Comments on: The Shock Doctrine http://blog.nau.com/2007/10/01/the-shock-doctrine/ dedicated to stirring the pot Wed, 08 Feb 2012 18:51:29 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: marty zeldman http://blog.nau.com/2007/10/01/the-shock-doctrine/comment-page-1/#comment-129484 marty zeldman Sun, 28 Dec 2008 02:13:15 +0000 http://blog.nau.com/2007/10/01/the-shock-doctrine/#comment-129484 Hello: where is the video? Has it been removed? Why? Hello: where is the video? Has it been removed? Why?

]]> By: dylan http://blog.nau.com/2007/10/01/the-shock-doctrine/comment-page-1/#comment-109586 dylan Wed, 05 Nov 2008 22:31:58 +0000 http://blog.nau.com/2007/10/01/the-shock-doctrine/#comment-109586 Rachelle, if you want to look at the results of advocating Friedman's policies, the data bears out that the countries with the most economic freedoms (the very freedoms that Friedman spent his life championing for) also have the lowest unemployment and poverty rates. It isn't enough to reference anecdotes in your argument. If Klein were correct, that liberalization of economies limits democratice freedoms, then why has the number of democratic and 'free' countries actually increased during that same time period? It is this kind of hatchet job on a now deceased man who has been lauded for a lifetime dedicated to public servie that I absolutely cannot stand. Rachelle, if you want to look at the results of advocating Friedman’s policies, the data bears out that the countries with the most economic freedoms (the very freedoms that Friedman spent his life championing for) also have the lowest unemployment and poverty rates. It isn’t enough to reference anecdotes in your argument. If Klein were correct, that liberalization of economies limits democratice freedoms, then why has the number of democratic and ‘free’ countries actually increased during that same time period?

It is this kind of hatchet job on a now deceased man who has been lauded for a lifetime dedicated to public servie that I absolutely cannot stand.

]]> By: Rachelle http://blog.nau.com/2007/10/01/the-shock-doctrine/comment-page-1/#comment-53096 Rachelle Wed, 13 Feb 2008 23:08:35 +0000 http://blog.nau.com/2007/10/01/the-shock-doctrine/#comment-53096 Myriam, I agree with you that Friedman's philosphies and theories related to liberating people. These same statements can be made about communism. The fact is that although on paper his theories were correct, when implemented populations reacted badly, this could be because although on paper a slight recession (a fact that Friedman himself admitted would follow the implementation of his policies) may not be a big deal, to the person experiencing the recession this could become a disaster. Friedman should rightly be judged by the social effects of his theories since humans are far more important than numbers - and the fact is that his track record in terms of the human cost of his theories is not good. The video that Klein and Cuaron made together is arstitic and powerful,this I'm sure is thanks mostly to Cuaron who is renowned for his abilities in this field. The video is also meant to sum up a 600 page book in 5 minutes - it nails the thesis but does not have time to explain and defend it. This is why I urge everyone who has taken the time to see the video, like it or not, to read the book. It is truly "shocking" how much of the book is undeniably truth. Myriam,
I agree with you that Friedman’s philosphies and theories related to liberating people. These same statements can be made about communism. The fact is that although on paper his theories were correct, when implemented populations reacted badly, this could be because although on paper a slight recession (a fact that Friedman himself admitted would follow the implementation of his policies) may not be a big deal, to the person experiencing the recession this could become a disaster. Friedman should rightly be judged by the social effects of his theories since humans are far more important than numbers – and the fact is that his track record in terms of the human cost of his theories is not good.
The video that Klein and Cuaron made together is arstitic and powerful,this I’m sure is thanks mostly to Cuaron who is renowned for his abilities in this field. The video is also meant to sum up a 600 page book in 5 minutes – it nails the thesis but does not have time to explain and defend it. This is why I urge everyone who has taken the time to see the video, like it or not, to read the book. It is truly “shocking” how much of the book is undeniably truth.

