It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Naomi Klein Issues Haiti Disaster Capitalism Alert: Stop Them Before They Shock Again

page: 3
32
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by star in a jar
 





Haiti has considerable gold reserves, or there is gold to be found in the country.


There is the promise of gold at La Miel (2007 discovery). But in typical Haitian fashion, it's questionable whether it is worth going after because of the violence and corruption.

Haiti's future... gold


Laskowski says his biggest concerns in Haiti are venal officials and angry local residents. Haiti was recently ranked the world's most corrupt country by Transparency International, although Préval is widely seen as honest.



Laskowski has asked the locals to be patient. In the best of scenarios, he says, it will take from four to six years before any actual mining could begin. By that time, Haiti will have a new government and gold will likely be selling at a different price.


But there is promise if the Haitians cooperate:


Laskowski. "I don't think there's a question of whether there's a good deposit here. It's a question of whether we can develop it here in Haiti." In late May, Eurasian Minerals announced the gold content found in several trenches cut into the hillsides here, driving its stock price up 40 per cent on the Toronto Stock Exchange. Laskowski says the company hopes to find billions of dollars worth of gold in the hills above La Miel, which is just a few kilometres from the border with the Dominican Republic.




posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by aaa2500

Do some research on Haiti, particularly on why Aristide was ousted by the US. Hint... He wanted to stop US companies running sweat shops in Haiti. No, it is disaster capitalism all right. Those who benefit from disaster capitalism are privately owned US corporations. They are talking about using this crisis to benefit privately owned US corporations. If the IMF get's involved, Haiti will be paying for this for decades, and all resources will be owned by foreign corporations. Capitalism is an economic system, not a political system. Any government loans will be made to benefit privately owned corporations. You are ideologically conditioned to think that all capitalism is good, always and all the time, and all communism is bad always and all the time.


All wrong. The real international loan shark out there is the IMF, a totally fascist organization. You claim the IMF is capitalism? Well, look at the facts then. The big supporters of the IMF are government agencies, therefore the big loan sharking going on is more attributable to communism (government ownership of banking) than it is attributable to capitalism (private ownership of banking). But again, its fascism... an elite few control the IMF. But its also part communism since the IMF is actually owned in part by government.

You label corporate violent abuse and corporate violent crimes as capitalism. It is absolutely wrong to say that is condoned or allowed under capitalism! Violence against a person has nothing to do with capitalism and everything to do with simple criminal abuse! So when you talk about crimes committed under what you falsely label "capitalism" you are just making a blatantly false statement. No, as it turns out, crime is still illegal under capitalism contrary to what you seem to claim.

Was it Exxon invading Iraq? I seem to recall it was the US military? As it turns out, under capitalism, violent abuse of any and all humans is still a crime, and anyone participating still goes to jail. And again, Bush wanted Iraq's oil whether or not Exxon was pressuring them into stealing it. You pretend otherwise because you have been conditioned to believe capitalism is bad. Sorry but corporations who participate in violence, abuse, or physical harm of any sort are highly illegal and I'm sorry you wish to pretend otherwise.

If you don't think all communism (government ownership of production) is always bad all the time, a totally true statement, you go ahead and tell me where government take-overs of a private industry have worked out well for the people who are in poverty. Then, I'll go ahead and search for the statistics and data and see who is right and who is wrong. That is something that would clear these misconceptions about capitalism up really quick.



Haha, That's like hearing every other zealot out there... Communism has never existed, the USSR was a deformed state capitalist society. Islam is generous and benevolent, those terrorists are not real muslims etc. etc.


The proper term for someone who has a well developed philosophy is not "zealot" you silly troll. You may laugh at fact-based philosophies... but just know I have a right to laugh back even harder at your ridiculous hypocrisy. After all, I've based my entire belief system around the ideas that what is wrong for one is wrong for all and I can show you how it is exactly that.

Get it troll? The facts are on my side. All of them. And if that makes me a zealot then anybody who isn't a zealot is simply an ignorant fool. I'm sorry you are incapable of intelligent discussion, and I hope some day you learn to speak with others you disagree with without calling to name-calling.

You claim communism has never existed. Would that work out if it did? I'm just curious about how much of a zealot you are, smart guy. I can tell you that something quite close to *pure capitalism* does exist today in certain places and I'd gladly point out how it is working out for them.

[edit on 16-1-2010 by truthquest]



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 12:49 AM
link   
My thread was removed posted 1-15-10 entitled: "Haiti as gold payment to China but first chaos must be started."

The link
www.eurasianminerals.com...

