On January 28 2010 04:54 heyoka wrote: It always blows my mind that people think this is somehow edgy or provocative. Are there people out there who will argue against it?
hi zep!!!
I'd argue that knowing this is irrelevant because cultural influences make the knowledge rarified by default, which makes the ability to enact meaningful change through a system based on majority voting useless.
Its far easier to call michael moore crazy than to ask "well, why is flint so poor?".
More importantly, the concept of monopolization and the forces which lead to it are also VERY WELL represented in the parties that form our governments, which means that even if our institutions wanted to change, the forces against them will prevent them from doing so. Does anyone think they can found and lead a third party to national relevance in the next decade in the US? Does anyone see the success of the canadian conservative government stemming from the amalgamation of all prior right of center parties?
History is going to look back at us and kinda sigh "why didn't you guys examine the obvious evolutionary path of your institutions before letting them run wild?". Then again, this cycle is repeated pretty much ad nauseum throughout history, so we wont' be the only target of derision.
The information is fine and the discussion is valid. Framing it as LOOK GUYS I'M GONNA BLOW YOUR MIND ARE YOU READY TO BE SHOCKED AND PROVOKED I WILL CHANGE THE WAY YOU THINK ABOUT THE WORLD is ridiculous.
Heyoka, get over yourself. I never framed it as that. I think you're being rather immature. The debate is without a doubt provocative. Or else why would world leaders be needing a summit to debate this very issue? On top of that, the very first thing I posted was a link to Sarkozy's points, which I elaborate upon. Therefore, at the very start I am showing that my thoughts are neither original or something that is not already being discussed. I never said anything like "I'm going to blow your mind." Seriously, stop drinking the haterade. Just because I'm passionate about the subject doesn't mean that I think I'm some messiah here to save the masses.
Really disappointed you would take this approach to my writing.
I agree. If you want to contribute to a debate or discussion in a meaningful way, then argue for or against one's premises and/or conclusions. An ad hominem attack is not an argument.
3) If privatization and deregulation is so beneficial why was Naomi Klein (in the 'Shock Doctrine' ) able to find so many (well-researched) examples, in a variety of countries, where such programs resulted in impoverishment for the majority of the population and only benefited small business elites? Why was it necessary for many of the countries who pushed such programs to kidnap and torture trade unionists and others who opposed such measures and why were the measures often introduced in very undemocratic ways (ie in Chile after a military coup)?
I'm sorry. I was reading your questions and took them seriously until I read this. I'll engage in ad hominem here and just say that Naomi Klein is the most BS leftist w*o*e (fill in the blanks) on the face of the earth. Her backtalking Milton Friedman is one of the most disgusting things I've come across in my entire life.
To answer your questions I'll just take a shortcut and claim that free market reforms have been successfull where they have been applied. This includes Sweden, USA, India, China, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea and so on.
I don't get how you can't see that some of your examples are just kind of... irrelevant. If a nation has a state controlled railway infrastructure and then sell it to a company, there's no guarantee whatsoever that the company will perform good.
That said, I don't think there is any one perfect system. And I really don't think there are that many people who believe in total deregulation and laissez-faire. What most people should be able to agree on is that concentration of power is bad.
Besides, the finance industry was already regulated. There were already thousands of regulators on Wall Street and yet they couldn't see it coming. So what makes you think that further regulation would do any good? It might seem the most easiest solution; but does it actually work?
Can you actually make any arguments to refute Naomi Klein's research apart from misogynist hate?
As to your other point: the free market purists often claim that private companies are always more efficient than government. I was providing an example to prove them wrong.
And you and many others are missing the point- people like storkhwaiting and I are not saying that there should be no free markets, just that they need to be balanced by government regulation and that privatizing certain industries is not always the best option and can actually impoverish countries. The Friedman chicago school and it's adherents are extremists who believe that everything should be privatized and deregulated and having been pushing these policies for years and now it has become a lynchpin of conservative ideology.
