Shock Doctrine

20Cent

Read Naomi Kleins book The Shock Doctrine recently and think it is relevant to the current situation in Ireland.

Her hypothesis is that disasters, political, economics, warfare or natural are used to implement policies that would never be passed by the normal democratic process. These are Milton Friedman/Chicago School type which cut services for the average person, welfare, education, health services, public services etc for the benefit of a small wealthy elite. A movement of wealth from workers and the poor to the wealthy such as the bank bailout here under the guise of a "free market" capitalism.

Are we in danger of having similar policies imposed upon us?
Selling our public utilities there to benefit the majority to corporations only interested in profit. I tend to agree with the hypothesis.

What do ye think?

silverharp

I dont see the difference, the last 20 years has been about funnelling money to farmers, developers, bankers , quangos and the other vested interests, whats changed now exactly?

RichardAnd

It's been done for hundred of years. The powers that be allow things to happen to their people and use it as an excuse to do X, Y, Z. Has it happened here? Possibly but remember that what has happened here is not by the actions of FF but by the majority of the population.

FlutterinBantam

Yawnn

When will we learn that to make money , we have to produce something that people want to buy.


Everything else is window dressing.:P

20Cent

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Yawnn

When will we learn that to make money , we have to produce something that people want to buy.


Everything else is window dressing.:P

Obviously.
Don't see what that has to do with the op though.

Eliot Rosewater

20Cent wrote: »

These are Milton Friedman/Chicago School type which cut services for the average person, welfare, education, health services, public services etc for the benefit of a small wealthy elite.

Quantify that. For example, if the government (in a free market policy decision) cuts single parent allowance and gives the money "back" to taxpayers, how is it only a "wealthy elite" benefit? In that case, your statement above clearly falls short of it's oppressive connotations.

And also: is it not this "small wealthy elite" funding all these services? Before you make such a broad statement as the above, you should at least rationalize the placing of a disproportionate tax burden on high earners to pay for things other people are supposedly "entitled" to.

Zynks

Silverharp2 wrote: »

I dont see the difference, the last 20 years has been about funnelling money to farmers, developers, bankers , quangos and the other vested interests, whats changed now exactly?

I don't know about you, but I never heard so much talk in (many) billions. I read the book too, and tend to agree that they might be going for the kill this time.

silverharp

Zynks wrote: »

I don't know about you, but I never heard so much talk in (many) billions. I read the book too, and tend to agree that they might be going for the kill this time.

As the saying goes, "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity" the only difference if that everyone is betting the farm on this one.

Scofflaw

Silverharp2 wrote: »

As the saying goes, "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity" the only difference if that everyone is betting the farm on this one.

Regrettably, an awful lot of current legislation is explicable by stupidity - past stupidity, primarily. Neither malice nor conspiracy is required.

An Irish government can almost always get legislation through the Dáil - the previous government lost a single vote in the 2002-2007 Dáil, on a minor procedural matter, and reversed the vote that afternoon. There was a public outcry against the learner seatbelt legislation, and against the smoking ban - but the only result was extensions of the deadlines for compliance.

I would say myself that the legislation that's being passed in the current 'shock' and that was both necessary and not passable in the last decade is actually positive legislation - tighter bank regulation, largely, which we could have done with much earlier, but which wouldn't have passed the government parties. NAMA they couldn't have passed except in an emergency, but NAMA is only necessary because of the emergency.

cordially,
Scofflaw

silverharp

Scofflaw wrote: »

I would say myself that the legislation that's being passed in the current 'shock' and that was both necessary and not passable in the last decade is actually positive legislation - tighter bank regulation, largely, which we could have done with much earlier, but which wouldn't have passed the government parties. NAMA they couldn't have passed except in an emergency, but NAMA is only necessary because of the emergency.

the only problem is that "barn door" policies are less effective by a large factor. Its an obvious flaw that a politician's time outlook is no longer then the next election but they are behaving "rationally" by adopting short term stratagies like creating or throwing fuel on a property bubble. NAMA fits this description too. If people dont like NAMA its becasuse they sense that a crime is being comitted to solve a crime.

ei.sdraob

Scofflaw wrote: »

Regrettably, an awful lot of current legislation is explicable by stupidity - past stupidity, primarily. Neither malice nor conspiracy is required.

yeh The Blasphemy Bill stands out

20Cent wrote:

Obviously.
Don't see what that has to do with the op though.

