Chomsky on Trump

[jean]

Chomsky again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4abS3S0PzpQ

[french frank]

It's a mistake to think in terms of 'the economy' as one and indivisible; these trade deals favour big corporations alone, which do not comprise the entirety of a country's economy.

Indeed, but the deals aren't brokered between the corporations, but between governments. And the bigger the 'economy' - like the the US's - the stronger the hand. In USA v UK it's a question of who calls the shots. Where are the priorities? There is a bigger = better equation. The same situation would apply with China.

Trump's slogan is 'not free trade but fair trade'. But opinions may vary on that - fair to whom? Do you think a bilateral deal between the US and the UK somehow won't favour the big corporations? Or are we looking for 100 trade deals with economies similar to ours?

[Conchis]

Apparently, there is a 'moral case' for Trump:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865664795/My-View-The-moral-case-for-Donald-Trump.html?pg=all

[Beef Oven!]

The only case for Trump, his only redeeming quality, is his fabulous hair.

Even Ralph Coates couldn’t have competed with that.

[jean]

Indeed, but the deals aren't brokered between the corporations, but between governments. And the bigger the 'economy' - like the the US's - the stronger the hand. In USA v UK it's a question of who calls the shots. Where are the priorities? There is a bigger = better equation.

It's the corporations who call the shots. Always.

Why the governments don't notice this is a mystery. It almost makes you believe that previously left-leaning parties like the Democrats (and of course New Labour) are totally in the grip of neoliberalism.

[Serial_Apologist]

It's the corporations who call the shots. Always.

Why the governments don't notice this is a mystery. It almost makes you believe that previously left-leaning parties like the Democrats (and of course New Labour) are totally in the grip of neoliberalism.

I just can't imagine what evidence there is that makes you say this, jean.

[vinteuil]

Given that our elected governments have such a restricted margin of manoeuvre in the larger context of the much more powerful global corporations who can effectively call the weather on so many areas of life - well, I don't know what the answer is. I suspect the only answer that seriously addresses this would be so painful to so many people that it would only be called in in extremis. Meanwhile we are left with the husk of a system, which so many people still seem to think is actually in a position to solve the problems which they face.

Yep, I'm pretty gloomy. At my age, I expect my cohort will be all right. I am much less sanguine of the fate awaiting the next generation.

[french frank]

It's the corporations who call the shots. Always.

Why the governments don't notice this is a mystery. It almost makes you believe that previously left-leaning parties like the Democrats (and of course New Labour) are totally in the grip of neoliberalism.

Of course it is. But that's the point. It still means that the bigger the 'economy' the bigger their clout. What makes you think governments 'don't notice it'?

[jean]

Of course it is. But that's the point. It still means that the bigger the 'economy' the bigger their clout. What makes you think governments 'don't notice it'?

Because actually they have no clout at all, whatever their size.

If they'd noticed, those politicians who were not in the pay of the international corporations would have attempted to exert some control over the process.

[french frank]

Because actually they have no clout at all, whatever their size.

! Not legally.

If they'd noticed, those politicians who were not in the pay of the international corporations would have attempted to exert some control over the process.

Not a question of 'noticing'. The 'clout' big corporations have is that they offer large numbers of jobs, and serious money to the exchequer. What more clout do you need?

[jean]

The 'clout' big corporations have is that they offer large numbers of jobs,

But they don't - that's just it!

They outsource production to wherever labour is cheapest, and there's not a thing governments can do to stop them.

Hence much of the helpless rage that has fuelled the Trump phenomenon.

[Beef Oven!]

They do both. Bring lots of jobs and outsource. Big corporations provide jobs all over the globe.

[teamsaint]

They do both. Bring lots of jobs and outsource. Big corporations provide jobs all over the globe.

.........not least to the politicians both serving and ex, who do their bidding.

Like Blair, for instance.

None of this is a mystery at all. The corporations and banks worked it out many decades ago.

[jean]

Big corporations provide jobs all over the globe.

Indeed. But we were talking about the 'clout' governments do or do not have in the matter of where those jobs might be.

[Serial_Apologist]

! Not legally.

Not a question of 'noticing'. The 'clout' big corporations have is that they offer large numbers of jobs, and serious money to the exchequer. What more clout do you need?

Nationalisation would offer some initial clout, but then the problem would be the big investors, the selfsame big industrial and commercial owners, engineering a run on the currency, with the aim (a) of blackmailing said nationalising government to desist from nationalising the wealth-creating process, and (b) of protecting their "investments". The only way that could be stopped would be by persuading the stockbrokers to boycott the button-clicking actions ordering transferring £s into... gold or whatever currency would be currently seen as "safe". (This BTW is the main rationale for the need for international solidarity of the Left kind to counter that of the Right, and another reason why ideologically the Right always plumps for nationalism as a kind of don't-join-up thinking injunction against effective cross-border co-operation). (In the olden re-computerised days this was easier: the Portuguese bank workers, port and airport staff in 1976 literally blocked the bosses from taking suitcase loads of Escudos out of the country. The boss class then had to use electoral legitimacy as a pretext to inveigle the masses, who see elections as final arbiters in such situations, into voting for political reversals - in which they were successful, because the Left made the mistake of calling for an electoral boycott).

But nationalisation can only be a pro-tem gap solution for trading purposes - beyond which we really will have to get back to a more realistic re-alignment of money to its true value, a kind of enlarged Letts system of alternative currency - which would (maybe will) happen were the economy to collapse, if only for survival's sake, rather than a money supply which tries to keep up but ultimately is used to control inflation and bank rates. And I have yet to come across any cogent way such a realignment of money to value could be brought about, short of the bourgeoisie just taking all their money out of the country. But then the government would just order the printing of more of it...