I see no other way to change this, from where I stand, than ferociously and repeatedly pointing out how that stance is partial, ideological and wrong. We cannot afford not to make oursleves heard over their loudpseaker.
If you have a better way to sink them into irrelevance, pray tell us! In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Cf. why Chomsky continues to read and criticise the NYT (where appropriate - he doesn't damn everything in it, just as he doesn't even with the WSJ - which he says has some good reporting, though the editorials are "cartoons").
Are you sending this to them ? Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
Noam Chomsky: ... The New York Times happened to have an article by its economic correspondent in its magazine section [in August] about Obama's economic programs. He talked about Reagan as the model of passionate commitment to free markets and reduction of the role of the state, and so on. Where are these people? Reagan was the most protectionist president in post war American history. In fact, more protectionist than all others combined. He virtually doubled protective barriers. He brought in the Pentagon to develop the "factory of the future" to teach backward American management how to catch up on the Japanese lead in production. SEMATECH ["Semiconductor Manufacturing Technology"] was formed. If it was not for Reagan's protectionism and calling in of state power, we would not have a steel industry, or an automobile industry, or a semi-conductor industry or whatever they protected. They reindustrialized America by protectionism and state intervention. All of this is washed away by propaganda as though it never happened. It is very interesting to look at a place like MIT which was right in the center of these developments. My department -- you are teaching a course in the Military Industrial Complex -- my department is an example of it. ... The electronics lab, along with the closely connected Lincoln Labs, was just developing the basis of the modern high tech economy. In those days, the computer was the size of this set of offices and vacuum tubes were blowing all over the place [with] computer printouts, paper running everywhere. By the time they finally got computers down to the size of a marketable mainframe, some of the directors of the project pulled out and formed DEC [Digital Equipment Corporation], the first main frame producer. IBM was in there at government expense learning how to move from punch cards to electronic computers. By the early l960s IBM was capable of producing its own computers, but no one could buy them. They were too expensive. So they were bought by the National Security Agency. Bell Labs did develop transistors. That is about the only example you can think of a significant part of the high tech system which came out of private enterprise. But that is a joke too! Bell Labs were able to run a great laboratory because they had a monopoly, so they could use monopoly pricing powers to set up a great laboratory. They worked on technology. Their transistor producer was Western Electric, who could not sell them on the market; they were too expensive. So the government bought about 100 percent of advanced transistors. Finally, of course, all of this gets to the point where you can market them privately. It was not until the l980s after 30 years of development essentially in the state sector that these things became marketable commodities and Bill Gates could get rich. http://tech.mit.edu/V128/N51/chomsky.html
Where are these people? Reagan was the most protectionist president in post war American history. In fact, more protectionist than all others combined. He virtually doubled protective barriers. He brought in the Pentagon to develop the "factory of the future" to teach backward American management how to catch up on the Japanese lead in production. SEMATECH ["Semiconductor Manufacturing Technology"] was formed.
If it was not for Reagan's protectionism and calling in of state power, we would not have a steel industry, or an automobile industry, or a semi-conductor industry or whatever they protected. They reindustrialized America by protectionism and state intervention.
All of this is washed away by propaganda as though it never happened. It is very interesting to look at a place like MIT which was right in the center of these developments. My department -- you are teaching a course in the Military Industrial Complex -- my department is an example of it.
... The electronics lab, along with the closely connected Lincoln Labs, was just developing the basis of the modern high tech economy. In those days, the computer was the size of this set of offices and vacuum tubes were blowing all over the place [with] computer printouts, paper running everywhere.
By the time they finally got computers down to the size of a marketable mainframe, some of the directors of the project pulled out and formed DEC [Digital Equipment Corporation], the first main frame producer.
IBM was in there at government expense learning how to move from punch cards to electronic computers. By the early l960s IBM was capable of producing its own computers, but no one could buy them. They were too expensive. So they were bought by the National Security Agency.
Bell Labs did develop transistors. That is about the only example you can think of a significant part of the high tech system which came out of private enterprise. But that is a joke too!
Bell Labs were able to run a great laboratory because they had a monopoly, so they could use monopoly pricing powers to set up a great laboratory. They worked on technology. Their transistor producer was Western Electric, who could not sell them on the market; they were too expensive. So the government bought about 100 percent of advanced transistors.
Finally, of course, all of this gets to the point where you can market them privately. It was not until the l980s after 30 years of development essentially in the state sector that these things became marketable commodities and Bill Gates could get rich.
http://tech.mit.edu/V128/N51/chomsky.html
I've read little from The Economist - only once from cover-to-cover, last May. I've read occasionally from the WSJ over the last 50 years. Maybe I'm so far left that their take is irrelevant to me, but it all strikes me as so many cigarette or automobile commercials.
An ex-Pentagon technocrat, Chuck Spinney, wrote an interesting article this week; his analysis of Obama's victory involved an "M&M" strategy: Motherhood and Mismatch. Basically, he wrote that Obama took a Motherhood issue, such as healthcare, established a position, and let McCain flail away in opposition. McCain's attacks then created the contrast that the electorate needed in order to recognize the differences. Point being that maybe we should simply establish and publicize our positions and let events drive WSJ to attack us.
It may be the case that such institutions will never 'debase' themselves to a similar extent as McCain did, but I feel that direct responses to their positions are almost a waste of time. They may not live in impregnable fortresses, but they certainly have strong defenses and substantial resources. paul spencer
