4 ms·

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 shoul

by NSX2 19y ago

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 19y ago
"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 19y ago
  >> 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.

by NSX2 19y ago

Tichy 19y ago

"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 19y ago
>> 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.