates clamor. Considered out of context, the answer would be: yes, it is desirable. Who would have a reason to say no? And it is at this point that the mental processes of a collectivized brain are cut off; the rest is fog. Only the desire remains in his sight—it’s the good, isn’t it?—it’s not for myself, it’s for others, it’s for the public, for a helpless, ailing public ... The fog hides such facts as the enslavement and, therefore, the destruction of medical science, the regimentation and disintegration of all medical practice, and the sacrifice of the professional integrity, the freedom, the careers, the ambitions, the achievements, the happiness, the lives of the very men who are to provide that “desirable” goal—the doctors.
After centuries of civilization, most men—with the exception of criminals—have learned that the above mental attitude is neither practical nor moral in their private lives and may not be applied to the achievement of their private goals. There would be no controversy about the moral character of some young hoodlum who declared: “Isn’t it desirable to have a yacht, to live in a penthouse and to drink champagne?”—and stubbornly refused to consider the fact that he had robbed a bank and killed two guards to achieve that “desirable” goal.
There is no moral difference between these two examples; the number of beneficiaries does not change the nature of the action, it merely increases the number of victims. In fact, the private hoodlum has a slight edge of moral superiority: he has no power to devastate an entire nation and his victims are not legally disarmed.
It is men’s views of their public or political existence that the collectivized ethics of altruism has protected from the march of civilization and has preserved as a reservoir, a wildlife sanctuary, ruled by the mores of prehistorical savagery. If men have grasped some faint glimmer of respect for individual rights in their private dealings with one another, that glimmer vanishes when they turn to public issues—and what leaps into the political arena is a caveman who can’t conceive of any reason why the tribe may not bash in the skull of any individual if it so desires.
...
Since nature does not guarantee automatic security, success and survival to any human being, it is only the dictatorial presumptuousness and the moral cannibalism of the altruist-collectivist code that permits a man to suppose (or idly to daydream) that he can somehow guarantee such security to some men at the expense of others.
If a man speculates on what “society” should do for the poor, he accepts thereby the collectivist premise that men’s lives belong to society and that he, as a member of society, has the right to dispose of them, to set their goals or to plan the “distribution” of their efforts.
This is the psychological confession implied in such questions and in many issues of the same kind.
At best, it reveals a man’s psycho-epistemological chaos; it reveals a fallacy which may be termed “the fallacy of the frozen abstraction” and which consists of substituting some one particular concrete for the wider abstract class to which it belongs—in this case, substituting a specific ethics (altruism) for the wider abstraction of “ethics.” Thus, a man may reject the theory of altruism and assert that he has accepted a rational code—but, failing to integrate his ideas, he continues unthinkingly to approach ethical questions in terms established by altruism.
More often, however, that psychological confession reveals a deeper evil: it reveals the enormity of the extent to which altruism erodes men’s capacity to grasp the concept of rights or the value of an individual life; it reveals a mind from which the reality of a human being has been wiped out.
Humility and presumptuousness are always two sides of the same premise, and always share the task of filling the space vacated by self-esteem in a collectivized mentality. The man who is willing to serve as the means to the ends of others, will necessarily regard others as the means to his ends. The more neurotic he is or the more conscientious in the practice of altruism (and these two aspects of his psychology will act reciprocally to reinforce each other), the more he will tend to devise schemes “for the good of mankind” or of “society” or of “the public” or of “future generations” —or of anything except actual human beings.
Hence the appalling recklessness with which men propose, discuss and accept “humanitarian” projects which are to be imposed by political means, that is, by force, on an unlimited number of human beings. If, according to collectivist caricatures, the greedy rich indulged in profligate material luxury, on the premise of “price no object”—then the social progress brought by today’s collectivized mentalities consists of indulging in altruistic political planning, on the premise of “human lives no object.”
The hallmark of such mentalities is the advocacy of some grand scale public goal, without regard to context, costs or means. Out of context, such a goal can usually be shown to be desirable; it has to be public, because the costs are not to be earned, but to be expropriated; and a dense patch of venomous fog has to shroud the issue of means—because the means are to be human lives.
“Medicare” is an example of such a project. “Isn’t it desirable that the aged should have medical care in times of illness?” its advocates clamor. Considered out of context, the answer would be: yes, it is desirable. Who would have a reason to say no? And it is at this point that the mental processes of a collectivized brain are cut off; the rest is fog. Only the desire remains in his sight—it’s the good, isn’t it?—it’s not for myself, it’s for others, it’s for the public, for a helpless, ailing public ... The fog hides such facts as the enslavement and, therefore, the destruction of medical science, the regimentation and disintegration of all medical practice, and the sacrifice of the professional integrity, the freedom, the careers, the ambitions, the achievements, the happiness, the lives of the very men who are to provide that “desirable” goal—the doctors.
