

Could a unified theory of modern life really be this simple/scary? (quick vid) - NSX2
http://www.naomiklein.org/main
This is a the site of an author of a book.  I am in no way affiliated with this site, the author or the publisher of the book.  I have not read the book, it was just recommended to me and I came across the link when I Googled it.<p>On the left side you'll notice an embedded YouTube video; it is about 6 minutes.  I've watched it and although it is, to say the least, a bit propoganda-ish, at the same time something about the proposed thesis intuitively struck me as neatly explaining the mess that we've all collectively experienced over the last few decades in general and the last 7 years or so in particular.<p>It's almost like I sensed the thesis proposed, but I couldn't quite figure out how to quite express it.<p>Again, I haven't read the book yet, and so I hold no particular opinion on it either way, but if the book is anything like what I imagine it based on the YouTube video, at the very least it would be one of the more original things I've read in a while (I tend to read a lot).<p>I'd be interested on anybody's feedback if you care to invest 5-6 minutes to watch the video.
======
Tichy
Bullshit!

Of course politicians use certain tools to control the emotion of the people
(start a war, raise the price of beer, whatever), but that has nothing to do
with free markets. The movie just mixes together totally unrelated things and
claims a connection - in that way actually doing the same thing it proposes:
showing shocking pictures to make people believe anything.

So who is Naomi Klein, a Super-Communist? I haven't read her books, and now I
guess I never will.

~~~
andreyf
_but that has nothing to do with free markets_

The connection they make is that Milton Friedman was the one making the (for
the authors) convenient connection between shock and change. The "crisis -
real or perceived" quote sounds pretty condemning.

You are right to point out that this is not an argument against his economic
policies (which are assumed to be bad), but against how he suggested they be
implemented.

~~~
Tichy
I don't know much about Milton Friedman, but I can't imagine his main
suggestion was to push things into a crisis to bring about change. You don't
become one of the most economists with such a thesis.

Rather, I suspect that the quote was taken out of context or blown out of
proportion. You can find something weird to quote from anyone. I am sure you
could find a quote by Paul Graham and work it into that video to replace the
Miltion Friedman quote, for example.

~~~
NSX2
Well, I don't think he ever EXPLICITLY stated that an effort should be made to
"push" things into a state of crisis, he just EXPLICITLY said that a crisis
should be exploited when people are emotional and irrational to push forward
"free market" developments that, ironically, would never actually see the
light of day in an actual, bona fide free market system.

Milton seemed to have a strange, incongruous view of life, namely, that
democratic, free-market developments AS HE SAW FIT were the best thing for
people at large, and such developments as he saw fit should be adopted by the
people at large regardless of whether they actually want to adapt it.

His economic argument in ways mirrors bush's political doctrine of
"liberating" iraq and "spreading democracy" through military force, whether
people want it or not.

Same thing happened in Vietnam, where a "free market system" democratically
chose to organize itself according to decentralized communist structures and
washington flew in a fit of rage and assumed that no way a democratic free
market would ever democratically vote anything other than what washington saw
as proper, so there must be something wrong and so intervention was necessary.

Same thing happened when Palestinians were pressured into having democratic
elections, they democratically elected Hamas, and washington declared the
elections invalid simply because the outcome, left to a bona fide democratic
free market process, turned out different than expected.

I think what you're saying is simply implied in her thesis, ie, if they
explicitly state that crisis should be exploited to bypass natural populist
resistance to "free market solutions" that would never be accepted in a bona
fide free market, then economic theory would suggest that the prime actors
behind these sub-par economic solutions would EVENTUALLY find it in their
self-interest to either initiate the crisis or invest in other actors to do so
by proxy.

But she never actually says this, it's just implied.

As for Milton Friedman's quote taken out of context, it actually isn't taken
out of context at all. He wrote TONS of op-ed pieces for the Wall Street
Journal and New York Times, and they were almost all related to tragedies
experience over the last decade or so.

South-Korean economy crash, BCCI scandal, dot-com crash, 9-11, war in
Afghanistan, Palestinian conflict, war in Iraq, Asian tsunami, Katrina, etc.

He follows the same pattern predictably: Horrible disaster, followed by his
op-ed pieces, usually along these lines: "This event (whatever) is a horrible,
horrible tragedy and millions are suffering. But it's also a wonderful new
opportunity to try some ideas I've been trying to get adopted for years."

The question is, why does he see tragedy as a wonderful new opportunity?
According to Klein, no suggestion is ever offered other than that after a
tragedy, people are too week and child-like and desperate to offer resistance.

If this mechanism is prevalent (and she provides evidenct that it is, at least
enough), then that leads us to conclude that most "free market" solutions are
nothing of the sort and are instead centrally managed exploitations by people
whose ideas would never actually be successful in a free market.

Now, to the extent that such people have had success in times of crisis, and
to the extent that you think that it is in their interest to initiate crisis,
well - that would be a plausible connection, but to the best of my knowledge
she never explicitly states that.

But it's interesting to consider that you and I have both jumped to that
scenario, ie, "But wait a minute - that would mean that ..."

And we're not even beneficiaries of such a mechanism.

If we can think that, isn't it plausible that people who have hundreds of
billions of dollars at stake might think that also?

No? Why not? Because the super rich and politically powerful are all
wonderful, ethical people who have our best interests in mind and they would
never stoop so low as to prosper at the expense of those economically and
politically weaker than they are?

Please.

