The Shock Doctrine

5 Responses for "The Shock Doctrine"

1. Tim October 25th, 2007 at 7:42 am 1

   Klein is an idiot and certainly not an academic. Freedman did infact say that societies don’t change until there is a crisis. But his next sentence which she so conveniently forgets to include is where he says “solutions come from what ever ideas are lying around” Evidence, the great depression almost turned us socialist. The national recovery act was modeled after Italian fascist dictator Mussolini’s economic plan which FDR had quite a soft spot in his heart for.

   Free markets free people. If Klein would take an economics class she would know that. Freedman will be a hero in the history / economics books for the next 500 years. No one will remember Klein in 10 years.

2. na3s October 25th, 2007 at 1:37 pm 2

   Thanks for your incite Tim, but I tend to disagree with some major points of your argument.

   “Klein is an idiot and certainly not an academic.”
   - She is definitely not an idiot, and certainly not an academic by your standards. When I see academic, especially an Economy Acadwmic, I see someone who’s perception has been deviated by text in a book. Who writes the text in that economy book? Corporations, gatekeepers, who’s principles are dictated by ideals such as Freedman’s.

   “Free markets free people.”
   -load of crap. Free Market has proven itself to mean that those already with the resources to exercise the free market have more power. Those without the resources (the poor, or the majority) are then consumed by this belief. Exploitative Tactics, a common denominator of Free Markets, produce outcomes that can be as negative as the enslavement of people or the privatization of public wealth.

   “Freedman will be a hero in the history / economics books for the next 500 years. No one will remember Klein in 10 years.”
   -You are probably right. But not because his theories are ‘correct’ per say, but because his principles gave the Wealthy Class’ method for power more merit, while Klein would be a ‘disrupter,’ or possibly even under today’s definitions a ‘terrorist threat’ to their success. Freedman will be a hero of ‘The Power’ that be, and the demise of the average individual such as you and I. (of coarse we will be convinced otherwise from a young age) In 500 years the corporations who have usurped land, such as in New Orleans and Thailand, will likely be the master which individuals are dependent on.

   “If Klein would take an economics class she would know that. ”
   Some quotes in response to above excerpt:

   “There are no facts, only interpretations.” - Friedrich Nietzsche

   “Practical politics consists in ignoring facts.” - Henry Brooks Adams

   “The truth is rarely pure and never simple.” - Oscar Wilde

   I personally cannot relate to your perspective. It seems purely fixated on Economic Fact, fact which is diluted with the bias of the Wealthy, or those that control the masses’ perception. This video short has much to say that can be applicable to many events, from past to present, and present precise incite on these events.

   Ultimately it comes down to one thing, which is more important, Morality or Profit/Power/Control?

3. tim October 25th, 2007 at 1:44 pm 3

   Economics is an actual science. The socialist dogma that you espouse is to economics what dancing with a headless chicken by the pale moon light is to medicine. If the socialist would like to change the world, a good first step might be an ‘old fashioned book burnin’ in the economics department of every university in the world. While you are at it, avert your eyes from China, a communist revolution brought income equality, everyone was poor, or better yet, dead. Now that the communists have become totalitarian capitalists they can actually put the specter of starvation in the rear view mirror. Democracy is political freedom, capitalism is economic freedom. You can have one without the other but you can’t truly be free without both.

   It is shallow to believe that corporations like capitalism. It is a cold harsh world having to compete with every company that comes along. Life is much easier when you get your government cronies to protect you. But, that is not capitalism or democracy. Capitalism casts corporations to their fate, perhaps an ugly fate.

   It is hard to rectify the average socialist’s love of labor with the hate for the employer. It’s like loving your right arm and hating your left. You want to protect labor (from free trade and competition) but in so doing you have to protect the corporation, and you hate that.

   You look to nature and see perfection in survival of the fittest, and you look to your economy and hate the same thing. Seems poorly thought out.

4. na3s October 25th, 2007 at 2:49 pm 4

   “The socialist dogma that you espouse is to economics what dancing with a headless chicken by the pale moon light is to medicine.”

   Well put. At the bottom of that comment I explicitly stated that I was not an economist and was not here to argue economic fact. As you are right, it is a science, a science whose facts have been controlled by the success/failures of business. It’s also a science that I have very little knowledge in. My reasoning for not even trying to debate the politically correct facts you have presented.

   What I am debating is the moral implications of the facts your present. In reply to these debates I see insults, accusations and emotive comments expressed; comments with the intention of negating anything I have said without consideration. A similar tactic used by Advertising Agencies and even the Third Reich to discredit the opposition. All it does is make readers laugh and go ‘Damn Socialist!’ without even examining the truth of the content within. (a good example of this ‘perception control’ being the plugging of ‘Third Reich’ in the above sentence. Also probably not the best example) I have tried my hardest to understand your perspective, and do so with respect. Thanks to your many replies, this is much more achievable.

   It would appear your use of calling me a socialist is only an attack on my character. When I am only debating you on the morality of your words, not the truth they possess in the realm of economics; as that could be subjectively argued for an eternity. I am not a socialist, nor an economist, but I am someone who can see the flaws in the current execution of business, what it stands for and the sociological, environmental and psychological consequences caused by it. Something that I find much more important that the privatization of commodities and control achieved from such actions.

   Being said, I agree with much you have said in your reply comment, not the attacks on me, but the facts where the sarcasm roots from. FYI, I have a habit of debating someone whether or not I agree/disagree with them. Merely to challenge the commenter, see what they got and maybe pick up some free knowledge. I have opened myself up to a lot of criticism in this post specifically, and did so intentionally. So thanks again for your incite and opinions. Don’t be a stranger.

5. na3s October 25th, 2007 at 6:10 pm 5

   You look to nature and see perfection in survival of the fittest, and you look to your economy and hate the same thing. Seems poorly thought out.

   well put