After centuries of civilization, most men—with the exception of criminals—have learned that the above mental attitude is neither practical nor moral in their private lives and may not be applied to the achievement of their private goals. There would be no controversy about the moral character of some young hoodlum who declared: “Isn’t it desirable to have a yacht, to live in a penthouse and to drink champagne?”—and stubbornly refused to consider the fact that he had robbed a bank and killed two guards to achieve that “desirable” goal.
There is no moral difference between these two examples; the number of beneficiaries does not change the nature of the action, it merely increases the number of victims. In fact, the private hoodlum has a slight edge of moral superiority: he has no power to devastate an entire nation and his victims are not legally disarmed.
It is men’s views of their public or political existence that the collectivized ethics of altruism has protected from the march of civilization and has preserved as a reservoir, a wildlife sanctuary, ruled by the mores of prehistorical savagery. If men have grasped some faint glimmer of respect for individual rights in their private dealings with one another, that glimmer vanishes when they turn to public issues—and what leaps into the political arena is a caveman who can’t conceive of any reason why the tribe may not bash in the skull of any individual if it so desires.
...
Notice how Rand clearly states that the goals of social welfare programs are never in question — they are always stated in such a way that no reasonable person could possibly disagree — but the consequences of trying to pursue the goal, and the bad outcomes that are likely to result, are never considered —
“Medicare” is an example of such a project. “Isn’t it desirable that the aged should have medical care in times of illness?” its advocates clamor. Considered out of context, the answer would be: yes, it is desirable. Who would have a reason to say no? And it is at this point that the mental processes of a collectivized brain are cut off; the rest is fog. Only the desire remains in his sight—it’s the good, isn’t it?—it’s not for myself, it’s for others, it’s for the public, for a helpless, ailing public ...And notice how perfectly Rand's description in the quote below fits Chomsky, as well as the majority of Americans, who will suggest anything, as long there is some vague pretense that the suggestion is intended to help someone else, regardless of the consequences —
Hence the appalling recklessness with which men propose, discuss and accept “humanitarian” projects which are to be imposed by political means, that is, by force, on an unlimited number of human beings. If, according to collectivist caricatures, the greedy rich indulged in profligate material luxury, on the premise of “price no object”—then the social progress brought by today’s collectivized mentalities consists of indulging in altruistic political planning, on the premise of “human lives no object.”Rand's description perfectly highlights the contradiction in Chomsky's position. Chomsky is blatantly absurd in his pretentious moralizing, because as much as he postures as a champion of 'the principle that you care about other people', and that people should not be made to be 'passive and obedient', he supports policies that take individual choice away, by giving power over individuals to government — a government that he routinely denounces.
As a public intellectual, there is no better way to show a lack of concern for people than by giving support for forcing them to be passive and obedient, where they are subjugated to a government that you not only denounce as corrupt, but insist is 'the leading terrorist state' —
https://www.google.com/search?q=noam+chomsky+leading+terrorist+state
http://chomsky.info/interviews/200111__02/
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/27201-the-leading-terrorist-state
So this begs this painfully obvious question: Why would anyone want the leading terrorist state, as Chomsky puts it, controlling anyone's retirement income? Who is that supposed to help?
Does Chomsky really want a group of people he calls terrorists controlling the retirement funds of an entire nation?
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/27201-the-leading-terrorist-state
https://archive.is/t8Nal
The Leading Terrorist State
By Noam Chomsky, Truthout Monday, 03 November 2014 10:25
"It's official: The U.S. is the world's leading terrorist state, and proud of it."
That should have been the headline for the lead story in The New York Times on Oct. 15, which was more politely titled "CIA Study of Covert Aid Fueled Skepticism About Helping Syrian Rebels."
The article reports on a CIA review of recent U.S. covert operations to determine their effectiveness. The White House concluded that unfortunately successes were so rare that some rethinking of the policy was in order.
The article quoted President Barack Obama as saying that he had asked the CIA to conduct the review to find cases of "financing and supplying arms to an insurgency in a country that actually worked out well. And they couldn't come up with much." So Obama has some reluctance about continuing such efforts.
The first paragraph of the Times article cites three major examples of "covert aid": Angola, Nicaragua and Cuba. In fact, each case was a major terrorist operation conducted by the U.S.
Angola was invaded by South Africa, which, according to Washington, was defending itself from one of the world's "more notorious terrorist groups" - Nelson Mandela's African National Congress. That was 1988.
