Recently I came across a statement by Noam Chomsky about mass transportation. I have never thought about the problem of mass transportation as inhering in our free market system as Chomsky suggests it does. He give the issue a new perspective. And because I have never seen his perspective before I thought it might be something to consider. So here it is.
(Please don’t expect me to take a strong personal position on the statement one way or the other. It is almost as new to me as it will be to you and I think it requires more background than I have).
“Take mass transportation. Going back to markets - if you take an economics course, they tell you markets offer choices. That’s partly true, but very narrowly. Markets restrict choices, sharply restrict choices. Mass transportation is an example. Mass transportation is not a choice offered on the market. If I want to go home today, the market does offer me a choice between a Ford and a Toyota, but not between a car and a subway. That’s just not one of the choices available in market systems, and this is not a small point. Choices that involve common effort and solidarity and mutual support and concern for others - those are out of the market system. The market system is based on maximization of individual consumption, and that is highly destructive in itself. It’s destructive even for the human beings involved - it turns them into sociopathic individuals. But it also means that the kinds of things that areneeded for survival are out of the market system - like mass-transportation. That’s the form of economic growth that could help preserve the hopes for survival. I don’t think that it was at all unrealistic for that to have been done; there was nothing utopian about that.”
Fascinating when linguistic philosophers dive into economics. People might even start to believe them. I do have to admit that even for Marxists, a claim that market economics breeds widespread sociopathic behavior might read a bit strong. As is the idea that mass transportation is essential for society’s survival.
Nowhere does Noam mention that almost every mass-transportation system started out as a market-driven enterprise, at least conceptually – and that if such a system has ‘failed to thrive’ in a market-based economy, it’s a pretty strong indication that society does not consider it “essential enough” to support directly. (Rather than through big-government subsidy, etc. etc. etc.)
Thanks for your thoughts, Overmod. I, too, was struck by the “sociopathic” comment. A few years ago while walking across a busy street in Newark, NJ, going with the walk signal and in the crosswalk, I was hit by a car and suffered a traumatic brain injury so that influences my thinking on the sociopathic issue. But I suppose and I certainly hope you and others have not had the same experience.
As far as a market based economy is concerned, the issue had been discussed at length on this forum. In the US transportation is a combination of government investment and free market economies. Chomsky is free to buy a Ford or Toyota only because Federal, state and local governments have a policy of providing free roads. I can only wonder if he has bus service to his home.
John
PS. Chomsky teaches at MIT in Cambridge, Massachusetts. So if he cannot ride a subway home that is because he chooses to live too far from a subway line.
I wasn’t going to say anything, but…
Before Mr. Chomsky condemns this market-driven capitalist society he lives in he should think twice, three times, and then not do it. Few other societies in the world would provide a linguistics teacher a cushy job at probably a six-figure salary at an institution where I imagine very few go to study linguistics. I don’t know about you but linguistics isn’t the first thing that pops into my mind when I think of MIT.
That’s assuming he teaches the course at all and doesn’t push off the grunt work to graduate students.
Accordingly I pay very little attention to anything Mr. Chomsky has to say about anything.
All capitalist-economy countries have some portion of the economy basically socialist, like the US Post Office, but that does not mean that capitalism is a failure and socialism a success. Also all capitalist-economy countries have certain restraints on unimpeded selfishness, such as a minimum wage law and maximum hours of work per day, etc. But, again, that is not an argument for socialism.
Chomsky is somewhat controversial in linguistics. But since MIT taught me music theory as well as engineering, I have to trust their judgement in paying Chomsky his salary as a linguistics teacher.
People who deal in absolutes are generally wrong. In this example: Free Market=good, government supported=bad.
Capitalists are not interested in anything unless a substantial profit can be extracted from the enterprise. If there are many sources for the goods or services, then competition keeps the price under control. When few or even one source is available then the vendor becomes predatory and the consumer of the product suffers.
How profitable do you suppose it would be to have 6 or 7 bus or light rail companies serving the same routes? If there was a single vendor, no one would be able to afford the fare. The only two possible solutions are government regulation or government operation.
The larger a city gets, the more it absolutely NEEDS mass transit. You just cannot build enough traffic lanes or enough parking spaces. Capitalists are, by their very nature, greedy and predatory. Are your parking spaces privately owned in your city? How much does it cost to park? Do they raise the price when a special event is going on? I know they do in Charlotte. If there is a convention in town, do the hotels raise their rates and require multiple day minimums? They do in Charlotte. The buses and light rail, on the other hand, operated by a government agency, put on extra cars and increase frequency during those events, but the rates remain the same.