~~~
Tichy
"This event (whatever) is a horrible, horrible tragedy and millions are
suffering. But it's also a wonderful new opportunity to try some ideas I've
been trying to get adopted for years."

Again, I don't really know Friedman, but could it not simply be that his work
was motivated by trying to improve human lives? It is pretty natural to
consider in the face of disaster what might have caused it and what might have
prevented it.

To make things clear, I was among the ones who would have no problem believing
that 09/11 was staged. It happens all the time, in fact, it is standard
practice when starting wars to fake some attack of the enemy to be first. That
is not what we are discussing, though.

Also, let's think the other way round. Naomi seems to claim that people don't
want free markets because the evil power people have to force it on them. But
could it not be the other way round, people would actually want them, and the
evil power people are actually trying to prevent it? The "evidence" could be
interpreted in both ways.

When did people voluntarily decide against free markets, anyway? Which
communist regime did not turn into a dictatorship in no time? The only reason
people might think they would prefer communism is because they don't really
understand economics, and don't understand what it would mean for them.

~~~
NSX2
>> but could it not simply be that his work was motivated by trying to improve
human lives? It is pretty natural to consider in the face of disaster what
might have caused it and what might have prevented it.

But that's the thing. He SAYS he believes in the free market, which means, in
my mind, put up an idea and see who takes to it, but in PRACTICE he basically
means, "People are too stupid to know what's good for them - so we'll shove
changes down their throats when they least suspect it and are the most
distracted."

The thing that may distrub you (I'm a bit more familiar with friedman) is that
his "solutions" have nothing to do with the crisis itself, or, as you say,
preventing it. He has said numerous times that "free market solutions" are the
best way to lift people out of poverty en masse.

Yet, his particular suggestions are not aimed at "solutions" for most people
but rather opportunities for a select few.

The fact that they have to be slipped in sneakily while nobody's paying
attention because they're too scared and trying to survive makes me suspicious
- if all the things that he advocates should be quietly sneaked in while we're
too traumatized from disaster to pay attention were as good for us as he
claims, why then do they have to be snuck in quietly while we're all reduced
to fear an panic and can't think straight?

In other words, why not let his suggestion actually be put to the test of a
real democratic free market - why does he insist that "free market solutions"
are best introduced during times of fear and panic and by using stealth and
secrecy and decption?

Could it be that none of his "free market solutions" would ever actually be
successful in a properly functioning free market?

If so, could it be that the people at the top of the food chain don't really
want a properly functioning free market where people make rational decisions
based on self-interest?

>> It happens all the time, in fact, it is standard practice when starting
wars to fake some attack of the enemy to be first. That is not what we are
discussing, though.

But in a way it is. Once you accept the possibility that people are willing to
exploit tragedy to push their agendas on a weakened populace, then the next
step in the economic model is to make "progress" of that sort more efficient
and business like by being able to predict and prepare for such scenarios in
advance - and the only way to have the sufficient knowledge necessary to do
this is to somehow have asymetric distrubtion of knowledge of such events a
priori, which suggests that people who have such knowledge would be colluding
with the people who cause the disasters.

> Also, let's think the other way round. Naomi seems to > claim that people
> don't want free markets because the > evil power people have to force it on
> them. But could it > not be the other way round, people would actually want
> > them, and the evil power people are actually trying to > prevent it? The
> "evidence" could be interpreted in both > ways.

I actually agree with you 100% on this.