By then the Reagan administration was virtually alone in its support for the apartheid regime, even violating congressional sanctions to increase trade with its South African ally.
Meanwhile Washington joined South Africa in providing crucial support for Jonas Savimbi's terrorist Unita army in Angola. Washington continued to do so even after Savimbi had been roundly defeated in a carefully monitored free election, and South Africa had withdrawn its support. Savimbi was a "monster whose lust for power had brought appalling misery to his people," in the words of Marrack Goulding, British ambassador to Angola.
The consequences were horrendous. A 1989 U.N. inquiry estimated that South African depredations led to 1.5 million deaths in neighboring countries, let alone what was happening within South Africa itself. Cuban forces finally beat back the South African aggressors and compelled them to withdraw from illegally occupied Namibia. The U.S. alone continued to support the monster Savimbi.
In Cuba, after the failed Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961, President John F. Kennedy launched a murderous and destructive campaign to bring "the terrors of the earth" to Cuba - the words of Kennedy's close associate, the historian Arthur Schlesinger, in his semiofficial biography of Robert Kennedy, who was assigned responsibility for the terrorist war.
The atrocities against Cuba were severe. The plans were for the terrorism to culminate in an uprising in October 1962, which would lead to a U.S. invasion. By now, scholarship recognizes that this was one reason why Russian Premier Nikita Khrushchev placed missiles in Cuba, initiating a crisis that came perilously close to nuclear war. U.S. Defense Secretary Robert McNamara later conceded that if he had been a Cuban leader, he "might have expected a U.S. invasion."
American terrorist attacks against Cuba continued for more than 30 years. The cost to Cubans was of course harsh. The accounts of the victims, hardly ever heard in the U.S., were reported in detail for the first time in a study by Canadian scholar Keith Bolender, "Voices From the Other Side: an Oral History of Terrorism Against Cuba," in 2010.
The toll of the long terrorist war was amplified by a crushing embargo, which continues even today in defiance of the world. On Oct. 28, the U.N., for the 23rd time, endorsed "the necessity of ending the economic, commercial, financial blockade imposed by the United States against Cuba." The vote was 188 to 2 (U.S., Israel), with three U.S. Pacific Island dependencies abstaining.
There is by now some opposition to the embargo in high places in the U.S., reports ABC News, because "it is no longer useful" (citing Hillary Clinton's new book "Hard Choices"). French scholar Salim Lamrani reviews the bitter costs to Cubans in his 2013 book "The Economic War Against Cuba."
Nicaragua need hardly be mentioned. President Ronald Reagan's terrorist war was condemned by the World Court, which ordered the U.S. to terminate its "unlawful use of force" and to pay substantial reparations.
Washington responded by escalating the war and vetoing a 1986 U.N. Security Council resolution calling on all states - meaning the U.S. - to observe international law.
Another example of terrorism will be commemorated on Nov. 16, the 25th anniversary of the assassination of six Jesuit priests in San Salvador by a terrorist unit of the Salvadoran army, armed and trained by the U.S. On the orders of the military high command, the soldiers broke into the Jesuit university to murder the priests and any witnesses - including their housekeeper and her daughter.
This event culminated the U.S. terrorist wars in Central America in the 1980s, though the effects are still on the front pages today in the reports of "illegal immigrants," fleeing in no small measure from the consequences of that carnage, and being deported from the U.S. to survive, if they can, in the ruins of their home countries.
Washington has also emerged as the world champion in generating terror. Former CIA analyst Paul Pillar warns of the "resentment-generating impact of the U.S. strikes" in Syria, which may further induce the jihadi organizations Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamic State toward "repairing their breach from last year and campaigning in tandem against the U.S. intervention by portraying it as a war against Islam."
That is by now a familiar consequence of U.S. operations that have helped to spread jihadism from a corner of Afghanistan to a large part of the world.
Jihadism's most fearsome current manifestation is the Islamic State, or ISIS, which has established its murderous caliphate in large areas of Iraq and Syria.
"I think the United States is one of the key creators of this organization," reports former CIA analyst Graham Fuller, a prominent commentator on the region. "The United States did not plan the formation of ISIS," he adds, "but its destructive interventions in the Middle East and the War in Iraq were the basic causes of the birth of ISIS."
To this we may add the world's greatest terrorist campaign: Obama's global project of assassination of "terrorists." The "resentment-generating impact" of those drone and special-forces strikes should be too well known to require further comment.
This is a record to be contemplated with some awe.
© 2014 Noam Chomsky
Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate
No comments:
Post a Comment