Moderately intelligent people have known for years that UNREGULATED CORPORATE CAPATLISM MUST INEVITABLY LEAD TO THE IMPOSITION OF A FASCIST DICTATORSHIP IN ORDER TO SUSTAIN THE EXTANT RULING ELITE IN ITS DEATH GRIP ON POWER....
What is the surprise here?

Marcus Aurelius @ 1:

Never thought I'd say this, but the '50s and '60s were the height of the America experiment - and the beginning of the end..

Might not have been the beginning of the end if the Kennedys hadn't been murdered.

Tom Friedman has a platform. He thinks, therefore, whatever he says is correct. More important, MSM affirms his commenting.

Friedman is a jerk. A high-paid jerk.

Oh, and what a worthless piece of dung.

There is of course a sane way of recovering our economy. Not the obvious, impossible one where someone magically waves a wand over the people selling our country out to anyone holding a sack of money.

No it's the one where somebody waves a wand over our military addiction and frees up all that money we shower on the defense budget. What's it for? So the NSA and the NRO can count the pimples on our asses as we sleep?

Shit, stop shooting our economy into low earth orbit. It's not worth what we get out of it. Give me the money they spend on a single satellite and I'll find out what any government on the planet is up to. You do that with on the ground intelligence, gathered by people and clever machines that don't cost you a single percentage of your economy.

What is wrong with Milton Friedman? He was a good guy.

George @ 10:

What is wrong with Milton Friedman? He was a good guy.

Naw...you're thinkin' of his brother Morty.

Let's spend our money on things we want. Like roads and bridges and jobs and health ands levees!!!
The corporatists have been in the cookie jar long enough.

I'm voting for Dennis in the primary. Jus' sayin'

Besides being right, and damn smart, Klein is a hell of a lot better looking than Friedman.

solid @ 14:

Besides being right, and damn smart, Klein is a hell of a lot better looking than Friedman.

But then again, THAT TOO is part of the shock doctrine, isn't it? The myth that only fat, ugly, middle aged men who wear glasses so thick they could set fire to ants, can have truly great ideas. Just look at Cheney. He spun himself into $200 000 000 and an assistant Emperorship on the back of that myth.

Well, Freidmanism "works" if you want to create an oligarchy. So, move along, people! Move along! There's no story here!

Disaster Capitalism

November 29, 2007; Page A1

MERCED, Calif. -- One day in late July, Jim Dawson happily returned home. He had spent the previous five months in the hospital battling an infection that nearly killed him. The phone rang shortly after Mr. Dawson and his wife, Loretta, entered their house.

It was the hospital. California Pacific Medical Center was calling to remind the Dawsons that they owed it $1.2 million.

It is an excercise in 1st year economics to show that 'free market capitalism' doesn't work. Externalities, when the cost of producing a good or service is not reflected in the price, make free markets fail (that's one example). The modern example of this particular 'little' is popularly called global warming, though it should be more accurately refered to as man made global climate instability. So, yes, Milton Friedman is an asshole. And so are all the 'true believer' republicans who actually believe all that BS that republicans sell. The real problem is the republicans who don't believe it, who know it is BS and sell it anyway. The big issue of course is why do they sell it? And the answer is equally obvious: Self Interest, or the interests of those for whom they work.

Keith has been really building the case, and occasionally even articulating what is really going on with the Iraq War. We are n't there to find WMD, and we aren't there to bring capitalism, and we aren't there make the world safe. We are there for the self interests of the powers that run this country. That includes oil, but is not limited to it. by starting a war in a foreign country they can wrap themselves up in the flag and immunize themselves from any and all questions, or opposition or accountability, and thus 'shock' the system into giving the corporate oligarchs free reign over this country. Any explanation for what has happened in Iraq that involved 'incompetence' is extremely, sadly, naive.

L.A. Confidential @ 20:

Disaster Capitalism

November 29, 2007; Page A1

MERCED, Calif. -- One day in late July, Jim Dawson happily returned home. He had spent the previous five months in the hospital battling an infection that nearly killed him. The phone rang shortly after Mr. Dawson and his wife, Loretta, entered their house.

It was the hospital. California Pacific Medical Center was calling to remind the Dawsons that they owed it $1.2 million.

"I do not deny that our charges look insane," says Dr. Pont, CPMC's chief medical officer. But all hospitals operate the same way, he says. "It's the reality of the industry."

But, we liberals and progressives will have no part of a draft. A draft would preclude the privatization of the military and expose every college kid to reality, as we were during the Viet Nam mess. Who among us counsels our children to aspire to serve the country in the military? Thus, we turn it over to the American Christian Militia. We have done the same thing with police forces. Who wants their kid to be a cop? Thus, the police forces are recruited, in large part, from the same portion of the population that gives us criminals. (Tip of the hat to GV) It has been the America electorate that has spent years worshiping the economic policies that made Import Plaza a fortune, and sent our industrial capacity off shore. As Pogo said, "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

I don't believe one word she says. However I might be convinced over a candlelight dinner and wine.