~~~
Tichy
Could you give an example of something Friedman wanted to "slip in" after a
crisis?

And how would you propose to "let his suggestion actually be put to the test
of a real democratic free market" - where would you find such a real
democratic free market?

~~~
NSX2
Sure. Just off the top of my mind, right after Katrina he wrote on op-ed in I
think the WSJ where he does the usual "This is horrible ... but" and then
suggests that rather than rebuilding public schools, now would be a good time
to let the public schools rot and instead use the money that would have been
build on schools as grants to be used as vouchers for private schools.

By coincidence, a ton of companies were just formed to do just that - build
and setup private schools.

The residents got the vouchers, they gave them to the companies that would
have built the schools.

Only problem is that the residents are mostly still displaced or living in
trailer-parks surrounded by "privatized security forces" which make them seem
more like they're quarantined, and the companies that said they wanted to
build the private schools took the money but no building was ever started.

It seems you can't build fancy private schools and just have poor displaced
people whose kids haven't gone to school in a year or so. No sir - you need
some affluent people in the mix as well.

And affluent people don't like to live in New-Orleans type of shambles - they
want luxury coops and private, gated communities of newly constructed
townhouses, and malls and shopping centers and business districts, etc.

Wouldn't you know it, by some coincidence tons of new partnerships and LPs and
LLCs were setup JUST RECENTLY to develop all these ritzy things so that the
upscale private schools would feel more comforatable in their surroundings.

So the government transferred rebuilding money to private companies which
either rebuilt nothing yet or are planning to build things that the people the
rebuilding money was designated for could never afford.

So milton suggested change after tragedy, but his change benefited the rich
and politically well connected, not the people affected by the tragedy - even
though that's what it was initially passed off as.

>> And how would you propose to "let his suggestion actually be put to the
test of a real democratic free market" - where would you find such a real
democratic free market?

Well, easy. Take the people affected by Katrina - let the shock wear off so
they can think clearly, then simply ask them: instead of building you guys
public schools and hospitals and such, the government wants to take tax money
and give private contracts to companies that want to build upscale private
schools and malls and gated communities and such - you know, stuff you could
never afford to live in yourselves.

How bout it? Also, would you like to sell your land off really cheap to these
new luxury developers? Oh, wait - you don't have a choice because the
government declared it a federal disaster zone.

So - for rebuilding purposes, the government declares the area a disaster
zone, no rebuilding will take place.

But if you and I started a LLC and declared an intention to build upscale
gated communities, maybe a corporate headquarters complex or two, etc., all of
a sudden, the government not only lets us but even GRANTS us tax money to do
just that.

What resident of New Orleans do you think would have thought this arrangement
to be a good idea in their self interest?

I'm guessing none.

~~~
Tichy
It doesn't sound much like a free market scenario. Instead, asking the
government to build things seems always to be the worst option, because the
government doesn't really care about the money. I don't know the system, but
I'd imagine giving the people vouchers to buy themselves into schools would be
more like it.

Also, I don't think Friedman has any political power - was the government
really following his suggestions? It sounds as if no schools were built after
all (public or private), which is surely not what he suggested?

In any case I see his point, after Katrina it seems to have been a good
opportunity to start over with something new.

