The Shock Doctrine

Offalycool

The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism is a 2007 book by Canadian journalist Naomi Klein.

The book and film argue that the free market policies of Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of Economics have risen to prominence in countries such as Chile under Pinochet, Russia under Yeltsin, the United States (for example in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina), and the privatization of Iraq's economy under the Coalition Provisional Authority not because they were democratically popular, but because they were pushed through while the citizens of these countries were in shock from disasters or upheavals.

* Wikipedia

Extracts from a review in the International Herald Tribune http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/09/28/arts/idbriefs29D.php

"The Shock Doctrine" is Klein's ambitious look at the economic history of the last 50 years and the rise of free-market fundamentalism around the world. "Disaster capitalism," as she calls it, is a violent system that sometimes requires terror to do its job. Like Pol Pot proclaiming that Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge was in Year Zero, extreme capitalism loves a blank slate, often finding its opening after crises or "shocks." For example, Klein argues, the Asian crisis of 1997 paved the way for the International Monetary Fund to establish programs in the region and for a sell-off of many state-owned enterprises to Western banks and multinationals. The 2004 tsunami enabled the government of Sri Lanka to force the fishermen off beachfront property so it could be sold to hotel developers. The destruction of 9/11 allowed George W. Bush to launch a war aimed at producing a free-market Iraq.

Some readers may see Klein's findings as evidence of a giant conspiracy, a conclusion she explicitly disavows. It's not the conspiracies that wreck the world but the series of wrong turns, failed policies, and little and big unfairnesses that add up. Still, those decisions are guided by larger mind-sets. Market fundamentalists never really appreciated the institutions required to make an economy function well, let alone the broader social fabric that civilizations require to prosper and flourish.

Personally I feel many established authors will refrain from accusations that are beyond the reach of proof. This is a sensible approach, undermining good evidence with unsubstantiated claims is an unforgivable crime. Naomi Klein's research into the economic background of the last 50 years is engrossing and disheartening. It may not be in the interest of her work to make unsubstantiated accusations but for me the rules are a little different. Being of little significance to the bigger picture, I can say whatever I feel I must basking in the relative safety of anonymity.

Having read the book, it is hard not to draw the conclusion there is increased concentration of power on a global scale. The global market is increasingly owned by a few in accordance with the natural development of globalisation. Debt inheritance has made this transformation possible. This point of view may not come as a surprise to you but perhaps Neomi and others may feel it is not in there interest to call a spade a spade. What I believe we are witnessing in our time is the great acquisition of the world. The only prize left, The last great empire. I say the last because no other can exist in such an order, the order of multinational ownership.

It is possible 9/11 was not an inside job in the classical sense, it may not have been perpetrated by members of government. It is clear to me that the government of almost any nation is now an agent of something bigger, the master of economics. I believe 9/11 was perpetrated by this shadow government, in order to achieve a strategic goal. They are a global economic power beyond the nationalist walls of the past. An organisation answerable to no one beneath them. The loan Shark of the world.

If we are to believe Naomi's analysis that 9/11 was simply an event that was used by the American administration to forward its own policies we must accept that people in power will in future create such events, a chicken and egg situation. If people in power always play by economic rules, they will always be working for the man. This is the legacy of capitalism. Capitalism is conspiracy.

Some may believe the world will be better of under such a stable system, even if the transition period costs humanity dearly. I personally believe such a system will never be utopian, mutual respect cannot exist under a system of ownership. Profit from disorder is the mantra, it shall never reach a point of stability.

Diogenes

Offalycool wrote: »

Personally I feel many established authors will refrain from accusations that are beyond the reach of proof. This is a sensible approach, undermining good evidence with unsubstantiated claims is an unforgivable crime. Naomi Klein's research into the economic background of the last 50 years is engrossing and disheartening. It may not be in the interest of her work to make unsubstantiated accusations but for me the rules are a little different. Being of little significance to the bigger picture, I can say whatever I feel I must basking in the relative safety of anonymity.

Having read the book, it is hard not to draw the conclusion there is increased concentration of power on a global scale. The global market is increasingly owned by a few in accordance with the natural development of globalisation. Debt inheritance has made this transformation possible. This point of view may not come as a surprise to you but perhaps Neomi and others may feel it is not in there interest to call a spade a spade. What I believe we are witnessing in our time is the great acquisition of the world. The only prize left, The last great empire. I say the last because no other can exist in such an order, the order of multinational ownership.