And I further commented that Haiti does not have a choice except
surrendering their sovereignty to pay the $1billion rescue effort with their gold.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 01:42 AM
link   
One of the many reasons why i go you on my friends list


But oh yea, the history of Haiti is screwed up. It's all about exploitation, they don't have any natural resources for other countries to gobble up so they will just grind the people into dust.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 02:51 AM
link   
Haiti seems a nice spot for US Military bases. US military already in control of airport. US is building up in Caribbean for a future "stabilization" mission into Venezuela. If IMF lends money to Haiti, US can supply with lease money to pay back. The lease will be for military air base and sea port. Almost guaranteed.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthquest

All wrong.


So you are claiming that:
1) Aristide wasn't ousted by the US
2) Aristide wasn't trying to stop US manufacturing sweatshops
3) US corporations are not benefitting from disasters
4) The IMF involvement will not create a long term problem for Haiti
6)The IMF involvement will not cause Haiti to be paying off debt for decades
7)The IMF involvement will not cause Haitis resources to be owned by forign corporations.

I suggest you do some research on the consequences of IMF involvement.



The real international loan shark out there is the IMF, a totally fascist organization. You claim the IMF is capitalism? Well, look at the facts then. The big supporters of the IMF are government agencies, therefore the big loan sharking going on is more attributable to communism (government ownership of banking) than it is attributable to capitalism (private ownership of banking).


You are wrong. IMF loans does not benefit the US as a nation. When the IMF tell Haiti to privatize the water supply, the powercompanies, the transport system, the airports etc., they will already have compiled a list of US and international conglomerates to sell them to, at the fair market value of 30 percent of their real value. Those who benefit are foreign privately owned corporations... That is what makes it disastercapitalism.



But its also part communism since the IMF is actually owned in part by government.


No. Ownership plays no role. The IMF acts to benefit privately owned corporations.



You label corporate violent abuse and corporate violent crimes as capitalism. It is absolutely wrong to say that is condoned or allowed under capitalism! Violence against a person has nothing to do with capitalism and everything to do with simple criminal abuse! So when you talk about crimes committed under what you falsely label "capitalism" you are just making a blatantly false statement. No, as it turns out, crime is still illegal under capitalism contrary to what you seem to claim.


The difference is that in the real world, 'capitalism' is defined by having a decentralised marketplace where buyers and sellers meet and agree on a price, whereas 'communism' is defined by it's centralised pricesetting, regardless of supply and demand.



Was it Exxon invading Iraq? I seem to recall it was the US military? As it turns out, under capitalism, violent abuse of any and all humans is still a crime, and anyone participating still goes to jail.


You mean in your fictional capitalist universe.



And again, Bush wanted Iraq's oil whether or not Exxon was pressuring them into stealing it.


Yes, because the Bush family have lived, breathed and drunk oil for 70 years. There was never any need for pressure, just the right amounts of campaign donations.



You pretend otherwise because you have been conditioned to believe capitalism is bad.


No, capitalism isn't bad as such, it's just an economic system. Unregulated capitalism, however, will be abused until it has all the hallmarks of centralised pricesetting.



The proper term for someone who has a well developed philosophy is not "zealot" you silly troll.


Merriam-websters definition of zealot is 'a fanatical partisan', and that is how you come across to me. You are more concerned about what words are used to describe a concept, than the consequences of implementing it in Haiti.



You may laugh at fact-based philosophies...


There is nothing factual about it. It's just someone sitting at his computer feeling superior because he thinks he knows more fancy words than other people.



but just know I have a right to laugh back even harder at your ridiculous hypocrisy. After all, I've based my entire belief system around the ideas that what is wrong for one is wrong for all and I can show you how it is exactly that.


You have the right to stand on your head, clapping your hands as well. Good luck with that.



Get it troll? The facts are on my side. All of them.


A troll is someone who is deliberately baiting you, not someone who is disagreeing with you.

As for facts, you claimed that all of the facts that I reference above were all wrong, when in fact they were right. That means that your facts were all wrong.



And if that makes me a zealot then anybody who isn't a zealot is simply an ignorant fool.


I just told you what a zealot is.



I'm sorry you are incapable of intelligent discussion, and I hope some day you learn to speak with others you disagree with without calling to name-calling.


Likewise.



You claim communism has never existed.


No, I didn't. I compared your statements to every other apologist out there.