You bring up South Korea as an example of successful free market reform but actually it's been successful precisely because it didn't take the reform too far by privatizing all its government industries and deregulating everything else. Because the SK government retained control of its power, rail and other infrastructures, it has been able to provide these services at very reasonable prices and build up higher-quality infrastructure. Trade protectionism and government interference were key factors in allwoing such companies as Samsung, LG and Hyundai to develop into the globally-competitive companies they are today. If the SK government had thrown everything open immediately as the Chicago school would have wanted these companies would have been crushed by their foreign competitors before they had a chance to grow.
As for your last point it's become well-known that the 'regulators' on Wall street were actually doing very little regulation and were way too cosy with the compaines they were supposed to be policing.
On January 28 2010 05:12 StorkHwaiting wrote: What? I did propose a solution, albeit an aspirational one rather than a detailed economic proposal. It's the same one as Sarkozy. The philosophies of capitalism need to be reformed with a moral purpose in mind, rather than relying on puritanical Capitalist ideology.
And just to be clear: if Americans didn't think less taxes/regulation = increased economic prosperity, the Republican party would lose every single election.
This is the rhetoric that has been espoused in America for the last 30 years. This is the economic philosophy the WORLD has been operating on for the last 30 years. Don't tell me some crap like "this isn't edgy or provocative." If it wasn't provocative, then why was the entire world marching to this beat for decades? And why did it take a massive slap to the face like this last recession to make people wake up and smell the coffee?
Just because I'm posting it now doesn't mean I didn't hold the same view ten years ago. I don't give a shit about being edgy. That was just Heyoka's queer little insult he felt needed to be expressed. It's the fact that this recession was such an epic vindication of my positions (and of many other minority economic thinkers). It is a great thing to see that the world leaders are FINALLY starting to see the light. This view has been the MINORITY for a long time. And I'm amazed you think it hasn't been the minority view.
The crux of the argument still lies in people making the "right" decision. Suddenly thinking, oh, well we'll make the right decision this time, doesn't quite cut it because seldom is there a clear cut correct answer that somehow lands due north so everybody's moral compass points to it.
Republicans would lose every single election if people actually voted on what was best for them or what they believed. Voting has little to do with actual needs, but instead with what basically becomes tradition passed on down families to the younger generation. And switching parties? Please, that's admitting you've had the wrong view point for the past X number of years. People would rather ignore what is best for them just to not be on the losing side of things.
I'd have to disagree. Because the guiding philosophy for the past 30 years is that things will naturally take care of themselves. This ideal of laissez faire.
Now, they're being forced to take a step back, reevaluate, and realize that no, laissez faire and letting things take the "natural" course is not the right way. Rather, things will need to be guided and more strictly regulated to create the outcomes that are needed.
To use an Eastern example, it's the difference between Confucianism and Taoism. It is a fundamental difference between the two and it most certainly does not have the same foundation of "people making the right decision."
Taoism espouses that there is a natural "Way," and that if everything is in tune with that Way it leads to harmony for all. This is very VERY similar to the concept of laissez faire, market forces, and natural equilibrium. Sometimes I wonder if the original theorists of these concepts drew their inspiration from Lao Zi.
Confucianism, on the other hand, says that systems must be created that create the good effects we want to see, and it is in the perfection of these systems and roles of people that harmony can be found.
There is a HUGE difference between the two, to the point that the philosophies are virtually antagonistic. And this is the entire crux of the debate going on right now. Is the "free" and "natural" order of things most beneficial, or should we be focusing on creating systems that are best at guiding and creating the growth/equality that we think is morally righteous for the people.
This is what is meant by "reinventing capitalism so that these original principles are the means and not the ends." We need to reinvent these theories and implement systems so that they serve what we want as a society, rather than just letting nature take its course.
Those are interesting points you made. I've never thought about it like that before.