It is possible 9/11 was not an inside job in the classical sense, it may not have been perpetrated by members of government. It is clear to me that the government of almost any nation is now an agent of something bigger, the master of economics. I believe 9/11 was perpetrated by this shadow government, in order to achieve a strategic goal. They are a global economic power beyond the nationalist walls of the past. An organisation answerable to no one beneath them. The loan Shark of the world.

If we are to believe Naomi's analysis that 9/11 was simply an event that was used by the American administration to forward its own policies we must accept that people in power will in future create such events, a chicken and egg situation. If people in power always play by economic rules, they will always be working for the man. This is the legacy of capitalism. Capitalism is conspiracy.

Some may believe the world will be better of under such a stable system, even if the transition period costs humanity dearly. I personally believe such a system will never be utopian, mutual respect cannot exist under a system of ownership. Profit from disorder is the mantra, it shall never reach a point of stability.

Can I ask a question?

Fundamentally Klein disagrees with you about some giant shadowy force with control over the economy of the world. Why do you reference her?

She is as you say;

Established authors will refrain from accusations that are beyond the reach of proof. This is a sensible approach, undermining good evidence with unsubstantiated claims is an unforgivable crime.

You then proceed to do the exact opposite making unsubstantiated claims that you have no proof of.

How sensible is that?

Hellm0

I cannot make a proper comment about this book as in truth I have yet to finish it(I'm about half way through). That said, what I have read has been in line with her fairly pessimistic writing style(RE:NoLogo).

The picture she paints of the current globo-economic climate is one of cronyism, shady under the radar deals and mass mis-information. This is nothing new to me but the level of detail which she goes into is refreshing considering the vague and generality prone nature of most critisisms of capitalism.

Offalycool

Diogenes. I'm sorry if I did not make myself clear. It would be unforgivable for Klein to bring her work into disrepute through unsubstantiated claims. In my opinion it is ok for me to draw unsubstantiated conclusions from her work. I say this because in my heart I know I am somewhat right. By doing this I am in no way calling her extensive research into doubt. I am just expressing my opinion.

meglome

Offalycool wrote: »

Diogenes. I'm sorry if I did not make myself clear. It would be unforgivable for Klein to bring her work into disrepute through unsubstantiated claims. In my opinion it is ok for me to draw unsubstantiated conclusions from her work. I say this because in my heart I know I am somewhat right. By doing this I am in no way calling her extensive research into doubt. I am just expressing my opinion.

You know that really is the problem in here, people make lots of claims and draw lots of conclusions. I genuinely think many of them believe in the claims they make. But when it's all boiled down very few (if any) of the claims and conclusions can be proven. And in most of the cases then can be pretty much proven not to be true. A leap of faith is all well and good but for those of us who want real proof it's not much use.

Diogenes

Offalycool wrote: »

Diogenes. I'm sorry if I did not make myself clear. It would be unforgivable for Klein to bring her work into disrepute through unsubstantiated claims. In my opinion it is ok for me to draw unsubstantiated conclusions from her work. I say this because in my heart I know I am somewhat right.

You "know in your heart"? The difference between yourself and Klein, (or indeed any reputable journalist) is there is a world of difference between knowing something and proving something, and that you shouldn't repeat or announce what you cannot prove or substantiate.

By doing this I am in no way calling her extensive research into doubt. I am just expressing my opinion.

You seem alot more pleasant that some of the conspiracy theorists who come to this forum. Might I suggest some further reading?

Globalization and its Discontents by Joseph E Stiglitz. Stiglitz is a Nobel prize winning economist and former chef economist of the World Bank. He's now an outspoken critic of both the IMF and World Bank.

When I was younger I was quiet heavily involved in the anti globalisation movement in Ireland and Europe. Often among these groups the loudest and most opinionated and most aggressive protesters, couldn't verbalize even why they objected to the behaviour of the organisations they protested against "They're evil, man" or "they want to rape the environment".

Stilglitz's book was an eye opener for me, exposing the poor planning, the botched policy of the World Bank. But there was no malice there, no systematic goal or all seeing eye controlling things. There were just people, flawed ordinary people. This sinister global economic power does not exist.