1. the OP reads a book
2. the OP tries to apply the book to Ireland
3. the OP fails


The sheer incompetence of our politicians will tell you what you need to know

old_aussie

I think these policies are being applied already.

Private companies are taking over service and it's profit before care of duty.

Street lighting being turned off, garbage piling up, public utilities being left to run down/deteriorate, rail services....

20Cent

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Quantify that. For example, if the government (in a free market policy decision) cuts single parent allowance and gives the money "back" to taxpayers, how is it only a "wealthy elite" benefit? In that case, your statement above clearly falls short of it's oppressive connotations.

And also: is it not this "small wealthy elite" funding all these services? Before you make such a broad statement as the above, you should at least rationalize the placing of a disproportionate tax burden on high earners to pay for things other people are supposedly "entitled" to.

Regarding parental allowance I'm talking about bigger things not tweaks. Selling off public transport, privatising services etc. Cuts in your example are used to service debts to banks and multinationals.

By wealthy elite I'm talking about the guys who have laws changed for their own benefit, tax exiles who are still "citizens" yet pay zero taxes here, people who sell off something owned by the state then feck off to the Caribbean with hundreds of millions to avoid paying tax, the guys we are currently bailing out who still have their huge houses. Multinationals who get access to huge resources from corrupt politicians with little benefit to the people of Ireland.

Also the canard about how only a small number of people pay most of the tax. Doesn't that show a massive inequality in our society? This inequality has been growing a movement of wealth to a smaller and smaller group of people.

The question is not if it is happening now it's will it happen?

20Cent

ei.sdraob wrote: »

yeh The Blasphemy Bill stands out


1. the OP reads a book
2. the OP tries to apply the book to Ireland
3. the OP fails


The sheer incompetence of our politicians will tell you what you need to know

The question is will it happen. During a time of crisis lots of changes are made which the population would not normally agree with. I see lots of posts here hoping the imf will be brought in.

The water charges for example, say that gets sold to a private concern. They would then have a vital resource in private hands which will be milked for maximum profit Exon style as happened in Bolivia where people were not even allowed collect rainwater.

Eliot Rosewater

20Cent wrote: »

Selling off public transport, privatising services etc.

What's the problem with these policies? I got an email off of Ryanair this morning; they're offering me flights for €3 apiece. I wonder what price the equivalent flight would have cost when the airline industry was in the control of the state and not a "small wealthy elite".

20Cent wrote: »

By wealthy elite I'm talking about the guys who have laws changed for their own benefit

Such as the public sector unions, who use their power and leverage to have the country run in the way they want? Unfortunately for your argument, political lobbying in this country is not limited to a "small wealthy elite". If what you're saying was true then there would be little tax and a minimalist government. This is clearly not the case.

20Cent wrote: »

Multinationals who get access to huge resources from corrupt politicians with little benefit to the people of Ireland.

Yes. I, like every other Irish person, was delighted when that big bad multinational Dell stopped using our resources and moved to Poland, putting a couple of thousand more people on the dole. A great day for Ireland!

20Cent wrote: »

Doesn't that show a massive inequality in our society?

Yes, it does. It shows that the government has constantly shifted tax bands until we have the situation now where, purportedly, only 50% of workers actually pay tax. This situation, combined with the rates and regulation, reduces the competitiveness and the dynamism of our economy as people are less likely to create the employment we need. But instead of promoting the reduction tax and regulation to facilitate entrepreneurship, the usual cries are to raise tax on the "wealthy elite" because they can afford it. It's stifling the economy.

Flamed Diving

I do wonder if the OP has read any of Friedman's books, for counter-balance? Or is the OP simply building his entire opinion from a single, one-sided book with a clear agenda?

20Cent

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I do wonder if the OP has read any of Friedman's books, for counter-balance? Or is the OP simply building his entire opinion from a single, one-sided book with a clear agenda?

No.

Flamed Diving

To both?

caesarthechimp

20Cent wrote: »

Her hypothesis is that disasters, political, economics, warfare or natural are used to implement policies that would never be passed by the normal democratic process.

In our case the policies are the disaster.

20Cent

Flamed Diving wrote: »

To both?

Sorry, the second.

20Cent

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

What's the problem with these policies? I got an email off of Ryanair this morning; they're offering me flights for €3 apiece. I wonder what price the equivalent flight would have cost when the airline industry was in the control of the state and not a "small wealthy elite".