One of the reasons that medical costs are skyrocketing is that giant corporations are buying up hospitals and medical practices and consolidating the market. After your doctor’s practice gets absorbed by the local giant hospital, notice how much the rates go up and notice the new luxurious offices and increased staff.
Less competition means
IMHO there are two broad categories of items that have made capitalism work in the U and Canada. one is communication and the other is transportation.
- Communication
a. Communication was started by Ben Franklin with the first postal system – government supported. To support the postal system a system of post ( postal ) roads were built.
b. The Telegraph first important use was the civil war. - some GOV
c. The pony express from St. Joe to Sacramento speeded up the stage coach mail very much – GOV ?
d. Supported RRs enabled much faster movement of paper work both public and private.
e. Telegraph then expanded nation wide – PVT when GOV show the reasons. bye - bye pony express
f. Telephone an add on to telegraph mainly private but GOV supported where not economically feasible. especially rural. Now business could communicate instantly
g. Coaxial cable and then microwave allowed lower telephone rates enabling more calls. Later satellites enabled overseas communication
g. FED EX then started as a document carrier that allowed contracts and legal papers to be transported much faster than the mail.
h. Fiber cable ( GOV research pushed ) now allows internet and more importantly instant transfer of plans and documents. The importance of satellites has changed. So FED EX becomes and package and freight.
- Transportation. – All about moving goods and people
a. Ships started out as the only way to move items from US port to port.
b. Long boats and barges soon followed on those rivers that could be used but many time portage would be in place around non navigation areas.
c. Soon canals and locks enabled passage round blockage and mountains.
d. In parallel
Amen. I deleted the rest of my comments to avoid stirring up political unrest.
Dave,
I agree with point 2, that many essential things in the society do not make a profit. And of course as a society we do have mass transit. The issue is how much of it should we have which means how much should we a s society contribute to it. Anyone who reads my posts knows I would like to see more but of course my opinion is not the only one.
However, if the only ones allowed to have opinions were transportation professionals this forum would be a lot shorter.
Wayne,
While I do think Noam Chomsky has a right to his opinion I think you have an equal right to ignore it.
John
Ignore it I do John, ignore it I do. He’s not worth the agita.
Fred,
I listened to Chomsky on Firing Line but I head nothing about transportation. Did I miss something?
John
Phoebe Vet,
I don’t think Coomsky deals in absolutes. What he does say is that free markets restrict choices. And referring to transportation he says in America the market restricts its offerings to transportation that can make a profit; therefore it does not provide public transportation.
If I were trying to rebut him I would point out that here in America we do have public transpiration. It may not be ideal but then no human effort is ever ideal. But the fact of the matter is that we have it and it is quite possible to choose to use it. All of my working life I used public transportation to go to and from work so I know that it is available.
John
Blue Steak,
I certainly agree with your proposition about the importance of transportation and communication to the importance of economic growth in the US and Canada. I would only add one more item: Electronic communications.
John
Wayne,
I must be the world’s luckiest guy to have you as a friend. No matter how stubborn and pig headed I am you are right there grabbing me us and setting me straight.
John
John, I think in this instance Chomsky’s heart may be in the right place, but his definitions don’t make sense to me for the reasns I stated. There are people who are not transportation proffessionals but who still have had a deep interest in public transportation. As an MIT Grad I have had some correspondance with Chomsky on various matters. I did not get the impression that transportation was ever one of his chief concerns. Again, on some very serious matters, Chomsky and i have serious disagreements, but in this case his heart may be in the right place, until he generalizes to include the total economy and not just North American public transportation.
Hi John!
Who, ME?
Actually, maybe I’m just a little jealous of Mr. Chomsky. It must be nice to be able to waltz through life with a copy of “Roget’s Thesaurus” in one hand and a copy of “Das Kapital” in the other!
Wayne
John, the Firing Line video about Vietnam was to give an idea of the longevity of Chompsky’s celebrity status. It was interesting to hear Jeff Greenfield ask him (in part 6, link below) if it would be ok to blow up a troop train. First he said yes, then no.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SE8WOg6F3fQ&list=RD0k9aTeoDBxw
Mike