4 ms·

I'm not sure I understand; you start off with "Bullshit!" and then go on to say, basically, "Of course what is implied in this theory happens all the time." I

by NSX2 19y ago

I'm not sure I understand; you start off with "Bullshit!" and then go on to say, basically, "Of course what is implied in this theory happens all the time." I don't think she is "attacking free markets" ... free markets suggest a democratic adaption of free market solutions. I think she's basically saying, in one way or another, that recent economic developments/failed developments are anything BUT free market developments; they are, as presented here, things that would never actually work in a free market society but rather have been shoved down everyone's throats while they were too busy trying to survive a disaster to actually participate in a free market. So I don't see it as an attack on the free market system as much as a suggestion that much of what is heralded as free market solutions are anything but - rather they are force-fed solutions imposed undemocratically by a small cross-section of society which stands to benefit from whatever "solution" they offer to a crisis. In other words, I think she's saying that most "free market" cheerleaders don't really seem to believe in free markets themselves and instead seem to believe that a small, centrally-organized group should centrally manage market systems (ie, communism) by exploiting people's weakness, fear, trauma, insecurities after a disaster. "The movie just mixes togetehr totally unrelated things and claims a connection." Not really. It proposes a hypothesis based on a verifiable doctrine proposed by a very influential person and then looks at the last few decades of history and tries to see if it can fit that hypothesis, which it seems to do very well, then it suggests that this doctrine is, in effect, an unspoken aspect of modern life. To the extent that it can PREDICT economic phenomena, then that connection is very real. I for one think the next time there is a natural disaster like a tsunami or something, people suffering the most will most likely be ignored while governments and corporations will rush to make development deals for luxury high rises, hotels, shopping malls, casinos, etc with no opposition from people too busy trying to survive to put up opposition. "So who is Naomi Klein, a Super-Communist?" It's funny you say that when all she's basically saying is that most people in the public eye cheerleading capitalism are actually behaving more like communists themselves ...

Tichy 19y ago
"Not really. It proposes a hypothesis based on a verifiable doctrine proposed by a very influential person and then looks at the last few decades of history and tries to see if it can fit that hypothesis, which it seems to do very well, then it suggests that this doctrine is, in effect, an unspoken aspect of modern life." You saw all that in a five minute video? I didn't see much science in it. 90% was just showing pictures of torture videos or war bombings. If you think that amounts to verifying a hypothesis, I don't know what else to say (where is the example of societies that didn't change without a crisis?). It is exactly what I hate about that kind of videos: they exploit a weakness of the mind to connect unrelated things, to make you believe that connections exists where they don't. TV and videos are doing that all the time, but the case here was one of the more extreme ones. As I said, of course politicians and power people are playing their game, and exploiting psychology is surely a part of it. I just don't see any connection to free markets, that is what I take issue with.
- NSX2 19y ago
  >> As I said, of course politicians and power people are playing their game, and exploiting psychology is surely a part of it. I just don't see any connection to free markets, that is what I take issue with. But she never says, "Free markets are bad." She seems to be saying instead that many of the things we are told are "democratic free market solutions" are not because they are "slipped in" when people are in a state of shock and not thinking clearly. So many "free market solutions" are not actually, according to her, even put to the test of a democratic free market but rather sneaked in when nobody's paying attention because they're too busy trying to survive a disaster. >>You saw all that in a five minute video? Yes. She points to an influential man (Friedman) who advises corproations, the federal reserve and presidents, she points to a documented theory of his (shock precedes change because people are too weak to oppose the change), and she shows "pictures" as you say of events in recent history which fit into the following thesis: disaster is exploited, and possibly caused (that's my inference, she never says that) by people who want to introduce changes that would never actually work in a real democratic free market system. The pictures of the torture and the cia training manual excerpts are there to demonstrate that the state of mind of regression that happens after a shock is no accident and that the cia, a nexus between government and corporate america, has been interested in inducing this state on purpose for about half a century. Fast forward to recent history and the film shows pictures of natural and artificially created disasters, then it indicates how governments and major corporations rushed to close deals right after the disaster while the people such deals would effect were too busy trying to survive the aftermath to figure out how they were getting screwed. I think her main point is, not so much, "the populist, democratic free market is bad" but rather "if the populist, democratic free market is good" as friedman says it is, why then do friedman and the nexus between washington and corporate america rely so much not on the free market itself but rather disasters that suspend the free market? Why are their "free market solutions" pushed through when the market is at it's worst after a disaster? Could it be that their ideas would never pass muster in a free market? IN OTHER WORDS, HER IMPORTANT POINT IS: A free market is a system where parties trade when both see a payoff benefit to the transaction. If one party suggests something that is too exploitive, in a free market the transaction would not happen. BUT IF I TAKE A BAT AND SMACK YOUR HEAD AROUND and cause you to fear your very life, well then you'd pretty much sign anything I put in front of you. That's not a free market system of rational people making decisions in their best interests. That's a mafia system. The 'ol "Hello, I'm your new partner - you'll be sharing 80% of your profits with me because I says so."