Never attribute to malice that which can be explained away by incompetence and ignorance.

zippy 99

Diogenes wrote: »

you shouldn't repeat or announce what you cannot prove or substantiate.


.

Absolute tripe.

Offalycool

That is a fair point. I would like to elaborate a little on my beliefs. Please humour me In order to prove my claim I would have to find documents connecting the multinationals of the world to a few individuals. Something I do not expect to find.

Countries today are more like businesses than self sustained kingdoms. Klien has shown how multinationals work in cooperation amongst themselves and governments (which not surprisingly are more and more privatised) in order to bring about an unfavourable economic situation throughout the world. These economic crises are used as justification for the alteration of laws which protect the sovereignty of nations, opening markets to multinationals that would normally be off limits. Such markets could be state owned companies or institutions. Further to the very real threat of hyperinflation, many unpopular economic reforms can only take place in times of social shock when the normal rule of due process is suspended. Natural or man-made disaster fit the bill perfectly for this. Iraq may be held up to any who doubt.

One could choose to take this at face value and conclude that multinationals are simply behaving in a self-centred profit orientated way. They surly have no desire to run a state let a lone the world. I do not find this to be the case. Multinationals are property, and as such are owned. I know in many countries they are recognised as individuals in law (quite useful this can be too), but they answer to shareholders first and foremost. Secondly, there is a point when money is only relevant to power. After certain needs are satisfied, the only reason to possess more than one needs is to deprive somebody else of power. Therefore the owner of multinational companies acquires wealth to deprive others. As some companies falter through turbulent markets, the are sold to bigger players. This continues until there is really only one owner, who owns all multinationals, even ones who compete. This creates a false economy, an economy of control.

Unrestricted by the law, and controlling the rise and fall of fortunes in the “free” market, huge influence can be focused on any area considered to be in conflict with the market, or the man so to speak. Need the military of a country to press for war, buy them off. Want the price of a barrel of oil to hit $100, causing uncertainty in the market...Done. Frankly I do not see how a man made system like economics would not eventually be mastered once enough production was acquired.

So if I owned a large proportion of the worlds production directly or indirectly, who would I consider myself to be. I might see myself as a benevolent king! I might see myself as a ruthless fighter, the last man standing. Either way I would not be happy with any competitors, and the market is my way of ensuring who remains top dog. People who have become independent are a real threat. Barter trade, especially amongst countries is unacceptable. I consolidate my power, infiltrating Governments, removing trade restrictions. I can make Billionaires overnight, and have them jumping out of windows the next. One things for sure, this is the endgame. One remains. His most potent weapon, doubt of his existence. Or maybe I'm just paranoid.

Diogenes

zippy 99 wrote: »

Absolute tripe.

A perfect Ad homien.

What I like to say here is I hope you are never in the dock in a court who holds the same concept of burden of proof as you see

Offaly lurid fantasies aside you've obviously been taken in by that charlatan and fraud Alex Jones, go outside get some fresh air, you yourself admit you have no evidence, I would suggest you get out some more, widen your reading material, and apply some critical thinking and logic.

zippy 99

Diogenes wrote: »

A perfect Ad homien.

What I like to say here is I hope you are never in the dock in a court who holds the same concept of burden of proof as you see

quote]

Instinct, one of the best qualities a man can have.

I dont buy the scientific theory rubbish, even Plato dismissed it.

Offalycool

Just for the record.. I agree with all of you. It's fun to speculate though.

humanji

zippy99 wrote:

Instinct, one of the best qualities a man can have.

I dont buy the scientific theory rubbish, even Plato dismissed it.

lol

Kernel

Diogenes wrote: »

and that you shouldn't repeat or announce what you cannot prove or substantiate.

You do know this is conspiracy THEORIES right?

Diogenes wrote: »

This sinister global economic power does not exist.

In your opinion.

Diogenes wrote: »

Offaly lurid fantasies aside you've obviously been taken in by that charlatan and fraud Alex Jones

In your opinion.

I may not believe everything Jones says, but he's certainly not a charlatan or a fraud, and has carried out some excellent research - such as the Bohemia Grove.

Diogenes wrote: »

go outside get some fresh air, you yourself admit you have no evidence, I would suggest you get out some more, widen your reading material, and apply some critical thinking and logic.