------
joe24pack
Anyone remember how quickly the gargantuan "Patriot Act" suddenly appeared
just after the September 11th attacks? I know it sounds very tinfoil hat-ish,
but I figure the "Patriot Act" was written long before those attacks that
supposedly precipitated it.

~~~
klein_waffle
It's not tinfoil-hatish at all! People in Washington would be very bad at
their jobs if they waited for a favorable opportunity before writing up
policies and laws. You never know, tomorrow there might be a presidential sex
scandal and you can get your proposal funded in exchange for your steadfast
support.

The fact that the Patriot Act was drafted quickly proves that there is a
security establishment, waiting to pounce on opportunity. It doesn't prove
that 9-11 was somehow caused by such a group.

------
klein_waffle
I think the analogy to torture is a little bit stretched but there's nothing
controversial about the underlying facts.

1) there is a consensus among the global business elite, and some of the
government elite, about how things ought to be run: Western-style democracy
with the flow of goods and capital as unrestricted as possible.

1b) Partially this is self-interest, and partially it's a belief in a near-
Randian libertarianism that has become dogma in the American right, despite it
never having been really tried. (Because they can't get their agenda
implemented in stable democracies). In this philosophy, government is a
parasite that first feeds off of, and then strangles, the true activity of
free people: business.

2) But almost no country believes in doctrinaire free markets, especially poor
ones struggling to develop a mixed economy.

3) When great crises arise, these government and business elites are needed to
funnel money and talent. They use the opportunity to advance their agenda.

3b) In certain cases, they don't mind making crises, and will even make them
worse, in the belief that the world will then reorder itself to the state they
deem to be natural and good, where markets rule.

The extreme version of this is Iraq, where planners seemed less concerned
about providing stability than free markets.

An even more insidious form: see the documentary "Our Brand is Crisis". You
will see American consultants considered to be left-wing, like James Carville,
manipulating a crisis in a Third World country to elect a leader whose faith
in the market is not shared by the public.

This is all caused by people who are good and nice and believe they are
_helping_ the countries involved. No conspiracy theory required.

------
Excedrin
The style of this video reminded me of Adam Curtis' _The Century Of The Self_
and _The Trap - What Happened to our Dream of Freedom_ perhaps with a little
Michael Moore sensationalism mixed in, but I'm not sure if that's enough of a
reason to buy and read the book.

------
DavidBlack
I've just watched the video.

Naomi Klein (the author) is a respected and thoughtful academic. Her previous
book ('No Logo') was well received around the world.

The ideas she presents here are obviously true:

Governments and corporations are colluding to exploit the poor and powerless
by profiteering from disaters (natural or man made).

They get away with it by doing it at moments of national or global crisis,
when the voting public has been shocked into momentary helplesness by
disasters such as 9/11 or the recent tsunami in Southeast Asia.

~~~
davidw
I'm pulling the emergency "send it back to reddit" handle on this
story/thread!

~~~
NSX2
You know, for a guy whose post-history seems like a random sampling of Yahoo
News and Economist articles, most of which have nothing to do with anything
interesting, you're a bit snobby. If I had the power to "pull the emergency
send it back to reddit" handle on your stories, well, your submissions would
be reduced by 80%.

~~~
davidw
The difference being: most of my submissions are pretty easily classified as
'hacker news', rather than political polemics from the likes of Naomi Klein,
Murray Rothbard, Karl Marx or Hayek, all of whom might have something to say
that's interesting _in some other context_.

I didn't mean to be snobby, I meant to be very clear that I hope people don't
submit this kind of thing to this site, be it left or right wing. I follow a
lot of economics 'blogs', but pretty much refrain from posting them here. I
think they're interesting, but off topic, and likely to lead to even more off
topic discussions.

~~~
NSX2
Okay, I'm sorry too be harsh in response.

But I think this is on topic for the simple fact that most people here I would
classify as being interested in working on or eventually starting a startup.
Which I think they hope will either sell a product, or have an IPO or get
bought out.

So whether you like it or not, your dream of a startup is dependent on the
macro-system.

The reason I posted this is because I'm in the same boat. I've been trying to
put together a startup, I've had training in economics, and I was sort of
brainwashed to believe growing up that hard work = success and good idea =
market adaption and people at the top = hard work and good ideas.

This view of the world that people at the top dominate certain market
mechanisms and they do so because they take advantage of disaster and face no
natural competition and opposition makes me pause and think about my own
experience and I thought it might be food for thought for others.

For example, why should I work hard to present an idea that I hope will beat
competition and be adopted democratically in a free market system because it's
the better idea, when there's a good chance that the eventual winner will be a
well-connected group that sneaks it's market entry in when I'm scared and
distracted because, say, terrorists run amock in my city?

If that's the way the world works, then ALL free market endeavor is lost
because the system will tend to collapse because there will be no motivation
to compete in a system where winners don't compete but rather cause problems
for their competition and sneak solutions while we're all distracted and
putting out fires.

That affects everyone - including programmers.

