Disaster Capitalism: The Ride of a Lifetime

Naomi Klein is:

1. A communist

2. A liar

Read up on the blatant lies she's telling here:
www.cato.org...

Pretty much a point-by-point refutation of her bogus work.

It is not a free market, nor is it capitalism so long a central regulatory authority control the value of a nation's currency. From that strategic advantage, the central government can direct the flow of capital into whatever it wants. Dot-Coms, Real Estate, whatever it wants to. And it did, and it still does to this day.

Blaming Milton Friedman and the "Free Market" is beyond stupid. There is nothing free about this market. There never was.

It's like talking to a brick wall sometimes.

reply to post by mnemeth1

Naomi Klein is:
1. A communist

Wow, coming from a fellow anarcho- something it's rather strange reading that.
What is your point? Should the material put forth in the OP be dismissed, disregarded, because of the political views or methods of Naomi Klein?

Even if she's a liar, and I couldn't muster the desire to check your link because of the way it was presented, the best liars mix 99% of truth with a 1% lie.

That still leaves 99% of very interesting, though provoking material to mull over.

I don't care about the economic guy or the author woman, I care about the ideas presented, and the connection between shock treatment in psychiatric care and shock treatment in politicapitalism is intruiging enough for me to leave celebrity gossip at the door.

Very interesting thread, but as some have said, you were kind of pouring it on Milton Friedman? From what I have read and seen from Milton Friedman, he was against government intrusion into the markets and an advocate for natural economic corrections to fix irregularities. He was even against one of the first major bailouts by the federal government of Chrysler at the end of 70's. The vibe I was getting from Friedman was that government intervention in the markets should be used as sparingly as possible, because it leads to inflation and excessive taxation. In other words, the economic fortunes is held in the hands of the people, not a government agency or leader.



If you want to know my opinion, I think the government itself is spurning "shock capitalism," over emphasizing the seriousness of the of the economic crisis in 2008. We heard remarks by leaders of imminent doomsday, martial law, grocery stores closing, and so on so forth. . . So, the government dragged the people kicking and screaming into giving up almost a trillion dollars in of their taxes to bailout the financial institutions that brought on the crisis to begin with. After the government learned what the response of the people would be after such a costly knee-jerk reaction with the TAARP, we have been hearing that dreaded trillion amount being thrown around like it is nothing.

A trillion dollars was most recently spent on the Stimulus and yet no accountability of those funds have been made to any great extent. Then, if healthcare reform passes, the US will be on the hook for more trillions of dollars of government spending. It is as though the people in bulk are in lull and are like a deer in headlights as the car approaches?

A trillion dollars is a lot of money, and sooner or later the inflation is going to kick in and the taxes are going to come. That is when we will see "shock capitalism." People will be fighting for a buck in the street. Think of Russia after the Soviet Union on steroids. That will be a shock unseen since probably the fall of Rome, and far worse than what happened during the Depression. It would give the government, NWO, or what have you, an opportunity for complete government control. People will be begging for some semblance of law and order amid the chaos. The cost will be one's "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Now, you mentioned the controversial and inhumane MK Ultra program funded by the CIA. Then you mentioned the results of the patients after going through the experiments of that mad psychiatrist. I see a similar response among the people world wide. The masses seem to be in a lull at what is going on, and are quite passive about the whole thing. With exception of Iceland and Greece, because they are the first to experience the real affects of the economic crisis of 2008.

When you look at closely, corruption is practically as blatant as it ever was, but yet it is not pursued with the vigor as it once was. For example, how many big fish were put on trial and imprisoned for the financial collapse? The only person I am aware of being tried and convicted was Bernie Madoff. After his trial, the thought of corruption and avarice of others on Wallstreet and the banking system is somewhat timid, at least as I see it among the masses? Then you have politicians and Washington bureaucrats bailing out corporations they had private dealing with before the recession. One that comes to mind was Senator Chris Dodd and his choice mortgage terms by Countrywide. He is no longer interested in running for Senate in the next election. He is just one, but I am almost certain their are many others.