The question I'm left wondering is:
Doesn't the Taoist perspective you describe subsume the Confucianist perspective? For example, if confucianists decide to get together and create a harmonic socio-economic system, then wasn't that the natural (Taoist) Way of things after all?
in short: there is no law that forces you to do so, the irs is a private organisation and the money they get, goes to a private organisation too, federal reserve. yes private. In history at some point a lower court tried to enforce direct income taxes for individuals, supreme court declared that as illegal in a very short period after. thats the situation until today. supreme court rules...yay!? maybe elsewhere.
documentation by aaron russo(r.i.p.), America: Freedom to Fascism
btw this is serious stuff if you are somehow happy, simple minded and sensitiv don't watch this. but since this topic, i wonder if someone like that would care about this threat. :D
i really would like to try that out, ask an irs agent, ok i going to pay income tax, just show me the law, i just dont understand... then.. yea.. erm.. where.. wtf?!
update: things have changed a bit: http://www.secret.tv/artikel801310/Aaron_Russo_ueber_Nick_Rockefeller this is an interview after his docu before his death. you learn something about the world by his ex close fellows, but he tells you not to go offensive. wage the offensiveness the way it matters to you.
On January 30 2010 13:05 VabuDeltaKaiser wrote: Just want to add some information:
-you as a US citizen have not to pay income taxes
in short: there is no law that forces you to do so, the irs is a private organisation and the money they get, goes to a private organisation too, federal reserve. yes private. In history at some point a lower court tried to enforce direct income taxes for individuals, supreme court declared that as illegal in a very short period after. thats the situation until today. supreme court rules...yay!? maybe elsewhere.
documentation by aaron russo(r.i.p.), America: Freedom to Fascism
btw this is serious stuff if you are somehow happy, simple minded and sensitiv don't watch this. but since this topic, i wonder if someone like that would care about this threat. :D
i really would like to try that out, ask an irs agent, ok i going to pay income tax, just show me the law, i just dont understand... then.. yea.. erm.. where.. wtf?!
update: things have changed a bit: http://www.secret.tv/artikel801310/Aaron_Russo_ueber_Nick_Rockefeller this is an interview after his docu before his death. you learn something about the world by his ex close fellows, but he tells you not to go offensive. wage the offensiveness the way it matters to you.
yeah. maybe a little off-topic, or... maybe not. anyway, amen ( in the strictly atheistic sense). i'm not a neo-con, but i tend to agree. our freedoms are evaporating and our debt is out of control.
i consider myself a socially conscious person and strive for environmental responsibility. I've got no problems with lawful taxes that pay for social services, the defense of the nation, the courts, etc, in a transparent way. That said, it seems the America we live in today is but a shadow of the one created by our founders. I don't mean to glorify our slave owning founders, but they did know a thing or two about freedom.
Disagree? Well, then justify this:
torture censorship unlawful surveillance unlawful seizure of property manufactured consent,... err i mean democratic republic unlimited financial contributions to the political process by corporate "persons" the constitution is just a piece of paper
Like a famous rap group said "it's easier to sit back than stick out your neck. it's easier to break it than build it correct."
On January 30 2010 13:05 VabuDeltaKaiser wrote: Just want to add some information:
-you as a US citizen have not to pay income taxes
in short: there is no law that forces you to do so, the irs is a private organisation and the money they get, goes to a private organisation too, federal reserve. yes private. In history at some point a lower court tried to enforce direct income taxes for individuals, supreme court declared that as illegal in a very short period after. thats the situation until today. supreme court rules...yay!? maybe elsewhere..
Wait, what? The IRS is part of the US Treasury, AKA it is part of the government. And at some point in history is VERY vague... but either way it doesn't matter. The 16th amendment gives the Federal government the ability to levy income taxes. Is this right? Idk. But I know that the gov't can levy income taxes, and that the IRS is part of the government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Revenue_Service Here's the actual law: http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title26/26-20.0.1.1.2.1.2.1.html
On January 30 2010 13:05 VabuDeltaKaiser wrote: Just want to add some information:
-you as a US citizen have not to pay income taxes
in short: there is no law that forces you to do so, the irs is a private organisation and the money they get, goes to a private organisation too, federal reserve. yes private. In history at some point a lower court tried to enforce direct income taxes for individuals, supreme court declared that as illegal in a very short period after. thats the situation until today. supreme court rules...yay!? maybe elsewhere..