It sounds to me like she's trying to use the no-bid contracts, the cronyism, corporatism (which is a form of big govt) etc... in Iraq to bash free market capitalism, and the two are unrelated. Thats the impression I get, I havent read her book though or know much about her theory.

Jonesy @ 30:

It sounds to me like she's trying to use the no-bid contracts, the cronyism, corporatism (which is a form of big govt) etc... in Iraq to bash free market capitalism, and the two are unrelated. Thats the impression I get, I havent read her book though or know much about her theory.

Read the book. She's not out to "bash capitalism". That's about as weak an argument as is any criticism of Bush being labeled "Bush bashing". Lame.

For years I have referred to Milton Friedman (and only Friedman) as "the Anti-Christ".

I always liked Milton because he was for the decriminalization of marijuana as was as was Bill Buckley. Two conservatives with a sane concept I can get behind.

Marcus Aurelius @ 1:

Never thought I'd say this, but the '50s and '60s were the height of the America experiment - and the beginning of the end..

You were right, I was there. It's over, they own or control everything now. We are doomed. The elections are fixed by the 2 parties. The MSM shuts out anyone that would upset the apple cart. They will soon put a stop to the free wheeling internet. It's only a matter of time before, after some incident, they come for your guns, the only thing they have to worry about.

Nicole writes:

FRIEDMAN. POLICIES. DO. NOT. WORK. PERIOD.

Actually Nicole, I'm afraid that in the eyes of the followers of Friedman, the policies are working exactly as intended. These a**hats have absolutely no desire to sustain Democracy and are quite content if it can be replaced by an oligarch, as long as they are members of the ruling class. As for the rest of us, they could not care what we do or think as long as we maintain or role as members of the proletariat.

While the premise may already be a given to many people, it is still well worth your while to read this book. Klein is indeed an exceptional writer and thinker. The through line she builds in this book will be insightful, even to the fully indoctrinated. I happen to know her husband Avi Lewis - though not really well - and have had the priveledge of meeting the two of them a couple of times. Avi is a CBC News broadcaster and they are quite a remarkable duo. They also made an amazing film together called The Take.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Take

It's great to see she is becoming so widely read.

The interview on MSNBC was extremely interesting. I put Kline's book at the top of my wish list right away. Fascinating.

Moose @ 45:

After having read No Logo and now the Shock Doctrine, I can say Naomi Klein is one the most important writers on the scene today. Her books are original, thoroughly researched and absolutely engrossing. I could not recommend her enough.

I haven't read No Logo but the premise sounds intriguing. The funny thing about the 'Shock Doctrine' is that after you read it, it's at once enormous and complex but seen through the eye of the simple yet horrifying 'Shock Therapy'. What great non-fiction writers do is weave together seemingly disparate threads together, in the hope of enlightening the reader. I felt if I was given a history lesson from a favorite teacher.

Why oh why can't Naomi Klein be a lesbian?

Oh. ..and interested in me...

Hype-Jersey @ 47:

Clytemnestra @ 7:

Naomi Klein - The Shock Doctrine - Part 1 of 6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka3Pb_StJn4

[snip]

Thank you for posting this. I enjoyed these links very much.

You're welcome!

...and the same 3 shocks are planned right here, on us.

The democrats are not the answer! Can't you people see that they are a faction of the same rotten political establishment?

Chris @ 55:

The reason you bat shit crazy libs don't believe his Economics is because it put the responsibility on the individual, you guys want it on the government. Gimme health care, Gimme, housing, gimme gimme gimme, every time something happens the Bush's fault.

Are you fond of torture, or do you just like to watch?

billw @ 54:

The democrats are not the answer! Can't you people see that they are a faction of the same rotten political establishment?

The States are the answer.

Hype-Jersey @ 48:

Why oh why can't Naomi Klein be a lesbian?

Oh. ..and interested in me...

Speaking of Naomi.
Ever heard of or seen Naomi Wolf? She's way more smoking hot, and has an excellent
book with the title: The End Of America. 10 steps to fascism.
Incredible stuff.......check her out!

friedman is a troll. He is a plant. Ignore him.

lucid fiction @ 57:

Look back 200 years ago, or how about 500 years ago. Does anyone think that "those" with consolidated wealth
just disappeared? No, they went underground and fine tuned their long term goal of deception and manipulation.
All of history has been nothing more than the "have" and the "have nots". Things will never change.
Since the start of Federalized education in the late 1800's, the sole purpose was to create generation
after generation of "worker slaves" as it were, for the Industrialist, thus creating wage slaves that are
easily controlled, through economics. The perfect analogy is thus: When the slaves worked the fields for their masters, the
slaves were given clothes, a place to sleep, and enough food to survive, yet toiled their entire life for
the plantation owners, making the plantion owner wealthy, yet the field worker
"exchanged" ...-labor- for his mere survival..........What's different today?
Face it people, we are all nothing but economic slaves.