by NSX2 19y ago

Tichy 19y ago

"Not really. It proposes a hypothesis based on a verifiable doctrine proposed by a very influential person and then looks at the last few decades of history and tries to see if it can fit that hypothesis, which it seems to do very well, then it suggests that this doctrine is, in effect, an unspoken aspect of modern life." You saw all that in a five minute video? I didn't see much science in it. 90% was just showing pictures of torture videos or war bombings. If you think that amounts to verifying a hypothesis, I don't know what else to say (where is the example of societies that didn't change without a crisis?). It is exactly what I hate about that kind of videos: they exploit a weakness of the mind to connect unrelated things, to make you believe that connections exists where they don't. TV and videos are doing that all the time, but the case here was one of the more extreme ones. As I said, of course politicians and power people are playing their game, and exploiting psychology is surely a part of it. I just don't see any connection to free markets, that is what I take issue with.

NSX2 19y ago
>> As I said, of course politicians and power people are playing their game, and exploiting psychology is surely a part of it. I just don't see any connection to free markets, that is what I take issue with. But she never says, "Free markets are bad." She seems to be saying instead that many of the things we are told are "democratic free market solutions" are not because they are "slipped in" when people are in a state of shock and not thinking clearly. So many "free market solutions" are not actually, according to her, even put to the test of a democratic free market but rather sneaked in when nobody's paying attention because they're too busy trying to survive a disaster. >>You saw all that in a five minute video? Yes. She points to an influential man (Friedman) who advises corproations, the federal reserve and presidents, she points to a documented theory of his (shock precedes change because people are too weak to oppose the change), and she shows "pictures" as you say of events in recent history which fit into the following thesis: disaster is exploited, and possibly caused (that's my inference, she never says that) by people who want to introduce changes that would never actually work in a real democratic free market system. The pictures of the torture and the cia training manual excerpts are there to demonstrate that the state of mind of regression that happens after a shock is no accident and that the cia, a nexus between government and corporate america, has been interested in inducing this state on purpose for about half a century. Fast forward to recent history and the film shows pictures of natural and artificially created disasters, then it indicates how governments and major corporations rushed to close deals right after the disaster while the people such deals would effect were too busy trying to survive the aftermath to figure out how they were getting screwed. I think her main point is, not so much, "the populist, democratic free market is bad" but rather "if the populist, democratic free market is good" as friedman says it is, why then do friedman and the nexus between washington and corporate america rely so much not on the free market itself but rather disasters that suspend the free market? Why are their "free market solutions" pushed through when the market is at it's worst after a disaster? Could it be that their ideas would never pass muster in a free market? IN OTHER WORDS, HER IMPORTANT POINT IS: A free market is a system where parties trade when both see a payoff benefit to the transaction. If one party suggests something that is too exploitive, in a free market the transaction would not happen. BUT IF I TAKE A BAT AND SMACK YOUR HEAD AROUND and cause you to fear your very life, well then you'd pretty much sign anything I put in front of you. That's not a free market system of rational people making decisions in their best interests. That's a mafia system. The 'ol "Hello, I'm your new partner - you'll be sharing 80% of your profits with me because I says so."