You wrote:

The only elements at work in today's society are fascism, socialism, and communism. Capitalism is something that quite frankly may have never even existed because it would meant those in power can't micromanage the destruction of our economy for their benefit. Today we have plenty of disaster socialism, disaster communism, and especially disaster fascism. There is no such a thing as disaster capitalism, sorry haters. Corporatism and fascism are the pervading factors that have nothing to do with capitalism. In fact, in a pure capitalist society corporations very well may not exist since corporations are government creations.


Zealots and apologists always have a reason why their ideological viewpoint is perfect, and why when someone tried to make it work, they failed. By conditioning yourself to believe that the idea is always good, and the implementation is always bad, you create an intellectual refuge for yourself. so that any challenge can always be dismissed as not being the same thing.


I'm just curious about how much of a zealot you are, smart guy.


I'm not a zealot at all.

[edit on 17-1-2010 by aaa2500]



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by truthquest
 



All wrong. The real international loan shark out there is the IMF, a totally fascist organization. You claim the IMF is capitalism? Well, look at the facts then. The big supporters of the IMF are government agencies, therefore the big loan sharking going on is more attributable to communism (government ownership of banking) than it is attributable to capitalism (private ownership of banking). But again, its fascism... an elite few control the IMF. But its also part communism since the IMF is actually owned in part by government.


Huh? First off, communism and capitalism aren't about banking, it's about the ownership of industrial means. Second, though it has extensive governmental ties, the IMF is not a governmental organization. The governors of the IMF come from not only government but also from the private sector. For example, the U.S. governor of the IMF is Timothy Geithner, our Treasury Secretary and former Federal Reserve president, while the alternative governor is Ben Bernake, who was in the Bush administration but is now chairman of the Fed. The Federal Reserve, contrary to popular belief, is not under the control of the U.S. government, but is actually a consortium of privately owned banks. Japan's IMF governor is Naoto Kan, the finance minister of Japan, with the alternate governor Masaaki Shirakawa, the head of Bank of Japan. Germany's governor is Axel Weber, the president of Bundesbank. Your argument that the IMF is communism due to government control doesn't hold water because that would only work if all the governments present on the IMF board were part of global government system... which there isn't. Thus, the model of the IMF is actually that of a corporation.


You label corporate violent abuse and corporate violent crimes as capitalism. It is absolutely wrong to say that is condoned or allowed under capitalism! Violence against a person has nothing to do with capitalism and everything to do with simple criminal abuse! So when you talk about crimes committed under what you falsely label "capitalism" you are just making a blatantly false statement. No, as it turns out, crime is still illegal under capitalism contrary to what you seem to claim.


How is it not allowed under capitalism? If someone told a company they couldn't outsource a job to a sweatshop in Thailand, then it would no longer be a free market and no longer capitalism. Can you expound upon your definition of "crime" in this sense of the word and clarify how the human rights infringements that capitalist entities have committed and have gotten away with doesn't shatter your statements?


Was it Exxon invading Iraq? I seem to recall it was the US military? As it turns out, under capitalism, violent abuse of any and all humans is still a crime, and anyone participating still goes to jail. And again, Bush wanted Iraq's oil whether or not Exxon was pressuring them into stealing it.


What planet are you from? Bush surrounded himself with representatives from corporations that would benefit from the oil of Iraq and from war. Did Bush want the oil for himself? No, he was a puppet on strings - and the puppeteers were the corporations.


If you don't think all communism (government ownership of production) is always bad all the time, a totally true statement, you go ahead and tell me where government take-overs of a private industry have worked out well for the people who are in poverty. Then, I'll go ahead and search for the statistics and data and see who is right and who is wrong. That is something that would clear these misconceptions about capitalism up really quick.


Well, here is a fun list: fire departments, the police, public libraries, public transportation, roads and sidewalks, school scholarships, Social Security, the subway system, some aspects of the U.S. military, public parks, Norway and Sweden.


[edit on 17-1-2010 by Someone336]



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by plumranch How could any country, corporation, or entity take advantage of the Haitians? There is no profit to be had anywhere in the country.


Because it's all just a big shell game. Governments = Corporations = Governments.

The money to be made is in deals for production of goods and services for Haitian relief, rebuilding, security, etc. Governments and/or entities act as arbiters to grease the wheels so to speak through loans and grants - with caveats for certain policy supports or waivers for corporate interests. Haiti pays (or not) the corporations /entities with the money from the loans and grants but is essentially indebted or has signed away any future negotiating rights for any other matter.

Right now Haiti is a nation of consumers with an insatiable need for goods. Like zombies, corporations feed off of humans. The fact that Haiti can't pay makes no difference - debt keeps the Ponzi scheme going.

