A post!
In my copious spare time, I've been reading econ books for fun so that I can argue with people about politics and economics. Unfortunately, I embarassed myself recently by having to admit, after having criticized Noam Chomsky, that I had never read one of his books. So I decided to remedy this situation by finding a shortish Chomsky book in the MIT economics library, a collection of essays entitled "Profit over People: neoliberalism and global order".

I will never feel bad about criticizing this man again.

First of all, I have yet to disagree with any of his economic analysis. Unfortunately, this is because he hasn't provided any analysis--just many, many somewhat contradictory examples. His arguments against global capitalism appear to be:
1. "Look! Some capitalist countries are poor!"
2. "Look! Some non-capitalist countries aren't poor!"
3. "Look! Sometimes, politicians claim to support the free market and actually favor specialized corporate interests!"

My major complaint isn't that he's not offering any actual analysis of his examples, though. My big problem with him is that he states things that are just flat-out false, or takes quotes wildly out of context. My favorite example of this: he claims that Madison believed in a nation of philosopher-kings, thereby proving that, since America is NOT a nation of philosopher-kings, the entire philosophical underpinnings of the American Revolution were deeply flawed. "Hah-HAH! Governments AREN'T selflessly serving the interests of the people! In your face, Madison!"

His quote:
"[Madison] expected that the rulers would be 'enlightened Statesmen' and 'benevolent philosophers,' 'whose wisdom may best discern the true interests of their country.'" (Profit over People 51)

What Madison actually wrote...
About 'enlightened Statesmen':
"It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." (Federalist 10)

About 'benevolent philosophers':
"The reason of man, like man himself, is timid and cautious when left alone, and acquires firmness and confidence in proportion to the number with which it is associated. When the examples which fortify opinion are ANCIENT as well as NUMEROUS, they are known to have a double effect. In a nation of philosophers, this consideration ought to be disregarded. A reverence for the laws would be sufficiently inculcated by the voice of an enlightened reason. But a nation of philosophers is as little to be expected as the philosophical race of kings wished for by Plato." (Federalist 49)

About wisdom serving the country:
"The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people." (Federalist 10)


Chomsky doesn't even have the courage to cite the sources of these quotes--in fact, I was unable to find a single paper where Hamilton even USES the phrase "benevolent philosophers".

This isn't just bad scholarship. This is blatantly dishonest scholarship. Boo hiss.