Wait, what? The IRS is part of the US Treasury, AKA it is part of the government. And at some point in history is VERY vague... but either way it doesn't matter. The 16th amendment gives the Federal government the ability to levy income taxes. Is this right? Idk. But I know that the gov't can levy income taxes, and that the IRS is part of the government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Revenue_Service Here's the actual law: http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title26/26-20.0.1.1.2.1.2.1.html
it does matter. vague isn't good enough. the people can do *whatever* they want, so long as it isn't a crime. the government can do *nothing*, except what they've been authorized to do.
On January 30 2010 13:05 VabuDeltaKaiser wrote: Just want to add some information:
-you as a US citizen have not to pay income taxes
in short: there is no law that forces you to do so, the irs is a private organisation and the money they get, goes to a private organisation too, federal reserve. yes private. In history at some point a lower court tried to enforce direct income taxes for individuals, supreme court declared that as illegal in a very short period after. thats the situation until today. supreme court rules...yay!? maybe elsewhere..
Wait, what? The IRS is part of the US Treasury, AKA it is part of the government. And at some point in history is VERY vague... but either way it doesn't matter. The 16th amendment gives the Federal government the ability to levy income taxes. Is this right? Idk. But I know that the gov't can levy income taxes, and that the IRS is part of the government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Revenue_Service Here's the actual law: http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title26/26-20.0.1.1.2.1.2.1.html
Where does the law state that the average citizen has to pay income tax? Not in the law you provided. Read it closely:
"The Director, Foreign Operations District, administers the internal revenue laws applicable to taxpayers residing or doing business abroad, foreign taxpayers deriving income from sources within the United States, and taxpayers who are required to withhold tax on certain payments to nonresident aliens and foreign corporations, provided the books and records of those taxpayers are located outside the United States."
On January 30 2010 13:05 VabuDeltaKaiser wrote: Just want to add some information:
-you as a US citizen have not to pay income taxes
in short: there is no law that forces you to do so, the irs is a private organisation and the money they get, goes to a private organisation too, federal reserve. yes private. In history at some point a lower court tried to enforce direct income taxes for individuals, supreme court declared that as illegal in a very short period after. thats the situation until today. supreme court rules...yay!? maybe elsewhere..
Wait, what? The IRS is part of the US Treasury, AKA it is part of the government. And at some point in history is VERY vague... but either way it doesn't matter. The 16th amendment gives the Federal government the ability to levy income taxes. Is this right? Idk. But I know that the gov't can levy income taxes, and that the IRS is part of the government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Revenue_Service Here's the actual law: http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title26/26-20.0.1.1.2.1.2.1.html
Where does the law state that the average citizen has to pay income tax? Not in the law you provided. Read it closely:
"The Director, Foreign Operations District, administers the internal revenue laws applicable to taxpayers residing or doing business abroad, foreign taxpayers deriving income from sources within the United States, and taxpayers who are required to withhold tax on certain payments to nonresident aliens and foreign corporations, provided the books and records of those taxpayers are located outside the United States."
You understand that was the procedural rules correct? as in, it was not the whole law, but simply part of it stating the INTRODUCTION upon procedural rules which I gave to show that the IRS is indeed part of the government But here, http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title26/26-1.0.1.1.1.0.1.2.html
Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States and, to the extent provided by section 871(b) or 877(b), on the income of a nonresident alien individual
Now, I'm not an expert on this, and I'm not sure if this is *exactly* what you meant, but idk. best I could do. If you want to find out more, well, just read through this. http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title26.html
On January 30 2010 13:05 VabuDeltaKaiser wrote: Just want to add some information:
-you as a US citizen have not to pay income taxes
in short: there is no law that forces you to do so, the irs is a private organisation and the money they get, goes to a private organisation too, federal reserve. yes private. In history at some point a lower court tried to enforce direct income taxes for individuals, supreme court declared that as illegal in a very short period after. thats the situation until today. supreme court rules...yay!? maybe elsewhere..