The Shock Doctrine: Disaster Capitalism


The Corporation:




” The idea that some areas of life are too precious, vulnerable, sacred or important for the public interest to be subject to commercial exploitation seems to be losing its influence. Indeed, the very notion that there is a public interest, a common good that transcends our individual self-interest, is slipping away. Increasingly, we are told, commercial potential is the measure of all value, corporations should be free to exploit anything and anyone for profit, and human beings are creatures of pure self-interest and materialistic desire. These are the elements of an emerging order that may prove to be as dangerous as any fundamentalism that history has produced. For in a world where anything or anyone can be owned, manipulated, and exploited for profit, everything and everyone will eventually be.”




(it's worth sitting through all 23 segments if you can find them, they keep getting taken down and have to be re-posted elsewhere)


[edit on 17/1/2010 by kosmicjack]



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 03:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by aaa2500
...the Bush family have lived, breathed and drunk oil for 70 years. There was never any need for pressure, just the right amounts of campaign donations.

A million pages of oil regulations could have not stopped the Iraq war. It was fraudulent. Even with zero regulations on oil sellers, war for oil is a crime. And that is the problem with blaming it on capitalism. The Iraq war was only possible because of fascism... not excessive capitalism. All the regulations in the world don't stop fraud and never will.


Originally posted by aaa2500

So you are claiming that:
1) Aristide wasn't ousted by the US
2) Aristide wasn't trying to stop US manufacturing sweatshops
3) US corporations are not benefitting from disasters
4) The IMF involvement will not create a long term problem for Haiti
6)The IMF involvement will not cause Haiti to be paying off debt for decades
7)The IMF involvement will not cause Haitis resources to be owned by forign corporations.


If Aristide allows physical abuse to go on in sweatshops then he is frankly a rouge criminal, not a capitalist. But regarding $1/day sweatshop jobs, if people would starve without these jobs however, I'd prefer they do exist. There are vastly superior ways to re-distribute wealth under threat of violence than with a minimum wage. For example, an income tax that is donated to poor people who are making wages that are too low. But then I suppose it would expose the stupidity of re-distributing wealth to those who do have jobs at a preference to those who have no jobs at all.

I know that the IMF is bad and that is because it is a communist-fascist loan shark. Government has no business running banks and the IMF shows why. The loans are often more political than economic. Regardless of who owns what, there will always be loan sharks. There can be communism loan sharks. There can be capitalist loan sharks. There can be democratic loan sharks. No matter who owns the banks, loan sharking is going to happen because regardless of what system of economic governance you have, you'll have greedy people who will take advantage of what ever system there is out there. That said, if you look at the factual data, I'm willing to bet that the more a banking system is regulated, the more that loan sharking will actually occur in that area.

All marketplace regulations work best only when set by consumers who shop exclusively at places who have specifically agreed to abide by them, rather then force-fed in through a gun-based government system.

One of the best new economic trends going on is the venture capital going to people regardless of whether they are in poverty or have bad credit. Look at what private(capitalist) loan agents are doing that public(communist) IMF loan agents will never accomplish in a million years:
www.forbes.com...

The SBA has never gotten around to that. Poor people don't have a snowballs chance in hell at an SBA loan in most cases. SBA loans are monstrosities of paperwork at regulations that just plain suck. But look at what privately owned venture capitalists are doing.



The difference is that in the real world, 'capitalism' is defined by having a decentralised marketplace where buyers and sellers meet and agree on a price, whereas 'communism' is defined by it's centralised pricesetting, regardless of supply and demand.

Communism has boatloads of definitions. However, I've seen it in real life as government ownership of means of production. The government seizes means of production and that is communism, like when Chavez stole Venezuela's oil fields from private parties. The US post office and presumably most governments have a communist postal system. You'll never find someone trying to offer a complete definition of communism without mentioning ownership of production methods. Supposedly, you and I own the post office. But yes, price setting is a method of public ownership over what is supposed to be an individual's private businesses.

I've come to accept that marketplaces should be regulated ONLY by consumers because I've never ever seen a half-way decent job of regulating any market place. Apparently you have and that is fine. For now on I'll make it a point to note down the evidence that capitalism always works regardless of how little it is regulated. And in the meantime, you can note down times where the government has come up with a fantastic marketplace regulation solution that is working well.

I admit that my opposition to slavery makes me biased against the ideas of marketplace regulations, however I've also seen a hell of a lot of real life proof that gunpoint marketplace regulations don't work and contractual marketplace regulations do work. I've seen evidence that the less marketplace regulations there are, the more poor people are lifted out of poverty. And I'll make it a point to start collecting and publishing that on ATS so I'll have all the evidence to prove it.