Yet another example of your condescending and hostile attitude in relation to all things conspiracy. I think you should apologize to the poster for that attack, as you're basically belittling him/her and their intelligence and take on material they have read. :mad:

Diogenes

Kernel wrote: »

You do know this is conspiracy THEORIES right?



In your opinion.

The OP has yet to provide a single piece of credible evidence to support his ideas.

In your opinion.

I may not believe everything Jones says, but he's certainly not a charlatan or a fraud, and has carried out some excellent research - such as the Bohemia Grove.

You mean that time he crawled around in poison ivy while Jon Ronson walked in and attended the "satanic sacrifice" which was nothing of the sort?

Comedy gold.

Yet another example of your condescending and hostile attitude in relation to all things conspiracy. I think you should apologize to the poster for that attack, as you're basically belittling him/her and their intelligence and take on material they have read. :mad:

Um. No. I'm not. And I won't.

Kernel

The nature of conspiracy theories is that many of these things cannot be proven - they are intentionally designed to be such.

We certainly could not prove most theories to the extent to satisfy a pseudo-skeptic (who are not truly skeptical in their frame of mind). If we could prove these theories beyond a reasonable doubt (I believe we can prove them on the balance of probability, obviously, otherwise I wouldn't personally believe them myself) from behind the internet, then we'd be better off in Washington than on boards.

Diogenes

Kernel wrote: »

The nature of conspiracy theories is that many of these things cannot be proven - they are intentionally designed to be such.

We certainly could not prove most theories to the extent to satisfy a pseudo-skeptic (who are not truly skeptical in their frame of mind). If we could prove these theories beyond a reasonable doubt (I believe we can prove them on the balance of probability, obviously, otherwise I wouldn't personally believe them myself) from behind the internet, then we'd be better off in Washington than on boards.

If actual conspiracy theories, like say the Gulf of Tokin Incident, or Watergate have shown us anything, it's that how porus and easy conspiracies unravel. For this conspiracy to work, thousands of people at nearly every level of government, financial institutions, university economics departments need to be involved, and it requires just one to come clean to bring it tumbling down.

The OP has nothing more than extrapolated wildly from Naomi Klein's work, and has nothing aside from lurid fantasies to support his theories.

bonkey

Kernel wrote: »

The nature of conspiracy theories is that many of these things cannot be proven - they are intentionally designed to be such.

I'm not sure if you're aware of the irony of your wording, but I'd entirely agree.

The likes of Avery, Jones, Fetzer, and so forth do indeed ensure that their conspiracy theories are designed to be unproveable. They also ensure that they are unfalsifiable, then add some nice pseudo-scientific handwaving to hide the lack of falsifiability.

We certainly could not prove most theories to the extent to satisfy a pseudo-skeptic

What about genuine skeptics? Do you think you could prove your theories to them?

I believe we can prove them on the balance of probability, obviously, otherwise I wouldn't personally believe them myself

The probabilities that you've balanced are typically just appeals to emotion and the all-too-often-invoked "common sense" and not actually mathematical probabilities at all.

Thus, there is no balance of probabiolity, but rather a "balance of appeal".

Kernel

Diogenes wrote: »

If actual conspiracy theories, like say the Gulf of Tokin Incident, or Watergate have shown us anything, it's that how porus and easy conspiracies unravel. For this conspiracy to work, thousands of people at nearly every level of government, financial institutions, university economics departments need to be involved, and it requires just one to come clean to bring it tumbling down.

I disagree that major conpiracies require thousands of people to be involved. The main players and intellectuals responsible for driving policy are not hugely numerous. The likes of Brzezinski and Kissinger will use compartmentalised research to extrapolate on and form their own agendas (this is shown even in publicly released books and papers). The implementation of the agenda is further compartmentalised so one hand doesn't know what the other hand is doing. A need to know basis which excludes even presidents. Their will always be leaks, but the methods are becoming more and more advanced. Disinformation, propoganda, misinformation and manipulation are all realities, and tools used to control such leaks.

Diogenes wrote:

The OP has nothing more than extrapolated wildly from Naomi Klein's work, and has nothing aside from lurid fantasies to support his theories.

Haven't read the book, but I did like No Logo.

