0 votes

THE SHOCK DOCTRINE The Rise of Disaster Capitalism by Naomi Klein

Holy Moly! A fellow taking a economics class told me to read this book. He has to read it for class. I am on page 19. You gotta get this from the library, oh, brother it talks about how Milton Friedman developed a strategy on when a disaster happens you go in and take over and make major changes (like 9-11). The big winners are all the private corporations and the losers the people living there. It also talks about how torture helps, this is some really sick stuff. Looks, like what is planned for us.

I know nothing of the Milton Friedman but he was big with Reagan and Bush, it seems. Has anyone here read this book and can give me some in sight. This does not sound like Capitalism but some demented form of Fascism.

The person who wrote it is Canadian I think.

Man, life is stranger than fiction.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I would be interested in what you think If you read it.through

It can be tricky business. A three fold approach is useful.

What does the author think the role of government is?

What do her subjects think the role of government is?

Do you accept, reject or question the ideas presented. In the end you are the one that matters.

I often scribble bits in a notebook as I read. The notes are not usually formal but record what I think and feel about what I read. Not unlike the report you made above.

Free includes debt-free!

A brief synopsis of Klein's ideology

We would all be eating dirt, IF she would allow that, and, you could only breathe every, say, half-hour. Maybe.

She is a very confused and dogmatic person. In short,
she is an obscurantist (Someone who doesn't want to be confused with the facts).

I hope you didn't pay for the book.

Here's a review I found helpful

I didn't read The Shock Doctrine because this back-and-forth between Klein and Johan Norberg convinced me she is not worth reading:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9626

Excerpt:

"One way in which Naomi Klein can blame free market liberals for everything that goes wrong in the world is that she confuses neo-liberalism/libertarianism with neoconservatism and with corporatism. Now she defends herself:

"I never said Friedman was a 'neo-conservative'"

This is another excellent example of how Klein works. That's right, she only wrote things like this:

"Only since the mid-nineties has the intellectual movement, led by the right-wing think-tanks with which [Milton] Friedman had long associations—Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute and the American Enterprise Institute—called itself 'neoconservative,'" (p. 17)

"Friedman … laid out what … would form the economic agenda of the neoconservative movement" (p. 56)

"the neocon movement — Friedmanite to its core" (p. 322)

"Friedman's intellectual heirs in the United States, the neocons" (p. 444)

Klein does everything to try to establish a connection in the readers' minds, to give the impression that Friedman/liberal economists/neoconservatives/corporations/the Bush administration are all part of one big free-market/corporatism/militarism-complex. And then she can take the worst thing one of them does and blame all the others for it."

Norberg actually wrote a series of incisive critiques of Naomi Klein's work, including: The Klein Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Polemics.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9384

Jake Towne's picture

I think its a worthy read...

decent research, it's not perfect but an interesting perspective. One of my favorite passages is on Russian migration to Israel and closure - I think she got that right.

I agree with most of the thread that Klein's conclusions are socialist in nature, not feasible and misguided - but that doesn't mean her investigation work of Friedman should be carelessly discarded.

Anyone reading Klein needs a good dose of Rothbard, Mises, and Hazlitt to balance out the socialism :)

http://towneforcongress.com/lots-more/educational-resources

Jake Towne
2010 Candidate for US Congress, PA-15
Liberty, Sound Money, the Rule of Law, and Accountability
TowneForCongress.com

Good points

Thanks for pointing out the Friedman part (I concur), and the recommendation to read some AE afterword.

Crap book

By a crap author.
You might as well read a book by Palin because she is against global warming.
Waste of time unless you want to learn how the other side thinks.

reedr3v's picture

First, it is disgusting that Klein's book

was assigned for an economics class(!?!) She's a political analyst, not an economist -- she voted for Obama, that shows the superficiality of both her economic and political analytical skills.

Someone more knowledgeable than I am should write about Friedman. But notice that almost no one in the liberty movement refers to him as mentor. His Chicago School was influential, but despite his personal commitment to liberty, he seems to have thought government needed to manage monetary policy. In some ways his views seemed congruent with Keynes.

Murray Rothbard was his contemporary but thought Friedman's monetarist theory very misguided. Rothbard totally saw the dangers of State management of the economy and seems much more consistently to have continued the Austrian school of economics.

Hello

I haven't read this article yet, but it is in my bookmarks for things to read when I get around to them. It was a Mises daily article from a week or so ago, titled "Is Milton Friedman a Keynesian?"

http://mises.org/daily/4067

reedr3v's picture

Thanks for that interesting and

very technical article. I think it's written clearly but for a neophyte like me it's deep.

Quiltingsando, pass that one on to your friend if he wants to read real economic analysis. Your friend's teacher clearly could learn from it too.

I haven't read the book,

But the book became popular during the election last year, and I have heard the woman speak. She has absolutely no idea what she is talking about. It is one of those books that would be interesting to read just to see all of the factual errors, but at the end of the day, it would be a waste of time, so i just ignore it.

I have seen a video where some guy goes point-by-point on one of her speeches and inserts captions showing the idiocy of what she is saying. One example I remember is her talking about how some guy from some third-world country came to America to receive advice from a free-market think-tank about how to privatize the yak population within his country. She gives that example as how silly the "free-market" people are and how their response to everything is to privatize everything.

The video maker then points out that the guy came to America because nationalization of the yak population had led to such mismanagement of the yaks that it was causing hunger and all kinds of problems, that the guy went on to become prime minister, and privatizing the yaks actually did help. (It is quite similar to the nationalization of Soviet farms which became essentially unproductive).

There are a lot of website debunking her facts, and she has written many responses trying to save herself.

What it comes down to is she has Michael Moore syndrome. She thinks capitalism=corporatism and george bush=free market libertarian. Therefore, any facts that she presents are so ridiculously skewed by her lack of economic knowledge that she is unable to make coherent arguments.

It sounds like it makes for sweet feel-good reading if you are a communist and you are trying to find intellectual propaganda to help you sleep at night.

Excellent:

"What it comes down to is she has Michael Moore syndrome. She thinks capitalism=corporatism and george bush=free market libertarian. Therefore, any facts that she presents are so ridiculously skewed by her lack of economic knowledge that she is unable to make coherent arguments.

It sounds like it makes for sweet feel-good reading if you are a communist and you are trying to find intellectual propaganda to help you sleep at night."

10-15 million more voters need to believe in non-interventionism (liberty) at home and abroad to change America. Minds changed on Syria. Minds changing on privacy. "Printing money" is part of the dialogue. Win minds through focus, strategy.

Oh no. Every few months this

Oh no. Every few months this Naomi Klein tripe surfaces. She is a committed leftist, who has made a career smearing the most famous libertarian economist. I know people who studied under Dr. Friedman, he was fully behind individual rights, the antithesis of evil elite. I had the honor corresponding with him.

10-15 million more voters need to believe in non-interventionism (liberty) at home and abroad to change America. Minds changed on Syria. Minds changing on privacy. "Printing money" is part of the dialogue. Win minds through focus, strategy.

Thanks, for sharing this with me.

I don't understand what is going on here with this. The fellow I know has to read this and when he was going on about Capitalism I told him we don't have Capitalism it is Corporatism. This man lost his job and is going back to school.

He also used to be a small businessman, I told him you used to be a Capitalist. You took your savings and started a small business. You didn't get any special favors from the government. I had a hard time getting him to think.

This book seems VERY damning of Dr. Friedman so far and no wonder there is so much animosity.

Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.