When one is exposed to something of controversy or shock frequently and at massive extents, they become desensitized to the whole thing. Very similar to the symptoms shown among the MK Ultra victims. I see the stuff going in the news, and how it is presented, as a means to foster the perception of helplessness among the people. Therefore, they are more accepting and passive about what comes down the road later. Just my observations on the topic. Thanks for the interesting thread!

reply to post by mnemeth1


And here is her refutation of the article plus a few other attack pieces.

www.naomiklein.org...

Read it or don't, it's up to you. It does address all the poinnts raised in the Cato paper though. And yes I have read both before.

Originally posted by GAOTU789
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

And here is her refutation of the article plus a few other attack pieces.

www.naomiklein.org...

Read it or don't, it's up to you. It does address all the poinnts raised in the Cato paper though. And yes I have read both before.

Yeah I think her refutations are intellectually dishonest as well.

For example Friedman was opposed to going into Iraq, but then said we should make it our business to win since we are already there.

She cites this as him being in support of the war, which clearly he was not.

In her response to CATOs claims about Friedman and Pinochet, she dances around the issue by stating what she said is correct.

Technically yes, however it was wildly intellectually dishonest.

I see no difference between trying to mislead a reader with half-truths or out-right lying to them.




[edit on 16-3-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by serbsta


sounds like youre spamming for sales.

money is evil.

I think the work coming out of the Santa Fe Institute
has a lot to do with this also...

www.santafe.edu...

They were studying Chaos theory, evolution, complexity, economics and things like information processing. The original funding was Banks... The intent was a working economic model that integrated with all aspects of reality. Now Chaos theory says in order to get a new system the old system must be thrown into chaos...

Murray Gell-man the genius nobel laureate who derived the mathematics for quarks was the heart of the place for some time.

Here is a search on the site of economics+chaos+theory+evolution

and the resulting papers et. cetera.
www.santafe.edu...

Also the vast majority of the US population is high as much as once to a few times a week; alcohol, marijuana, pharmaceuticals, meth, coke, crack... At the school I'm at the kids estimate 80% at the last high school and one before kids estimated 70%...

Plan or no plan? It may just be the nature of the beast.





[edit on 16-3-2010 by DChenO]

reply to post by mnemeth1

Whether Friedman was a honest idealist, believing in the power of an ideal free market and free society or not, his teachings advanced repression and exploitation, instead of freedom. His interests were not restricted to the academic field, he counselled politicians. Some of them were dictators like Pinochet. Here is their letter exchange.

Although Friedman's personal involvement and counsel was brief and can perhaps be excused, his students, the Chicago Boys have advised numerous governments. They had leading positions in vile organisations like the IMF. Many have used their positions to enrich themselves through corruption.

The privatisation of, what once belonged to the public, externalisation of losses, privatisation of profits – that are the result of their policies. Austerity for the common peon, enrichment for the rich. The promised trickle down is just that, a promise, a myth. It never happens. The results are always the same: Less equality, globalist looting and a deterioration of social indexes and personal freedoms. Friedman was for less government. His students were often successful in reducing the size of government spending. Except in area: Spending is increased for the police and the military. The suffering population must be suppressed before it can revolt. Sounds familiar?

If you look at the results – those who were taught by Friedman were nowhere able to create a functioning free market or free society. All they did is advancing crony-corporatism. You may hate Naomi and her ideas, but she has provided sources. Check them out. The statistics speak for themselves.

Here is the part about the war. Since I am German, I can confirm that the translation is correct.

FOCUS: You describe the concentration of power as the greatest threat to freedom – and thus to the economy as well. Many people judge the current war against Iraq very critically for this reason – you as well?

Friedman: A clear no. US President Bush only wanted war because anything else would have threatened the freedom and the prosperity of the USA. Counter-question: Do you recommend that Gerhard Schröder ask the whole world for advice before he engages in foreign policy?

FOCUS: The USA did at least ignore the opinion of the majority of UN members…

Friedman:…Bush is president of the United States and not the world. He didn’t even have to consult the UN at all. The United Nations is an absurd organisation anyways. All votes count the same, regardless of whether the country has three or 300 million residents. Furthermore, many nations aren’t democratically legitimized at all.

FOCUS: Many Europeans see that differently. Does this political disagreement threaten a trade war between Europe and America?

Friedman: No, the end justifies the means. As soon as we’re rid of Saddam, the political differences will also disappear again very quickly.

