Noam Chomsky: The New York Times had
an article by its economic correspondent in its magazine section a
couple weeks ago 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 weren't 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 at the center of these developments. My department -- you're
teaching a course in the Military Industrial Complex -- my
department is an example of it. I came here in the mid-50's. I
don't know the difference between a radio and a tape recorder, but
I was in the electronics lab. I was perhaps the one person who
refused to get clearance on principle. Not that it made any
difference; everything was open anyway.
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.
By the time they finally got computers down to the size of a
marketable main frame, 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 the government's expense,
learning how to move from punch cards to electronic computers. By
the early l960's 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! 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 1980's after 30 years of
development essentially in the state sector that these things
became marketable commodities and Bill Gates could get rich.
The Internet was the same thing. I was here when they were
starting to work on the Internet. It was not until 1995 that it was
privatized, after 30 years. If you look at the funding at MIT, in
the 1950s and 1960's it was almost entirely Pentagon. For a very
simple reason, the cutting edge of the economy was electronics
based. A good cover for developing an electronics-based economy was
the Pentagon. You sort of frighten people into thinking the
Russians are coming, so they pay their taxes and their children and
grandchildren have computers.
Through the 70's and 80's funding has been shifting to NIH
(National Institutes of Health). Why? Because the cutting edge of
the economy is becoming biology-based. So, therefore, the state
sector is shifting its priorities to developing biology-based
industries. All of this is going on with accolades to the Free
Market. You don't know whether to laugh or cry.
The point is, to get back to the new international economic
order: It was a serious proposal that was immediately kicked out
the window and UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and
Development) was reduced to a data collecting agency with no policy
initiatives.
The new information order was destroyed, along with UNESCO.
Neo-liberal programs were rammed down the throats of the poor.
(Although the rich did not accept them -- and to the extent that
they do accept them, it is harmful to them too.)
This went along with the great shift to the liberalization of
finance. It was a disaster in the making all along; serious
economists have been pointing out since the early 70's that the
freeing up of financial capital flows is just a disaster in the
making, with in fact periodic crises. Also, Reagan the great free
marketer carried out one of the biggest bailouts in American
history when he bailed out (and virtually nationalized) a major
bank.
http://www.alternet.org/story/101530/choms