~~~
davidw
Did you miss the whole Castro debate, where this was hashed and rehashed?
There are a significant number of people who seem to think that "relevant for
everyone" belongs on other sites, whereas " _specifically_ relevant to
hackers" belongs here. You can go to reddit for "relevant for everyone". Also,
consider how _much_ stuff is relevant to everyone. It would swamp the hacker
news in a heartbeat if we started adding everything that's relevant.

~~~
NSX2
That's kind of a non-argument when you consider the majority of stuff found on
here most of the time.

Last week it was "Do you watch t.v." that was most popular. I suppose it's
relevant for hackers, but then again t.v. gets in the way of everyone's
productivity, so it's relevant for everyone.

Ås for the Castro debates, no I didn't watch them since I don't have closed-
circuit cuban government controlled t.v.

May I ask how the hell you saw them and know their contents living in Austria
as you claim to do?

~~~
davidw
I was talking about this:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=118933>

~~~
NSX2
So, in conclusion, according to you hackers are monotone, unidimentionsional
people with no interest in how the world at large works as long as it doesn't
have something to do with eBay or Chinese internet startups or other such
things?

Sad. I pity such people then.

~~~
pg
Will you _please_ give it a rest?

------
asdflkj
This is an ad hominem attack on the free market. "It wasn't born in freedom
and democracy", therefore it must be bad. She makes the laughable assumption
that the majority of people know what's good for them. 2004 election proves
otherwise.

~~~
NSX2
Ad hominem attack? How is it an ad hominem attack? An ad hominem attack means
you can't argue with the thesis so you personally attack the person putting
forth the thesis in attempt to discredit the logic of the arguement by
attacking the credibility of the person making it.

"It wasn't born in freedom and democracy, therefore it must be bad."

That's nowhere near an ad hominem. And basica logic would tend to indicate
that if there are 2 sets of mutually exclusive, bad and good value conditions,
"not good set" would tend to leave "bad set" as the only remaining
possibility.

Also when you say, "She makes the laughable assumption thta the majority of
people know what's good for them", you kind of tend to implicitly agree with
her thesis. It's almost like you're suggesting that everybody is an idiot,
therefore everyone needs a big-brother type group making problems and then
exploiting the resulting panic to shove solutions down everyone's throat
because left to their own devices, people don't know any better.

~~~
asdflkj
Her main thesis is that free market capitalism is bad. She doesn't try to
disprove that free market capitalism is good. Instead, she attacks the
character of famous proponents of it, by suggesting that they forced their
will upon the unwilling populace. That's ad hominem.

I neither agree nor disagree with her about this last part, because I don't
know enough about it. But I give her the benefit of the doubt.

The only way her argument could be not an ad hominem is if there was a causal
link between the merit of the idea she is attacking and the populace's
willingness to accept it. All I was trying to say is that there is no such
link. I am not offering any solutions; just pointing out bad logic.

~~~
NSX2
>> Her main thesis is that free market capitalism is bad.

Not really her thesis at all. Her main thesis is that we're not really even
given a chance to experience free market capitalism, we're just told we're
experiencing it by people who are force-feeding us "free market solutions"
during times when we're not thinking clearly (after a disaster) and that these
solutions would never actually be adopted by people through a legitimate free
market system.

I think she's not so much arguing against free market capitalism as saying
that what passes for it is really a centrally-managed sham.

>> Instead, she attacks the character of famous proponents >> of it, by
suggesting that they forced their will upon >> the unwilling populace. That's
ad hominem.

She doesn't "suggest" that they forced their will upon an unwilling populace,
she points to an actual, documented and verifiable economic doctrine of a
person who advices presidents and Federal Reserve boards.

If she implies it, that is an attack on their character. If they themselves
have actually said that this is a good way to force development that would
otherwise be impossible in face of free-market opposition, than they damn
themselves - she's just saying, "Look at their own words and theories, and see
if recent history seems to follow this pattern, if it does, then these people
are doing it on purpose - and they even claim as much themselves."

>> The only way her argument could be not an ad hominem is >> if there was a
causal link between the merit of the >> idea she is attacking and the
populace's willingness to >> accept it.

I'm not sure, I wasn't there, but I doubt any of the people affected by the
Asian Tsunami would have given up their beachfront property for chump change
to major corporations in the hospitality business who wanted to build resorts
BEFORE they were traumatized by natural disaste, like they did after.

Or take domestic matters - how many people would have put up with all the
domestic surveillance B.S. we have here now if no such thing like 9.11
happened?

Or New Orleans - hospitals and such shut down to be torn down to make way for
upscale property development - what resident would have agreed to that prior
to Katrina? None. But after, they were in no position to agree/disagree with
anything because most of them didn't even have a place to live.

I think she's basically saying that what passes for "free market capitalism"
is a sham perpetuated by people whose ideas/solutions would never be adopted
in a free market system and so they rely on the irrational emotions produced
by disaster to get otherwise weak ideas through the market mechanisms.

In other words, if there were no disaster, many "free market solutions" that
saw the light of day after disasters would never actually be accepted in a
free market.

This then leaves open a disturbing scenario: at what point do people whose
economic contributions would never be adopted by others unless it was in a
state of fear, panic, shock, emotion, etc., consider it useful to actually
initiate disaster in order to have their ideas accepted more readily?