FOCUS: What remains are the immense costs of war. Where is the money supposed to come from?

Friedman: It is a small war – also in comparison to the Gulf War of 1991. Back then we had a troop strength of around 400,000 men, today it’s not even 250,000. America is a big country – in comparison to the state expenditures of three to four trillion dollars a year, the costs for this war are only marginal …

www.naomiklein.org...

Saddam would have threatened freedom and prosperity in the U.S.? A small war compared to the Gulf War? Friedman was wrong about the war. Everyone can be wrong. But the worst part of the Focus interview is his belief, that the end justifies the means. I find this repugnant. This excuse has been used by nearly every ideological motivated mass-murderer in history. Like communism Friedman's ideas look good on paper. But like communism they don't work in reality. People don't have equal chances to prosper. They don't have equal access to information. Without protection sociopathic individuals will always rig the system.


[edit on 16-3-2010 by Drunkenshrew]

[edit on 17-3-2010 by Drunkenshrew]

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Naomi Klein is:

1. A communist

2. A liar

Whenever someone attacks the messenger instead of the message, I start wondering if the messenger might not be onto something.

Calling someone a 'communist' doesn't pass for an argument you know. This is not the era of Mccarthyism. If you wish to to attack her position, then do so, but please stop labeling her. It is silly and counterproductive, as most people will see through that easilly.

reply to post by seataka


I never implied anything about 2012...

reply to post by mnemeth1

Why are you attacking the messenger and not the message?

All those advocating Friedman as someone who abhors government intervention within the market are right but the Friedman style shock tactics used in reforming and recreating existing states OR benefiting from disaster is what gives him his bad name.

reply to post by serbsta


Damn, the "Reply" button spammed itself! Sorry! Maybe I was really looking forward to get my reply out there!!



[edit on 17-3-2010 by SalkinVictory]

[edit on 17-3-2010 by SalkinVictory]

[edit on 17-3-2010 by SalkinVictory]

reply to post by serbsta


Congratulations on your 150th post! It was an interesting read for sure!

Comparing the "Shock Doctrine" with real life situations they really do match up. Showing how everything suddenly changes after a major event.

Funny to see how much damage Psychiatry has brought to the world since it began..

- S.V.

Originally posted by Drunkenshrew
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Whether Friedman was a honest idealist, believing in the power of an ideal free market and free society or not, his teachings advanced repression and exploitation, instead of freedom. His interests were not restricted to the academic field, he counselled politicians. Some of them were dictators like Pinochet. Here is their letter exchange.

Although Friedman's personal involvement and counsel was brief and can perhaps be excused, his students, the Chicago Boys have advised numerous governments. They had leading positions in vile organisations like the IMF. Many have used their positions to enrich themselves through corruption.

The privatisation of, what once belonged to the public, externalisation of losses, privatisation of profits – that are the result of their policies. Austerity for the common peon, enrichment for the rich. The promised trickle down is just that, a promise, a myth. It never happens. The results are always the same: Less equality, globalist looting and a deterioration of social indexes and personal freedoms. Friedman was for less government. His students were often successful in reducing the size of government spending. Except in area: Spending is increased for the police and the military. The suffering population must be suppressed before it can revolt. Sounds familiar?

If you look at the results – those who were taught by Friedman were nowhere able to create a functioning free market or free society. All they did is advancing crony-corporatism. You may hate Naomi and her ideas, but she has provided sources. Check them out. The statistics speak for themselves.

Here is the part about the war. Since I am German, I can confirm that the translation is correct.

FOCUS: You describe the concentration of power as the greatest threat to freedom – and thus to the economy as well. Many people judge the current war against Iraq very critically for this reason – you as well?

Friedman: A clear no. US President Bush only wanted war because anything else would have threatened the freedom and the prosperity of the USA. Counter-question: Do you recommend that Gerhard Schröder ask the whole world for advice before he engages in foreign policy?

FOCUS: The USA did at least ignore the opinion of the majority of UN members…

Friedman:…Bush is president of the United States and not the world. He didn’t even have to consult the UN at all. The United Nations is an absurd organisation anyways. All votes count the same, regardless of whether the country has three or 300 million residents. Furthermore, many nations aren’t democratically legitimized at all.

FOCUS: Many Europeans see that differently. Does this political disagreement threaten a trade war between Europe and America?