]]> By: Myriam http://blog.nau.com/2007/10/01/the-shock-doctrine/comment-page-1/#comment-33879 Myriam Tue, 30 Oct 2007 01:10:13 +0000 http://blog.nau.com/2007/10/01/the-shock-doctrine/#comment-33879 Daniel R, i agree with you completely. I'm studying economics at university now, and so i know a bit about friedman, and he was totally misrepresented by Klein. Friedman, like most academic economists, was concerned with how best to manage the economy so as to bring freedom to the masses. And those who see Friedman as being entirely a man of the right would do well to remember how instrumental he was in abolishing the military draft. In all his policies Friedman was concerned with increasing individual freedom. The problem with Friedman, as his critics would have it, is that he was willing to cooperate with undemocratic and oppressive regimes (this is in fact not true- he was only in Chile for a week and besides giving some general advice was never employed by the regime there). The reason for this is not suprising given those who understand Milton's philosphy- namely that free markets are impossible to maintain in an undemocratic regime, and thus that liberalization of the economy inevitably leads to democratic change. Friedman would thus see China's economic growth as hopeful, as it would according to his theories in the long term lead to an workforce who would demand political change. The point i'm making is that Friedman gets a undeserved beating in this video. I'm sure if he was alive he would have responded to Klein's accussations, but since he died last year it is now up to economists to explain the theory and the man to propoganda-using populists like Ms Klein. Daniel R, i agree with you completely. I’m studying economics at university now, and so i know a bit about friedman, and he was totally misrepresented by Klein. Friedman, like most academic economists, was concerned with how best to manage the economy so as to bring freedom to the masses. And those who see Friedman as being entirely a man of the right would do well to remember how instrumental he was in abolishing the military draft. In all his policies Friedman was concerned with increasing individual freedom.
The problem with Friedman, as his critics would have it, is that he was willing to cooperate with undemocratic and oppressive regimes (this is in fact not true- he was only in Chile for a week and besides giving some general advice was never employed by the regime there). The reason for this is not suprising given those who understand Milton’s philosphy- namely that free markets are impossible to maintain in an undemocratic regime, and thus that liberalization of the economy inevitably leads to democratic change. Friedman would thus see China’s economic growth as hopeful, as it would according to his theories in the long term lead to an workforce who would demand political change.
The point i’m making is that Friedman gets a undeserved beating in this video. I’m sure if he was alive he would have responded to Klein’s accussations, but since he died last year it is now up to economists to explain the theory and the man to propoganda-using populists like Ms Klein.

]]> By: Daniel R. http://blog.nau.com/2007/10/01/the-shock-doctrine/comment-page-1/#comment-31500 Daniel R. Fri, 05 Oct 2007 03:14:43 +0000 http://blog.nau.com/2007/10/01/the-shock-doctrine/#comment-31500 """BTW, I'm not a Marxist. I'm just someone who is sick to death of The Way Things Are, and who is skeptical of the supposed wonderful liberties that capitalism just can't seem to bring except by sticking up small countries at gunpoint and brainwashing the masses into accepting less and less value for ever higher prices.""" You're right, you're not a Marxist. You're a pseudoeconomist. Less value for even higher prices? Couldn't you have at least TRIED to disguise yourself as an economist by saying, "small countries are coerced into buying lower quality goods for inflated prices"? Not to mention that's absolute bullshit because of comparative advantage, a rather complex yet effective game of chess which, when played right, assures an entity's position in the economy even amongst some of the worst cases of absolute advantage. This is of course without restriction... government composed, strictly speaking. Concerning international trade, the easiest example (but certainly not even close to the only) of when comparative advantage falls victim to the government, that would be tariffs. Klein's biggest problems in her book beyond the absolutely fundamental flaw that we are not in a free market economy are a) she cites corporatism as capitalism while arguing that more government--what spawns corporatism--is the answer?! And b) the fact that the free market is supposed to solve this, whereas we are not in a free market! In other words, when she's not contradicting herself in concern to government power allocations in the economy, her argument is flawed because she attacks the current system, not the free market. It's post hoc ergo propter hoc to assume any of this is the fault of our less restrictive elements in our economy--perhaps it's those restrictions that exist, esp. the ones often accepted or overlooked that artificially reduce labor demand, creating a labor oligopsony for corporations (that means the corporations control YOU!), whilst their competition also ends up becoming oligopolistic due to the lack of competition, thus giving more power to them in the long run? The economics are staggering! Advice: if you don't know economics, SHUT UP because you don't know anything. Keep your opinions to yourself. And don't take Klein's word on Friedman, it's so skewed it's insane. Read one of Friedman's books. Free to Choose: A Personal Statement is a good book for non-economists and shows a different Milton Friedman than presented by Klein more clearly than anything else could. Capitalism and Freedom is good for people who have a decent bit of economic background or are ambitious (it's not like you need to fucking know abstract algebra or real analysis to get it, but if you're an over analytical kind of person, it could help cure some boredom on plane rides!). “”"BTW, I’m not a Marxist. I’m just someone who is sick to death of The Way Things Are, and who is skeptical of the supposed wonderful liberties that capitalism just can’t seem to bring except by sticking up small countries at gunpoint and brainwashing the masses into accepting less and less value for ever higher prices.”"”