~~~
asdflkj
Naomi Klein is a hero to Western socialists, second in her hero status perhaps
only to Noam Chomsky. She is most certainly against free market capitalism.
Your post makes her ideas seem more attractive to me, but I think you're
misrepresenting her.

I'll read the book. Maybe it's not as bombastic as this video. Still, from
what I've heard about it, I have little hope.

~~~
NSX2
>> Naomi Klein is a hero to Western socialists

Now THAT'S an ad hominem attack. I can see people's eyebrows furrowing, "Oh,
she's one of those new-fangled, "Western socialists" I see now."

Whatever she is, at the very least the idea put forth is original, and, to the
extent its true, disturbing, and, to the extent that it's true enough to allow
us to predict, then it's useful to.

Think about it: let's say some "horrible thing" happens some time over the
next year.

According to her view, first we'll see politicians on t.v. assuring us that
"everything will be alright" and that "help is on the way." although no
specific help is mentioned.

Then while we're huddled together scared and confused, wall street, major
corporations and washington PACs will rush to put together deals that will
wind up turning into some scandal 3 years from now.

Then three years later, we'll all look at the headlines and wonder, "They did
what? When the hell did they put that together? I don't recall reading about
that! Oh - wait - that was when XYZ disaster happened - that's right - I was
too busy calling my relatives in the area to see if they were alright to be
busy worrying what kind of business deals walls street was putting together."

Seriously - say a disaster happens - do you expect anything BUT that scenario
to happen?

Here's a quick test for you: bush's family has had affiliations with Exxon all
the way back to when it was called Standard Oil.

All the global instability caused by bush in the last 8 years has driven oil
up to sky high prices.

Exxon corporation, during bush's reign, has more than doubled in market
valuation, on the basis of nothing more than rise in oil prices, to over half
a TRILLION dollars.

Did you know that? Like most people, I bet not. You were too busy trying to
figure out how to survive the current market crisis, ie, you're too busy
trying to refinance your home, negotiate with whatever credit company just
jacked your rates up because they're losing money on defaults, etc.

See how that works? You're busy trying to keep your head above water, the fat
cats are making hundreds of billions in ways that don't benefit you and are
often at your expense. If you weren't dealing with all the problems you are in
life, would you agree to that? No, of course you wouldn't. Ergo, the fatcats
have an economic incentive to keep causing you problems so you never have
enough free time / mental energy to figure out how they're screwing you.

------
mercurio
No.

------
NSX2
This is the site of an author of a book. I am in no way affiliated with this
site, the author or the publisher of the book. I have not read the book, it
was just recommended to me and I came across the link when I Googled it.

On the left side you'll notice an embedded YouTube video; it is about 6
minutes. I've watched it and although it is, to say the least, a bit
propoganda-ish, at the same time something about the proposed thesis
intuitively struck me as neatly explaining the mess that we've all
collectively experienced over the last few decades in general and the last 7
years or so in particular.

It's almost like I sensed the thesis proposed, but I couldn't quite figure out
how to quite express it.

Again, I haven't read the book yet, and so I hold no particular opinion on it
either way, but if the book is anything like what I imagine it based on the
YouTube video, at the very least it would be one of the more original things
I've read in a while.

I'd be interested on anybody's feedback if you care to invest 5-6 minutes to
watch the video.