Friedman: No, the end justifies the means. As soon as we’re rid of Saddam, the political differences will also disappear again very quickly.

FOCUS: What remains are the immense costs of war. Where is the money supposed to come from?

Friedman: It is a small war – also in comparison to the Gulf War of 1991. Back then we had a troop strength of around 400,000 men, today it’s not even 250,000. America is a big country – in comparison to the state expenditures of three to four trillion dollars a year, the costs for this war are only marginal …

www.naomiklein.org...

Saddam would have threatened freedom and prosperity in the U.S.? A small war compared to the Gulf War? Friedman was wrong about the war. Everyone can be wrong. But the worst part of the Focus interview is his belief, that the end justifies the means. I find this repugnant. This excuse has been used by nearly every ideological motivated mass-murderer in history. Like communism Friedman's ideas look good on paper. But like communism they don't work in reality. People don't have equal chances to prosper. They don't have equal access to information. Without protection sociopathic individuals will always rig the system.

Name one industry any government has ever operated more efficiently and with more public benefit than a private owner or organization has.

Name one.

The IMF is a creature of government. The Federal Reserve is a creature of government. Friedman was against both. He did what he could within the system to keep both of them under control.

As for the war comments, its clear Friedman was AGAINST going into Iraq. The statements above simply state we should "win" since we are there. Friedman died before he could see what has become of war. He was of the mind that since we went into Iraq, we should remove Saddam quickly and get the hell out. I'm certain he would be against what is going on there today.

To the rest, here's my reply from my other post:

The government operates a criminal banking cartel, loots the poorest among us by debasing their money, and then sends their kids off to die in third world hell holes.

The government spends about 900 million a year investigating securities fraud, a pittance compared to the 45 billion a year the US spends on drug enforcement.

If the government actually wanted to protect us they would eliminate the criminal federal reserve, stop debasing the currency, allow people who work for a living to keep their money, lock up the bankers, and end the prohibitions and wars.

The government is entirely criminal, it buys its power by looting the public at gun point, it enslaves the public by making them dependent on handouts, and it has destroyed our currency.

Putting your faith in government is like putting your faith in the mob.



But lets continue on with the "common good". The socialist security and medicrap systems are completely insolvent. The criminal ponzi you call socialist security is now paying out more than it takes in and has tens of trillions in unfunded liabilities.

The government has looted its coffers dry and continues its looting to this day. The government is paying out a pittance compared to what a person would have earned if they invested all of that money in a private trust.

Die at age 65? too bad so sad, government keeps your loot.

The entire thing is a criminal enterprise and if any private investment trust tried to operate like socialist security they would be behind bars for fraud - see Madoff.

Government is entirely criminal.




[edit on 17-3-2010 by mnemeth1]

The 2012 link isn't something we should ignore I guess.

What I'm saying is that if you believe that this shock-strategy was at the core of some of the most life-changing events on Earth, 911 for example, than it makes you wonder what could be done with multiple strikes around the globe simultaneously.
It would be the ultimate in shock-treatment, especially if it shocks us at the core: spiritually/existentially...

5 scenario's come to mind, the last 3 of which could shock us spiritually/existentially:

- a synchronized terror attack by Al Qaeda and the likes aimed at metropolises around the globe;
- another World War with fronts in every continent, possibly including several nuclear strikes
- a natural disaster that involves the entire planet; maybe a solar flare, an asteroid, or some sort of galactic electromagnetic surge, resulting in massive natural disasters on every continent
- some sort of sudden threat resulting from 'global warming'
- all or some of the above combined...

To 'shock' us on an existential/spiritual level, we have been prepped with stories of Global Warming (scientific), Armageddon (religious) or the Mayan Calendar (New Age)...

To fake a global natural disaster they wouldn't even need HAARP or Bluebeam, as I'm sure a big bomb detonated in the Atlantic ocean could be passed of as an asteroid impact and the water displacement would create massive tsunamis. Other detonations could be used to create Earthquakes etc. etc.

Could it be that a massive global shock treatment is required to introduce massive drastic global change aka a "united globe" with a One world Government?

Interesting stuff to keep in mind as many people of the world are screaming that we are entering a new age/doomsday/apocalypse/2012 etc.