Response to Chompsky-ite

I got into this conversation with a user on YouTube. He made this pretty rote comment on a video featuring intellectual Noam Chompsky, whom millions believe is a genius of which I have seen no evidence. I don't remember what that comment was but it was something that it was something that must have made all of the Chompsky-ites nod approvingly as it was the highest rated comment on that particular video. I responded to the comment disagreeing with his central thesis and he wrote back with this response:

"Capitakism is simply the wage slavery of immense humanity in a monetary web of exploitation,oppression and enormous needless suffering, it is the legalised,organised robbery of the energy of mankind by a parasitic Market system of business as usual that destroys our planet."

And so I responded with this reply:

And may I ask where you got that definition? Can you please explain the mechanism whereby this "market system of business" creates "wage slavery of immense humanity in a monetary web of exploitation,oppression and enormous needless suffering" and "that destroys our planet". You see I am unable to connect point A to point B.

From one "wage slave" to, I assume, another (I work for minimum wage at a movie theater to pay for rent on an apartment that is 5x my weekly salary with no real future job prospects on the horizon), I gave a brief summation of my theory of market competition in my previous reply. Chris Anderson, editor of WIRED magazine, explains it the following video link:

Free! Why $0.00 is the Future of Business



The video is an advertisement for his book "FREE: The Future of a Radical Price". I highly recommend downloading the audiobook because; 1. It could change your entire view on economics, and 2. You can download it off of iTunes and Audible.com FOR FREE!!!

Now the fact that Chris Anderson begins the video with an analogy to Richard Strauss's prediction that, with the advent of clean and affordable atomic energy electricity, would become "too cheap to meter", [relates heavily to my current living situation]. I currently live on Long Island, New York, where the populace decided to shut down an atomic power plant even though it ran $6 billion over budget.

Now I have been conducting research over the past 3 years for a movie I've been making, on that controversy and the controversy over nuclear power in general. Not only did I discover that the fears regarding nuclear power greatly exaggerated, that the reasons the state, and local governments gave for shutting down that plant were entirely fallacious, and that atomic energy is the only energy source that can properly satisfy future demand.

The funny thing that I discovered is that almost all of the opponents of nuclear appear to be on the political left. Many of the people who opposed the plant on Long Island were members of so called "liberal" and "progressive" coalitions. German recently attempted to shut down all of it's operating nuclear power plants under a mandate from the then operating social-democratic and green parties. The former Green Party chairman Gerrard Schroeder (if that is spelled correctly) spearheaded the campaign to shut down all of Germany's atomic reactors, before retiring to a comfy job at Gazpron (the company that represents Russia's Natural Gas monopoly). As a result of the discontinuation of these atomic reactors Germany's natural gas imports from Russia increased dramatically (along with it's carbon footprint which is reportedly the largest in the EU). Vermont, one of the "Bluest" states in the union (US) you might say (the only state that has the only self recognized socialist congressional representative), recently made the decision to shut down it's only operating atomic reactor, a reactor that has been supplying them with decades worth of safe, carbon-free electricity.

Now most would attribute this to simple ignorance on the part of those in power, except maybe in the instance of Schroeder. But if you have made it this far and haven't stopped reading yet allow me to share with you a pet theory of mine. By the mid-20th Century the political Left began to see their ability to gain political power wain. Capital markets furthered by advances in science and technology have been able to usher in an age of prosperity and abundance that was unmatched in all of human history. Just as in the speech by Lewis Strauss that was mentioned in the Chris Anderson video, ancient diseases were being conquered, and famine in the west had become a thing of the past. This prosperity was very troubling to those who sought political power on the left, capitalism was succeeding at improving civilization in ways that they had failed.

With the advent of atomic energy, that threatened to make electricity "too cheap to meter", the same way the green revolution made industrial grain, feed-stocks, and fertilizers almost "too cheap to meter", and how the steam engine made physical power almost "too cheap to meter" ushering in the industrial revolution, or how the digital revolution made computer processing, storage, and bandwidth capacity "too cheap to meter" (that is how I can send you this message even though there might be an ocean separating us).

The political Left saw itself in a crisis, they could not let electricity become so abundant that it would be "too cheap to meter" that would signal the end of their global dominance. So what the left needed to do was to create an "ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY" by spreading lies and misinformation about atomic energy. By making it look as if nuclear power was this big deadly thing that the state and big greedy corporations attempted to impose on the people that would draw people to their side. And when the economic devastation that would come from the eventual energy scarcity set in (as it has) that would make people to second guess the ability for capitalism to supply their needs. And thus more people would be shifting to the political left giving those who profit off of the political power of the Left more power.Though this theory is supported only by a thin veil of insinuation with absolutely NO empirical evidence to support it, so do with it what you may. And since I am not a cynical bastard, I am not confident in the idea that so many people would be so logistically malicious.

So allow me to reiterate, I am a minimum-wage slave on Long Island. Where the inhabitants, lead by "progressive" coalitions, pressured the local legislators to shut down an atomic power plant that cost the residents of long Island $6 billion TO THIS DAY! The majority of the heating power on Long Island comes from OIL! The majority of the electricity comes from DIESEL! Housing prices on Long Island are some of the highest in the country, and a lot of those cost comes from utilities. As I said I live in an apartment that is 5x my weekly salary, and that is the cheapest rent I could find! I can't move I don't have enough money or any friends anywhere else. Thanks to my Bachelor's degree in Film Studies nobody is looking to hire me anywhere anytime soon.

For all the free time I had I decided to put it to good use. With the money I had I started my own production company, and with the help of my friends I decided to make a movie about that nuclear power plant. Using the tools available to me on the web I started a blog and got the support of a network of pro-nuclear activists, and found a way to raise some capital for the production of this feature film. Just look up "Metalhead Motion Pictures presents SHOREHAM" on Kickstarter.com, it is a site that allows creative people to "crowd-source capital" if you will. We are making some good headway toward our funding goal.

I don't know where this project might lead me? I have been in contact with a company that want to make a movie about Thorium Power. I have other non-documentary creative projects that I would like to work on. Having one successful production under my belt could give me some notoriety and ease in finding funds. Though all of this research into atomic energy has given me a great idea. With the connections within the nuclear industry I could make from this film, might give me the chance to experiment with this idea.

Within the next few years a number of companies will bring to market a breed of compact atomic fission reactors that will be, mass-producible and transportable. This will resolve many of the upfront capital costs that nuclear power has had in the previous decades. Utilizing this source of energy to power modular, cost-effective, prefabricated housing, there could be a way to provide everyone with affordable housing. You simply power the modular housing complex, with the modular reactors, and sell the excess energy to cross-subsidize the housing service. You just have one basic housing unit that would be offered for free to all members, and have several other premium housing units that would be offered to more wealthy members. Those who do not have the ability to pay can fulfill their membership agreements with weekly group sessions where they can collaborate with their peers, and try to find ways to improve their condition. This idea has the potential of completely eliminating homelessness!

So... What was the point of this message? Looks like my ADD and fanatical love of writing has gotten the better of me again... Well. I guess the main point with this unnecessarily long response was that what separates the Capitalist from the Socialist, or Communist, or whatever kind of anti-Capitalist, is either a healthy lack of cynicism or an over abundance of creativity, I don't know. Well! At least it gives me content for my blog.

Best of luck to you and whatever your future endeavors may be mister anti-capitalist, and make sure to look out for my movie "SHOREHAM" coming out hopefully by the end of this year.

Bye