Didn't suggest that the airline industry should be in the control of the state or anything like that. Still your €3 fare has more to do with government subsidies (corporate welfare) than amazing entrpeneurism and super eficiency. Not that I think this is a bad thing,

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

Such as the public sector unions, who use their power and leverage to have the country run in the way they want? Unfortunately for your argument, political lobbying in this country is not limited to a "small wealthy elite". If what you're saying was true then there would be little tax and a minimalist government. This is clearly not the case.

Another straw man. There are many lobbies in Ireland didn't say there isn't, at least the unions are democratic organisations, their lobbying is out in the open the gov can listen to them or not. There are a dozen other public sector bashing threads if thats what you want to do.

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

Yes. I, like every other Irish person, was delighted when that big bad multinational Dell stopped using our resources and moved to Poland, putting a couple of thousand more people on the dole. A great day for Ireland!

You want to compete with Poland on wages? Good luck with that. They'll dump Poland when somewhere cheaper comes along. They are also getting tens of millions in subsidies from the Polish taxpayer (Corporate welfare!!!).
I was talking about Shell in my post. Huge resources given away to a multinational with the help of corrupt politicians.

Could this also also happen with water, wind, other recouces?

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

Yes, it does. It shows that the government has constantly shifted tax bands until we have the situation now where, purportedly, only 50% of workers actually pay tax. This situation, combined with the rates and regulation, reduces the competitiveness and the dynamism of our economy as people are less likely to create the employment we need. But instead of promoting the reduction tax and regulation to facilitate entrepreneurship, the usual cries are to raise tax on the "wealthy elite" because they can afford it. It's stifling the economy.

Everyone pays tax.
We have the lowest corporate tax in Europe. 33,000 millionaires, the top 250 wealthiest people are worth 34.5 billion (according to todays sunday times rich list) stick a wealth tax on them and we'd save the 4 billion Brian Lenihan wants without cutting anything. Instead we are attacking teachers, nurses guards etc as if they are the problem.

Like I said the hypothesis outlined in Kliens book that times of crisis are used to transfer wealth form workers and the poor to make the top wealthier. This seems to be true in Ireland also where the divide is getting bigger.

Eliot Rosewater

20Cent wrote: »

Another straw man.

No, it's not. I was responding to the vast insinuation in your post that you "wealthy elite" controls this country above all others.

All your posts here have had this conspiratorial tone to them. You seem to have a problem with this "small wealthy elite" which is mostly a figment of your imagination. With regards to this "elite", you said they are "the guys who have laws changed for their own benefit". This doesn't stand up to scrutiny at all. If they really had the power you suggested they do then there would be little welfare and hardly any taxes in this country.

20Cent wrote: »

their lobbying is out in the open the gov can listen to them or not.

And we all know what happens when the government don't listen (think: passports). The insinuation in that particular sentence is that the government can't listen to the "small wealthy elite". Perhaps you'd like to expand upon that?

20Cent wrote: »

stick a wealth tax on them and

they'll all leave, taking all the employment they provide with them.

There's loads of other nitpicking I could do with your post but I don't want to bore people.

20Cent

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

No, it's not. I was responding to the vast insinuation in your post that you "wealthy elite" controls this country above all others.

All your posts here have had this conspiratorial tone to them. You seem to have a problem with this "small wealthy elite" which is mostly a figment of your imagination. With regards to this "elite", you said they are "the guys who have laws changed for their own benefit". This doesn't stand up to scrutiny at all. If they really had the power you suggested they do then there would be little welfare and hardly any taxes in this country.

Certainly looks that way.

Owe the bank a few grand tough pay up.
Can't pay fine we'll take your home and you still owe.
Got a huge mortgage, tough pay up.
Can't pay your tv license. tough go to jail

Owe the bank 28billion, The taxpayer will pick that up for you no bother, have a nice day sir.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

And we all know what happens when the government don't listen (think: passports). The insinuation in that particular sentence is that the government can't listen to the "small wealthy elite". Perhaps you'd like to expand upon that?

They can listen but we don't have to bend over backward for them.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

they'll all leave, taking all the employment they provide with them.

Where will they go? We got the lowest corporate tax rate in europe. If they can operate outside europe they probably are already based in the Caribean already.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

There's loads of other nitpicking I could do with your post but I don't want to bore people.

Whatever.