Wait, what? The IRS is part of the US Treasury, AKA it is part of the government. And at some point in history is VERY vague... but either way it doesn't matter. The 16th amendment gives the Federal government the ability to levy income taxes. Is this right? Idk. But I know that the gov't can levy income taxes, and that the IRS is part of the government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Revenue_Service Here's the actual law: http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title26/26-20.0.1.1.2.1.2.1.html
Where does the law state that the average citizen has to pay income tax? Not in the law you provided. Read it closely:
"The Director, Foreign Operations District, administers the internal revenue laws applicable to taxpayers residing or doing business abroad, foreign taxpayers deriving income from sources within the United States, and taxpayers who are required to withhold tax on certain payments to nonresident aliens and foreign corporations, provided the books and records of those taxpayers are located outside the United States."
You understand that was the procedural rules correct? as in, it was not the whole law, but simply part of it stating the INTRODUCTION upon procedural rules which I gave to show that the IRS is indeed part of the government But here, http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title26/26-1.0.1.1.1.0.1.2.html
Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States and, to the extent provided by section 871(b) or 877(b), on the income of a nonresident alien individual
Now, I'm not an expert on this, and I'm not sure if this is *exactly* what you meant, but idk. best I could do. If you want to find out more, well, just read through this. http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title26.html
The "United States" referred to in the law or code that you cite is not what you and I commonly understand it to be. At least that is what I'm assuming, given our acknowledged and mutual ignorance of the facts.
This debate is getting a little over my head, so I called a friend of mine. Hopefully he'll respond to this thread and clear things up a little. It can be difficult to see with all the smoke and mirrors about.
3) If privatization and deregulation is so beneficial why was Naomi Klein (in the 'Shock Doctrine' ) able to find so many (well-researched) examples, in a variety of countries, where such programs resulted in impoverishment for the majority of the population and only benefited small business elites? Why was it necessary for many of the countries who pushed such programs to kidnap and torture trade unionists and others who opposed such measures and why were the measures often introduced in very undemocratic ways (ie in Chile after a military coup)?
I'm sorry. I was reading your questions and took them seriously until I read this. I'll engage in ad hominem here and just say that Naomi Klein is the most BS leftist w*o*e (fill in the blanks) on the face of the earth. Her backtalking Milton Friedman is one of the most disgusting things I've come across in my entire life.
To answer your questions I'll just take a shortcut and claim that free market reforms have been successfull where they have been applied. This includes Sweden, USA, India, China, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea and so on.
I don't get how you can't see that some of your examples are just kind of... irrelevant. If a nation has a state controlled railway infrastructure and then sell it to a company, there's no guarantee whatsoever that the company will perform good.
That said, I don't think there is any one perfect system. And I really don't think there are that many people who believe in total deregulation and laissez-faire. What most people should be able to agree on is that concentration of power is bad.
Besides, the finance industry was already regulated. There were already thousands of regulators on Wall Street and yet they couldn't see it coming. So what makes you think that further regulation would do any good? It might seem the most easiest solution; but does it actually work?
Can you actually make any arguments to refute Naomi Klein's research apart from misogynist hate?
As to your other point: the free market purists often claim that private companies are always more efficient than government. I was providing an example to prove them wrong.
What examples were those again? New zealand banks and railroads, Naomi Klein, and South Korea? Can you cite some online sources so I can study their validity?
I'm not particularly interested in macro economics empiricism you see, I just wanna know what you think you know. I wouldn't personally handle supporting slavery in order to be freer, even if some awesome slavemaster somewhere managed to do a half assed job and not a complete fuckup.
3) If privatization and deregulation is so beneficial why was Naomi Klein (in the 'Shock Doctrine' ) able to find so many (well-researched) examples, in a variety of countries, where such programs resulted in impoverishment for the majority of the population and only benefited small business elites? Why was it necessary for many of the countries who pushed such programs to kidnap and torture trade unionists and others who opposed such measures and why were the measures often introduced in very undemocratic ways (ie in Chile after a military coup)?