Kernel

bonkey wrote: »

The likes of Avery, Jones, Fetzer, and so forth do indeed ensure that their conspiracy theories are designed to be unproveable. They also ensure that they are unfalsifiable, then add some nice pseudo-scientific handwaving to hide the lack of falsifiability.

I was referring to who I believe are responsible for committing the conspiracies, those with the agenda, the NWO for want of a better term.

bonkey wrote: »

What about genuine skeptics? Do you think you could prove your theories to them?

I think a genuine skeptic is open-minded, and that many of the theories can be proven on a balance of probability to them. Depends on the conpiracy I suppose. Many 911 truthers are skeptical people too. The evidence presented was good enough for them to come to the conclusion that the even was part of an agenda and not the solitary work of Al-CIAda.

bonkey wrote: »

The probabilities that you've balanced are typically just appeals to emotion and the all-too-often-invoked "common sense" and not actually mathematical probabilities at all.

Thus, there is no balance of probabiolity, but rather a "balance of appeal".

I think you're assuming too much about my emotional state, or what appeals to me. On the fringe, CTists who believe outlandish claims could be accused of this. However, I don't subscribe to reptilians, nazi moon-bases etc. I defend my 'balance of probability' sense. Mathematical probability which you have mentioned may be the core behind such logical conclusions, but I think balance of probability as used in the courts would also not be as precise as a mathematical probability.

Balance of appeal works for both CTists and pseudo-skeptics by the way. Some are more comfortable believing all is well in the flock, and the wolf doesn't mean any harm.

bonkey

I think a genuine skeptic is open-minded,

That depends on what you mean by open-minded. A genuine skeptic accepts only what the evidence supports, and doesn't rule out anything which the evidence cannot rule out.

Note that this means many things cannot be ruled out but are not accepted. In such a case, the genuine skeptic asks for the evidence needed for acceptance.

and that many of the theories can be proven on a balance of probability to them.

You keep using this term "balance of probability" in your recent posts. I should point out that I'm a mathematician by qualification. Probability is something thats typically (badly) misunderstood. The only probability I trust is probability where someone can produce the mathematics on which the probability was calculated. If they can't, then what they mean is something more akin "going by my gut feeling of what I think is likely" which is exactly the type of reasoning that a genuine skeptic refuses to accept.

Many 911 truthers are skeptical people too.

To a degree, yes. I think they have the ability to be skeptical when it suits them. Other stuff, they accept or reject based on whether or not it agrees with their current beliefs.

The evidence presented was good enough for them to come to the conclusion that the even was part of an agenda and not the solitary work of Al-CIAda.

With respect, thats a meaningless statement, beyond establishing that the evidence meets some undefined standard.

I think you're assuming too much about my emotional state, or what appeals to me.

You haven't produced the mathematics behind the probabilities that you claim to have as the basis for your belief. I can't even recall you providing actual probabilities, just using the term as a general argument why you find something credible. I'm relatively confident (but, as a skeptic, open to evidence which shows otherwise) that you aren't in possession of this information.

Thus, even though you may believe that you're basing your reasoning on probality, I'm skeptical that you are. What does this leave? It leaves the notion that you believe something to be credible / unlikely, and thus conclude that its likely to be true. Thats what I mean by my references to appeal and emotion. An argument strikes a chord with you, based on your already-formed positions, and on that basis you assign it some probability of truth, ultimately concluding whether its true or false.

On the fringe, CTists who believe outlandish claims could be accused of this.

Anyone believing anything they cannot supply hard evidence for, or clearly establish the probabilities they are appealing to can be accused of this.

However, I don't subscribe to reptilians, nazi moon-bases etc. I defend my 'balance of probability' sense.

How did you calculate the probability that reptilians do or do not exist?

Mathematical probability which you have mentioned may be the core behind such logical conclusions, but I think balance of probability as used in the courts would also not be as precise as a mathematical probability.

You seem to be suggesting that when the two disagree, the court's reasoning is a better method of determining what actually happened than that of science.

Balance of appeal works for both CTists and pseudo-skeptics by the way.

No disagreement from me there. Where it shouldn't work is for skeptics. They should limit themselves to what science and logic says, rather than using the looser approach that might be acceptable in a court of law.

Some are more comfortable believing all is well in the flock, and the wolf doesn't mean any harm.

I await Zippy giving out to you for using that term. He's apparently offended greatly when someone other than himself uses it.