[edit on 18-1-2010 by truthquest]



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by pthena
Haiti seems a nice spot for US Military bases. US military already in control of airport. US is building up in Caribbean for a future "stabilization" mission into Venezuela. If IMF lends money to Haiti, US can supply with lease money to pay back. The lease will be for military air base and sea port. Almost guaranteed.


Did it ever occur to anybody that the reason the US military took control of the airport is because it was not at all functioning and was needed in order to bring supplies to the Haitians. Their port and airport were both damaged and non-usable, but the airport was the easier fix. Unfortunately, nobody else did anything to make the airport usable. Instead, the planes were simply circling overhead with supplies but with nowhere to land. Meanwhile, the FAA stepped in and shut it down due to traffic control issues and complete disarray.

Other countries were sitting by and saying: "well, we have supplies but no way to get them there since the airport is closed...."

Had the US military NOT taken over the airport, they would still be waiting for supplies. Nobody else stepped up to get the airport running.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Naomi Klein is a fraud:

www.thefreelibrary.com...

She is a liar of the worst kind, and will defame anyone who gets in her way...such as Milton Friedman. If you've read anything by Milton Friedman, then read Naomi Klein's books you'd certainly be "shocked" not at the "capitalism," but at the perpetuated lie carried throughout her book(s).

[edit on 18-1-2010 by yellowcard]



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by lpowell0627
Granted. US military got the airport functional. That's part of shock doctrine. It was necessary, had to be done. Once in, we better stay, help rebuild Haiti. Good position to put down Caribean and Central American defiers of US hegemony, especially Venezuela. Nine years in Afghanistan, expand into Northwest Pakistan, boom, US bases on China's border. All necessary! All good! Shock doctrine.



[edit on 19-1-2010 by pthena]



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by pthena
 


Man do I need to read that book!

rrrrrr



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
I haven't even read the book, just listened to many interviews. The military aspects are my own extrapolation of events based on an outlook developed by Chomsky.

I've been watching Somolia since US sponsered invasion by Ethiopia, riding on American tanks. Been watching Yemen since US started,about a year ago, arming central government. central government used them on Shiites instead of Wahabi rebels. Wahabi Saudis also attacking Shiites. Been watching US bully Japan over bases. Been watching US base expansion on Guam. Guam may turn into another Diego Garcia, all the people exiled, for military use.

There is much ignored by MSM



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by lpowell0627
Granted. US military got the airport functional. That's part of shock doctrine. It was necessary, had to be done. Once in, we better stay, help rebuild Haiti. Good position to put down Caribean and Central American defiers of US hegemony, especially Venezuela. Nine years in Afghanistan, expand into Northwest Pakistan, boom, US bases on China's border. All necessary! All good! Shock doctrine.



[edit on 19-1-2010 by pthena]


You do realize that Naomi Klein is completely and utterly full of # right? The real "shock doctrine" is shocking her readers with outright lies and making tons of money from their ignorance.

[edit on 19-1-2010 by yellowcard]



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 12:40 AM
link   


The Two Faces of Interventionism
Dr. Jekyll, Mr. Hyde, and public relations in the service of empire

by Justin Raimondo, January 20, 2010
original.antiwar.com...

Margolis informs us that "a French aircraft carrying a full operating theater was not allowed to land so that US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton could fly in and make a speech." Can’t miss that photo op!

But of course this is all about photo ops, and revamping Washington’s image in the eyes of Americans as much if not more than those of foreigners. We may be dropping bombs on Pakistan and Afghanistan, but we’re also dropping food aid and millions of dollars on Haiti – as if the latter makes up for or obscures the former. These are the two faces of interventionism, and yet there is a crucial link between Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, who are, after all, the same entity,
. . .
This conception of the American military as an institution capable of performing any task, no matter how far removed from its legitimate functions, is a delusion shared by liberals and conservatives alike. It is a specifically American conceit, born of post-cold war hubris and an older tradition that can be traced all the way back to Presidents Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. "Send in the Marines!" is an almost magical invocation, a panacea capable of solving most if not all the world’s problems. Like all magical incantations, however, it is not based on reality – as we will learn in due course if our Haitian mission of mercy turns into a long-term or even medium-term project.

Doesn't matter to me a bit how much money Kline gets from books or speeches. Not my tax money used for her. What US agencies do with my money on behalf of billionaires and eternal military buildup does upset me.

[edit on 20-1-2010 by pthena]



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join