I'm sorry. I was reading your questions and took them seriously until I read this. I'll engage in ad hominem here and just say that Naomi Klein is the most BS leftist w*o*e (fill in the blanks) on the face of the earth. Her backtalking Milton Friedman is one of the most disgusting things I've come across in my entire life.
To answer your questions I'll just take a shortcut and claim that free market reforms have been successfull where they have been applied. This includes Sweden, USA, India, China, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea and so on.
I don't get how you can't see that some of your examples are just kind of... irrelevant. If a nation has a state controlled railway infrastructure and then sell it to a company, there's no guarantee whatsoever that the company will perform good.
That said, I don't think there is any one perfect system. And I really don't think there are that many people who believe in total deregulation and laissez-faire. What most people should be able to agree on is that concentration of power is bad.
Besides, the finance industry was already regulated. There were already thousands of regulators on Wall Street and yet they couldn't see it coming. So what makes you think that further regulation would do any good? It might seem the most easiest solution; but does it actually work?
Can you actually make any arguments to refute Naomi Klein's research apart from misogynist hate?
As to your other point: the free market purists often claim that private companies are always more efficient than government. I was providing an example to prove them wrong.
And you and many others are missing the point- people like storkhwaiting and I are not saying that there should be no free markets, just that they need to be balanced by government regulation and that privatizing certain industries is not always the best option and can actually impoverish countries. The Friedman chicago school and it's adherents are extremists who believe that everything should be privatized and deregulated and having been pushing these policies for years and now it has become a lynchpin of conservative ideology.
You bring up South Korea as an example of successful free market reform but actually it's been successful precisely because it didn't take the reform too far by privatizing all its government industries and deregulating everything else. Because the SK government retained control of its power, rail and other infrastructures, it has been able to provide these services at very reasonable prices and build up higher-quality infrastructure. Trade protectionism and government interference were key factors in allwoing such companies as Samsung, LG and Hyundai to develop into the globally-competitive companies they are today. If the SK government had thrown everything open immediately as the Chicago school would have wanted these companies would have been crushed by their foreign competitors before they had a chance to grow.
As for your last point it's become well-known that the 'regulators' on Wall street were actually doing very little regulation and were way too cosy with the compaines they were supposed to be policing.
Exactly. So obviously regulation fails. Why do you think it would work if you hire more of them?
And you misreprsent Friedman & Co. For example, they do not support privitization of the legal system. Further, I'll explain the fallacy behind this:
"As to your other point: the free market purists often claim that private companies are always more efficient than government. I was providing an example to prove them wrong."
The example you were providing was that of a government giving away a monopoly on railway infrastructure to a private company. Now, nobody would say that it's a guarantee that the private company will perform better than the government did. Private companies go bankrupt all the time because a lot of them are bad.
You're misrepresenting the claim by providing a bad example in an unatural situation. The claim is that the free market will, if left alone, in the long run lead to a more efficient solution than a government-based one. This is not the same as saying that any private company will outperform a government-based company.
Regarding South Korea; you can't say that the economic success happened because the government did not do certain things. What I can say however, is that the success as of late (~95 to 2010) has been a result of extensive free market reforms. I mean; just because a government may succeed in something, it does not logically follow that free market theory is therefore false.
Regarding Klein; I'm not a misogynist and my statement was not in the least misogynistic.
But sure; I'll give you something to think about. These are not very long videos and since you asked I hope you find the time to watch them (~8 minutes):
And please do watch and write down statements made from Naomi Klein and compare them to the actual facts. In my eyes, lying factually about, and distorting the heritage of, a dead man is disgusting.
zerojumpz i've been reading some friedman critiques on mises.org and I think they would answer some of your latest questions. http://mises.org/daily/4067 seach friedman or monetarist 4 more
I will dare try to resume what I gather from the article. The article says... aggregation sucks cockz lololol basically.
On January 30 2010 19:31 ParasitJonte wrote: Regarding Klein; I'm not a misogynist and my statement was not in the least misogynistic.
