Chomsky and Stossel, Both Extremists, Both Wrong

Stossel and Chomsky Both Extremists, Both Wrong.

        Never cared for Noam Chomsky. Trained as a linguist and wealthy because of his teaching and writing gigs, he preaches State Socialism, which he may believe in, but knows he'll never have to live under. He is a member of the "Blue Chambray Shirt" school, preaching a philosophy in the abstract which has never really worked in  application on a large scale. He dresses down because he can, not because he has to. It's sort of like a Catholic Priest counseling married persons. He never did it, but he'll be happy to tell you how it ought to be.

"The Tea Party people say they're angry about socialism, but maybe they're really angry about capitalism. If there's a sense of being looked down upon, it's that sense of failure that's built into a system that assures everyone they can make it to the top, but then reserves the top for only a tiny fraction of the strivers."

 Gail Collins

       At the other extreme is that unabashed apostle of free market capitalism, John Stossel.  Stossel's current op-ed piece is a follow on to one which skewered Chomsky and Socialism in general, using the example of Venezuela, where it has failed on a monumental scale. Stossel then cites Hong Kong and Dubai as "prosperity cities" where, as he sees it, life is wonderful because they reject all things socialist in favor of all things Capitalist. As is too often the case with Stossel, he fails miserably in his choice of examples.

        Dubai's labor force is about 88% imported. The capitalism is the part where agents recruit in places like Nepal, Bangladesh and Pakistan. promising good pay, but neglecting to mention that their cut ( about 50%) will come off the top. Additionally, worker passports are frequently confiscated for up to a year, insuring the slave laborer remains, unable to leave, too poor to object. Slave labor, ah the joys of Capitalism in Dubai, huh?-

       Hong Kong, on the other hand has the opposite problem, too many jobs, too few workers. The result is a well paid labor force, which would seem to prove the vision of Adam Smith in 1776.  Curiously, what Stossel won't tell you, probably because he writes first, researches later, (if at all), is that all the Emirates and Hong Kong, provide citizens with universal health care, that bane of the "anti-socialism" pundits.

        So, what's workable in the middle? Actually, it's pretty much what we currently call our system of government, but without  the trappings of an elite who are loathe to cede much semblance of fairness to those they consider their social inferiors, buttressed by a too large cadre of fools who are unaware that much of what they support in the name of "freedom" is antithetical to their own welfare.

        State socialism is a system whereby all means of production are controlled by the state, in extreme cases, private property would be non-existent. No sane person, except perhaps Chomsky would propose that it is better than a regulated market economy, with "regulated" however,  being the operative word. If 2008 showed us anything it was that removing regulations from bankers who play with others' money is dangerous. Sadly, we all paid some price for the ensuing recession, while many, spurred by  the same "de-regulators who allowed it to happen, blamed the Black guy in the White House. I have yet to see or hear of any Politician, Democrat, Libertarian or Republican, take any share of blame for allowing the massive erosion of the Glass-Steagall Banking Act, which allowed the disaster of the Big Short. But, remember this, if bankers, drug manufacturers and other industrialists always acted morally, or in our (society's) best interests we'd need no regulators, would we? Ask John Stossel, he thinks they're all righteous dudes, as Bill and Ted would say.

       We hear a lot of chatter by the Far Right, re: "excessive government regulation."  Most of those are parroting complaints, many from the POTUS,  regarding what they've been led to believe are the  things Government does which hold back "good paying US jobs." In truth, most of those who parrot such drivel fail to realize that those jobs don't and won't exist again, because what they're really longingly remembering is the post WWII US economy, based on plentiful domestic resources and little competition from other nations. An economy structured like that is not going to reoccur, but retrain? Hell no! they'd  rather blame the "Socialists" and the "Illegals" - you know, those hard working people who do the jobs many Americans consider "beneath them?"  