You’re right, you’re not a Marxist. You’re a pseudoeconomist. Less value for even higher prices? Couldn’t you have at least TRIED to disguise yourself as an economist by saying, “small countries are coerced into buying lower quality goods for inflated prices”? Not to mention that’s absolute bullshit because of comparative advantage, a rather complex yet effective game of chess which, when played right, assures an entity’s position in the economy even amongst some of the worst cases of absolute advantage. This is of course without restriction… government composed, strictly speaking. Concerning international trade, the easiest example (but certainly not even close to the only) of when comparative advantage falls victim to the government, that would be tariffs.

Klein’s biggest problems in her book beyond the absolutely fundamental flaw that we are not in a free market economy are a) she cites corporatism as capitalism while arguing that more government–what spawns corporatism–is the answer?! And b) the fact that the free market is supposed to solve this, whereas we are not in a free market! In other words, when she’s not contradicting herself in concern to government power allocations in the economy, her argument is flawed because she attacks the current system, not the free market. It’s post hoc ergo propter hoc to assume any of this is the fault of our less restrictive elements in our economy–perhaps it’s those restrictions that exist, esp. the ones often accepted or overlooked that artificially reduce labor demand, creating a labor oligopsony for corporations (that means the corporations control YOU!), whilst their competition also ends up becoming oligopolistic due to the lack of competition, thus giving more power to them in the long run? The economics are staggering!

Advice: if you don’t know economics, SHUT UP because you don’t know anything. Keep your opinions to yourself. And don’t take Klein’s word on Friedman, it’s so skewed it’s insane. Read one of Friedman’s books. Free to Choose: A Personal Statement is a good book for non-economists and shows a different Milton Friedman than presented by Klein more clearly than anything else could. Capitalism and Freedom is good for people who have a decent bit of economic background or are ambitious (it’s not like you need to fucking know abstract algebra or real analysis to get it, but if you’re an over analytical kind of person, it could help cure some boredom on plane rides!).

]]> By: RicHARD Makepeace http://blog.nau.com/2007/10/01/the-shock-doctrine/comment-page-1/#comment-31418 RicHARD Makepeace Thu, 04 Oct 2007 11:00:45 +0000 http://blog.nau.com/2007/10/01/the-shock-doctrine/#comment-31418 WOW!! MY first time here. I grew up by the projects in New York City though, so name-calling hardly phases me, except when it's my teenager, who IF I recall correctly never has called me a name. He rarely talks to me at all. After you all get to know me, you'll know why. In reality, I am not too traumatized by sticks and stones either: Been there, done that, although my t-shirt was torn. Don't know much about economics either. Come from union people who say, and believe, that the rich get richer and the working poor pay for it. All I've seen of the world has proven them old geezers correct. Could easily see Milton Friedman working for the Nazis, or the other forces of darkness. Don't understand how millions of middle-class Chinese serfs are any different from other kinds of forced labor. Being one pay-check away from doom, and terrified to lose your spot in the fast-lane of the good life, is just slavery in better Nikes, whether you live in Beijing, Baltimore, Boston, or the Transvaal. Do know about propaganda, manipulation and persuasion though. Paid a whole lot of money to get a poor education in them things. Klein is right when she points out that only by understanding the problem can we stop being shocked and terrified. Shock and awe, Klein's, or Friedman's, or any other, does keep us name-calling and separated which is the reason that crisis is such a good tool for manipulation, as most of the responses above reflect. The goal is to keep us from thinking, speaking, and cooperating together. Hence the hoods and cuffs: How many of us reading this, or watching the video, actually see and acknowledge our hoods and cuffs? I also understand that progressives and leftists everywhere have had a hand in giving us the traumatic sick society that we now own. The question is not how to change the sick society that we have, but how to change ourselves enough that we stop using the tools of our sick society against one another. Krishnamurti said, "It is no sign of good health to be well-adjusted to a sick society." Do we really want to replicate the society we have all over the globe for another generation, left, or right? Or do we want to change? WOW!! MY first time here. I grew up by the projects in New York City though, so name-calling hardly phases me, except when it’s my teenager, who IF I recall correctly never has called me a name. He rarely talks to me at all. After you all get to know me, you’ll know why. In reality, I am not too traumatized by sticks and stones either: Been there, done that, although my t-shirt was torn.

Don’t know much about economics either. Come from union people who say, and believe, that the rich get richer and the working poor pay for it. All I’ve seen of the world has proven them old geezers correct. Could easily see Milton Friedman working for the Nazis, or the other forces of darkness. Don’t understand how millions of middle-class Chinese serfs are any different from other kinds of forced labor. Being one pay-check away from doom, and terrified to lose your spot in the fast-lane of the good life, is just slavery in better Nikes, whether you live in Beijing, Baltimore, Boston, or the Transvaal.