You're right. Calling somebody a whore, is not in the least misogynistic.
On January 30 2010 19:31 ParasitJonte wrote: The example you were providing was that of a government giving away a monopoly on railway infrastructure to a private company. Now, nobody would say that it's a guarantee that the private company will perform better than the government did. Private companies go bankrupt all the time because a lot of them are bad.
You're misrepresenting the claim by providing a bad example in an unatural situation. The claim is that the free market will, if left alone, in the long run lead to a more efficient solution than a government-based one. This is not the same as saying that any private company will outperform a government-based company.
This claim is entirely theoretical. In the cases where it has been tried, it's led to massive social inequality.
On January 30 2010 19:31 ParasitJonte wrote: But sure; I'll give you something to think about. These are not very long videos and since you asked I hope you find the time to watch them (~8 minutes):
The videos you linked are terrible. Terrible.
"Naomi Klein is a liar" in particular is a video that purports to hate Klein's 'smear' campaign while doing exactly the same thing itself. It quote mines for something she said about friedman, then cuts away to something different she said to the 'socialist hordes'. Omg. She's being inconsistant! That means she's a liar. Er... right. I forgot people were only allowed to repeat the same line over and over. Do anything else and they're being inconsistant liars right?
Then for the next minute or so it indisperses various lines with "You're a liar", without any providing anything contradictory.
For the Coup de grâce, it goes on to explain that "Klein equate[s] Milton Friedman with supporting violence" then shows a clip from her film talking about shock therapy, where she doesn't directly claim Friedman supported violence, but explains that it was a required aspect of the entire package.
Having made no direct refutation of any of her claims, the video confidently sums up "Naomi Klein is a liar and is shockingly ignorant".
Sad thing is, the video probably does its job, people look at it and think "Oh, good... I don't need to worry about anything she's said then".
Your linked video Johan Norberg: Naomi Klein on Milton Friedman is similarly terrible.
His arguments come down to two main points. Points which he makes, then claims are symptomatic of her entire book, that she deliberately lies and distorts. Pretty big claim don't you think? I mean, for a claim like that he'd better have some pretty hard evidence right?
If his evidence was shown to be faulty, one could easily claim that even her strongest critics have trouble finding holes in her book.
So, his two main points. First he says she quoted Friedman out of context, "real change comes after a crisis". He follows up by saying "If you look at the real quote"... then doesn't say anything about the quote at all. Whoops.
His next point is "Klein claims that Friedman supported the Iraq war, when he actually opposed it"
Friedman supported the war, then like a lot of people after it was shown to be a gigantic failure, flip flopped and was suddenly against it from the beginning.
Here is Friedman during the war:
“President Bush only wanted war because anything else would have threatened the freedom and the prosperity of the USA.”
and
“the end justifies the means. As soon as we’re rid of Saddam, the political differences will also disappear.”
"I was opposed to going into Iraq from the beginning. I think it was a mistake, for the simple reason that I do not believe the United States of America ought to be involved in aggression."
EDIT: Ooops, I forgot a point that Johan made. He sets up the strawman of "Klein claims Friedman supported IMF intervention in asia". The handily knocks it down. With "But Friedman actually opposed the IMF generally. This is what she does, she takes advantage of the fact that few people know exactly..." Nice one Johan. You're the man now.
Here's what she actually says in 'The Shock Doctrine':
“Philosophically, Milton Friedman did not believe in the IMF or the World Bank: they were classic examples of big government interfering with the delicate signals of the free market. So it was ironic that there was a virtual conveyor belt delivering Chicago Boys to the two institutions’ hulking headquarters on Nineteenth Street in Washington, D.C., where they took up many of the top positions.”
Oh. Did you just get caught out knocking down a blatant strawman and using it to claim that Klein was universally dishonest and manipulative?
You can't trust a single thing that man says. Sad, just sad.
I might add that these refutations are hardly from a impartial source, carefully weighing various points of view and with a higher alliegance to the truth.
