4 ms·

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.

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.

NSX2 19y ago
It seems you've read the book, then? I could be wrong, but from what you're saying / what I saw on the video there's a strong implication, I'm wondering - if you read the book, is it actually stated, inferred, hinted, ignored, etc.: In other words, if it benefits policy-makers/corporations to have a disaster - political, natural, economic, etc. - as a prelude to shoving massive change that would otherwise be unnacceptable in nature or scope while people are too busy recovering from disaster, well, does that mean then that policy-makers/corporations would have a strong incentive to actually invest in the creation of the disasters? In other words, since businesses are based on plans and plans are based on predictability, why wait for "nature to take her course?" when you could "push the hand" to setup disasters to get the scenario that would most likely benefit your company's particular "market solution"?
- yters 19y ago
  They do this in Michael Crichton's "State of Fear."
davidw 19y ago
I'm pulling the emergency "send it back to reddit" handle on this story/thread!
- NSX2 19y ago
  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 19y ago
    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 19y ago
      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.

NSX2 19y ago

It seems you've read the book, then? I could be wrong, but from what you're saying / what I saw on the video there's a strong implication, I'm wondering - if you read the book, is it actually stated, inferred, hinted, ignored, etc.: In other words, if it benefits policy-makers/corporations to have a disaster - political, natural, economic, etc. - as a prelude to shoving massive change that would otherwise be unnacceptable in nature or scope while people are too busy recovering from disaster, well, does that mean then that policy-makers/corporations would have a strong incentive to actually invest in the creation of the disasters? In other words, since businesses are based on plans and plans are based on predictability, why wait for "nature to take her course?" when you could "push the hand" to setup disasters to get the scenario that would most likely benefit your company's particular "market solution"?

yters 19y ago
They do this in Michael Crichton's "State of Fear."

davidw 19y ago

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

NSX2 19y ago
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 19y ago
  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 19y ago
    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.