        As an example, the coal industry purveys a noxious product, and relatively few Americans really earn their living in the industry. An even smaller, actually microscopic, few make significant money from the sales of coal. They would like a totally unregulated usage of their poisonous commodity, so they could sell even more. In their wake lies Black Lung whose treatment responsibilities they have largely reneged upon for decades. As a statistical reality, those living within a 50 mile radius of a coal fired power plant are more than 300% more likely to suffer debilitating chronic lung diseases and some cancer types than those who live within the same radius from a Nuclear power plant.

       Acid raid once  devastated forests, now recovering a bit thanks to (wait for it) clean air "regulations." Soil acidity and toxin levels at 27 sites in the northeastern US and eastern Canada, all of which have experienced declining levels of acid rain over the past 8 to 24 years are steadily decreasing.  A recent study found that aluminum concentrations (a telltale sign of acid rain damage) have declined while pH has increased in the upper soil layers across nearly all sites.

        In plain speak,  forests are finally starting to recover from an environmental problem which scientists identified decades ago and took legislative action to fix. All this in spite of the Reagan Administration's staunch denial of acid rain's existence as well as opposition to and hatred of the EPA. If this sounds familiar, it should, because it proves irrevocably that man's machinations can effect and have changed the environment. It also proves that well thought out approaches to limit contaminants can effect remediation.

        The truth is that these regulations have an infinitesimally small cost impact on a per capita basis, but they do cut into corporate profit margins. If asked about clean air and water regulations in a straight forward, factual manner, essentially all Americans will freely acknowledge that yes, they want to have an assured access to clean air and water. Some of them, however, will also support candidates who scorn the EPA and such regulatory agencies, primarily because they've been told that they are the "bad government" trying to take away their liberty - another grossly misapplied term of the Far Right.

       When those same fear mongers address health care, it becomes the organized opposition to Socialized Medicine. The term Socialism has shades of application, but is thrown around by the Far right whenever it is desired to influence a target audience.  Sad reality is that while Big Pharma earns net profits far in excess of any other industry (as high as a whopping 30% + for the high earners) it also spends far, far more  on advertising than research and development. Although major pharmaceutical companies want you to regard them as your saviors, laboring at their own cost to bring you bigger and better cures for syndromes you didn't know you had, it's simply not true. Half of the scientifically innovative drugs approved in the U.S. from 1998 to 2007 resulted from research at universities and biotech firms, not big drug companies. And despite their rhetoric, drug companies spend 19 times more on marketing than on research and development.

       Complicating this is the fact that per the 2006 Medicare Part D law,  Medicare is forbidden to negotiate drug prices with manufacturers, so, while the privately insured patient buys an Epi-pen either with a coupon (supplied generously by the manufacturer, Mylan, because they can't be used by Medicare patients) or with a drug plan card for under $300, Medicare pays Mylan over $600 each. US Drug costs are a primary index of why some Socialized concepts, applied in the public interest are appropriate. This isn't "excessive" regulation, it's lack of it where appropriate!

       When Theodore Roosevelt became "his accidency" as President after McKinley's assassination, there were substances sold OTC for various purposes which were toxic and dangerous. In fact the drug industry as a whole was sometimes called "The Poison Trust. " The Meat packing Industry wasn't far behind as a purveyor of unregulated filth. A significant number of commodities prices were fixed by a relative handful of men, who while publically trumpeting the virtues of the free market, secretly conspired to insure it was anything but free by eliminating competition. Some of these conditions were tackled because TR believed that regulation in the interest of all of us trumped unrestricted greed as evidenced by the Rockefellers, Morgans, Goulds and their co-conspiratorial bought and paid for Congressmen.  

                                                                                                                       Dr. Frances Oldham Kelsey

     Watching the excellent BBC series "Call the Midwife" will bring to memory, in the last several seasons, the story of thalidomide and the badly deformed children it caused. Most Americans have never seen such results of pregnancy because of those damned Government regulators, specifically FDA drug reviewer, Dr. Frances Oldham Kelsey, who refused to knuckle under to what had become a significant pressure from drug companies to release the drug. Her insistence on further trials saved American mothers from the tragedy unfolding in Europe.  Frances Kelsey, born in Canada, was a real American hero, applying regulation and oversight in the public intyerest.