No, these refutations come directly from the 'Cato Institute', some of the most hardline supporters of Friedman's theories. Obviously they have personal interest in protecting the reputation of Friedman. A blanket smear campaign filled with misrepresentation and strawmen dressed up as an impartial documentary should do the job nicely right?
How did you put it?
In my eyes, lying factually about, and distorting the message of, a talented reporter is disgusting.
This discussion is interesting because I don't know anything about economics; and because economists always approach political issues in such an alarming way. It's quite hard not to just get confused reading people's arguments here.
People have big problems with a strong government but, to whomever it is pertinent, can I ask you who is supposed to deal with issues of compassion and justice in a society where government is small and everything is privatised?
I mean the way I am seeing it is...if you didn't have a government collecting taxes to spend on healthcare, child protection services, welfare, policing, care working for disabled people, justice and prisons; would you instead have a bunch of private organisations that treated the populace as 'customers'?
Would you see adverts every day asking you to buy shares in child protection or disabled care? Is the only way that such endeavours could gain money by addressing the 'target market' in the same way as Apple sells its iPods? By product placing in rap videos and having witty ads with fun music?
It seems to me that, yeah, there are big problems with government collecting all the money of the country into one big pot and then spending it on what it thinks the country needs (and then the electorate deciding whether it did well or the opposition party could do it better for the next 4 years); but there are also problems with a system where everyone gets to choose exactly how much of their capital goes into all of these 'public services'.
It seems to me that you either try to have bright, educated thinking people who deal in 'country management' (government) to decide where the country's money for public services goes, and have to pay a price for that which is corruption and bloated inefficiency; or you have the common man deciding where he thinks his money should be spent and being preyed on by adverts, propaganda and a general lack of time to think about the issues in any level depth.
Also, I think one reason I have issues with the ideas of big corporations running everything is that I doubt you will be able to FOI them much. Sure, if you can expose a scandal in a private company, the offenders will lose their job because it's bad for business. And, it's always possible that whistleblowers will be purged and silenced when you are dealing with government shenanigans. But I expect that government (at least in the UK) is far more transparent than private corporations; and therefore less capable of getting away with ripoffs and scandals.
So can someone address those issues from a economist, free-market or whatever perspective?
Really unique and edgy stuff, OP. No, really. This is groundbreaking, someone call the New York Times.
Back to reality, sounds like someone just took Microeconomics 101 and decided to blog their Deep Thoughts on the matter. Seriously, this is like freshman undergraduate level material. I suggest you do a little more research into the history of the 20th century and the manner in which various political and economic systems have played out over the years. You'll realize:
*yes, the ideal free market is a myth *the notion of government as altruistic is a myth *there is no true solution to dehumanizing, modern institutions
It may be hard for some Europeans to understand, but a vast majority of the voting American populace would vehemently disagree with the OP. You can't really blame them, though, when their main/only source of information about issues is directly FROM the news media controlled by whichever party they support. Republicans get all their economic/political information from Fox News, so obviously they will always vote Republican. Democrats operate in the same fashion. Nothing major is going to change in America until something incredibly drastic happens and the constant political ping-pong game fails to correct it and everyone starts literally starving to death and America turns into a third world country. I give it about one hundred years.
On January 30 2010 23:54 LF9 wrote: It may be hard for some Europeans to understand, but a vast majority of the voting American populace would vehemently disagree with the OP. You can't really blame them, though, when their main/only source of information about issues is directly FROM the news media controlled by whichever party they support. Republicans get all their economic/political information from Fox News, so obviously they will always vote Republican. Democrats operate in the same fashion. Nothing major is going to change in America until something incredibly drastic happens and the constant political ping-pong game fails to correct it and everyone starts literally starving to death and America turns into a third world country. I give it about one hundred years.
Ah, the same old myths about Europe, so sophisticated and superior. Its a pity their heavily regulated economies got hit really hard by making bad loans to developing economies, a problem which fucked over their economies far worse than the sub prime bad loans did.
Europe is in worse shape than the US economically, and is facing a major demographic crisis, to boot.
EPT