Do know about propaganda, manipulation and persuasion though. Paid a whole lot of money to get a poor education in them things. Klein is right when she points out that only by understanding the problem can we stop being shocked and terrified. Shock and awe, Klein’s, or Friedman’s, or any other, does keep us name-calling and separated which is the reason that crisis is such a good tool for manipulation, as most of the responses above reflect. The goal is to keep us from thinking, speaking, and cooperating together.

Hence the hoods and cuffs: How many of us reading this, or watching the video, actually see and acknowledge our hoods and cuffs?

I also understand that progressives and leftists everywhere have had a hand in giving us the traumatic sick society that we now own. The question is not how to change the sick society that we have, but how to change ourselves enough that we stop using the tools of our sick society against one another. Krishnamurti said, “It is no sign of good health to be well-adjusted to a sick society.”

Do we really want to replicate the society we have all over the globe for another generation, left, or right? Or do we want to change?

]]> By: Mark Gamba http://blog.nau.com/2007/10/01/the-shock-doctrine/comment-page-1/#comment-31307 Mark Gamba Wed, 03 Oct 2007 20:19:33 +0000 http://blog.nau.com/2007/10/01/the-shock-doctrine/#comment-31307 It seems I have another must read book to add to my list. For all of you who are having knee jerk reactions about this film, particularly those whose ire is a result of the discussion of economics - there is a necessary new thought out there in the world and it is summed up nicely in a book by Bill McKibben called DEEP ECONOMY. It calls into question many of our assumptions about life and the economy. You might also wish to read an older book called CONFESSIONS OF AN ECONOMIC HITMAN. You may be surprised to learn that you don't know as much about the world, the US and the economy as you thought you did. It seems I have another must read book to add to my list. For all of you who are having knee jerk reactions about this film, particularly those whose ire is a result of the discussion of economics – there is a necessary new thought out there in the world and it is summed up nicely in a book by Bill McKibben called DEEP ECONOMY. It calls into question many of our assumptions about life and the economy. You might also wish to read an older book called CONFESSIONS OF AN ECONOMIC HITMAN. You may be surprised to learn that you don’t know as much about the world, the US and the economy as you thought you did.

]]> By: jeff harrington http://blog.nau.com/2007/10/01/the-shock-doctrine/comment-page-1/#comment-31292 jeff harrington Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:19:03 +0000 http://blog.nau.com/2007/10/01/the-shock-doctrine/#comment-31292 IdEAL ORDER Psychic TV has been attempting to 'shock' the media for years. http://proxy.arts.uci.edu/~nideffer/_SPEED_/1.3/product/harrington/harrington.html IdEAL ORDER Psychic TV has been attempting to ’shock’ the media for years.

http://proxy.arts.uci.edu/~nideffer/_SPEED_/1.3/product/harrington/harrington.html

]]> By: Steve http://blog.nau.com/2007/10/01/the-shock-doctrine/comment-page-1/#comment-31277 Steve Wed, 03 Oct 2007 13:00:49 +0000 http://blog.nau.com/2007/10/01/the-shock-doctrine/#comment-31277 The drive-by on Milton Friedman in this movie is complete bullshit. IF his ideas were reality, without being twisted by so-called capitalists (crooks, lawyers and politicians), the entire world would be better off. Milton is about free men & women creating and acting without coercion. His "free market" is not the baloney 'free market' that is bandied about masking companies which leverage whore politicians & law makers into stealing from others. These are equally evil to Friedman. Actually go read a book my Friedman. His untainted ideas are friendly to anyone wanting to be free from the crooked of all stripes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A The drive-by on Milton Friedman in this movie is complete bullshit. IF his ideas were reality, without being twisted by so-called capitalists (crooks, lawyers and politicians), the entire world would be better off.

Milton is about free men & women creating and acting without coercion.

His “free market” is not the baloney ‘free market’ that is bandied about masking companies which leverage whore politicians & law makers into stealing from others.

These are equally evil to Friedman.

Actually go read a book my Friedman. His untainted ideas are friendly to anyone wanting to be free from the crooked of all stripes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A

]]> By: Lev http://blog.nau.com/2007/10/01/the-shock-doctrine/comment-page-1/#comment-31235 Lev Wed, 03 Oct 2007 06:50:00 +0000 http://blog.nau.com/2007/10/01/the-shock-doctrine/#comment-31235 edit: kneejerk edit: kneejerk

]]>