200 year ago or 500 years ago the world's wealth was not created by free markets. Free markets create wealth for all. Of there was a concentration of wealth in a few people's hands, that was because they gathered their wealth not by producing for the others (the market), but by theft, plunder, and threats.

When the industrial revolution started, this was not a time that saw the industrialists "take advantage" of others by fraud. It was a time when industrialists were allowed to create their wealth by producing for others, which increased their own wealth at the same time that other people wealth increased. It was a time when people were allowed to keep everything they made. If you were allowed to keep everything you made, then the money you made could be used to invest safely and not have to worry about it being stolen (by other people or the government).

Now, in 2007, this is not true anymore. Wealth is being stolen everyday. It is being stolen from poor, middle, and the rich by our monetary system which, incidentally, is a consequence of Friedman economics.

Freidman says to the world that the world should be free market, EXCEPT the creation of money. He thinks that the government should dictate the interest you pay for your house and car, the prices you pay for goods, and the wages you make. He believes that the money supply must be regulated by government, and everything else should be done by the market.

But this view is inherently contradictory, because a free market cannot operate correctly if the government is constantly meddling with money. The government's meddling with money is the reason bubbles appear, why there is a housing crisis, and why there is a world credit crunch.

If the market could determine money, then money would be gold, because all free markets use gold and silver as money. As such, interest rates, prices, and stock markets would all be representative of current market conditions. If gold and silver were the money, then the supply would increase at much smaller rates than if paper is the standard, because it is expensive to mine gold. Paper is cheap to make, so a lot is made.

Thus, as production increases year over year through time, as it would in a free market, prices in general would fall. This is because as new products are made, thus contributing to more overall products in general, there would be less new money being made at the same time, because gold increases at only a 2 or 3% per year. If production is more than this, which it usually does, then prices must fall.

This fall in prices is the sole source for rising standards of living for wage earners, and wage earners would over time see their wages being able to buy more and more every year.

Free markets would ensure that any wage rate whatever is able to rise in real terms each and every year. Most people don't see this because we are under a paper standard, whereby the money supply increases FASTER than production levels. Thus prices rise every year, which bankrupts the average wage earner.

Listen, I can understand the frustration of people who think free markets do not work. They think they do not work because they assume that free markets exist today. They don't and actually never have. We came close a few times, and those times are when people's standard of living skyrocketed. It is the reason the US became the most prosperous nation in the world.

To the extent that people's standards of living have NOT increased, which is true for the last 30 years or so, it is not due to more and bigger free markets. It is due to LESS free markets. The US government is spending HUGE sums of money, in the trillions. These dollars WOULD have been spent privately, which would have increased production and hence lowered prices.

But we have not seen this. It has not happened.

Don't blame free markets for this, because free markets do not exist. They do not exist because the government is meddling too much, and they meddle too much by spending too much.

Naomi Klein is the Chomsky of my generation. I am so thankful for her intelligence, courage, and chutzpah. Here's a voice that gives hope to the true movement toward a more just world.

Luckily for the Bushies, 9/11 came along all on its on and gave them the shock they needed to move the troops into Iraq to protect our oil.

Dude @ 64 "Don't blame free markets for this, because free markets do not exist. They do not exist because the government is meddling too much,"

Government, is it. Stolen elections, more like. Conspiracies to defraud the United States, more like.

But don't blame Bush, or for that matter NAFTA, or CAFTA, or the rest of the slavery-inducing free market.

Herbert Hoover is alive and well among his fellow economic heroes who still, like he did, support the gold standard--and the myth of business fairness without regulations.

With enough Ron Paul dollars and a good shotgun, you CAN survive a nuclear winter and a hotter-than-hell-on-a-Friday summer. And if you have a big family, you can always play Lord of the Flies to feed the rest.

Jonesy @ 30:

It sounds to me like she's trying to use the no-bid contracts, the cronyism, corporatism (which is a form of big govt) etc... in Iraq to bash free market capitalism, and the two are unrelated. Thats the impression I get, I havent read her book though or know much about her theory.

I'm glad somebody said what you said.

Some people are taking her book as an argument against free markets and capitalism, when it cleary is not. I don't think these people even read her book. If they read her book, they would know that she is not providing an argument against capitalism. Her particular error is when she equates free markets with Freidman policies. I actually read her book, and her book is about how the government and businesses team up and extract wealth from others by fraud, deception, and above all by force. This is not capitalism, it is fascism. Fascism is when governments and corporations team up. Capitalism is the absence of government interference. Fascism is not free markets. It is the OPPOSITE of free markets.

The no bid contracts in Iraq are government operations, not private operations. Yes, the businesses are owned nominally by private people, but they are managed and overseen by government, they are paid by government. Government selects those corporations that they are buddy buddies with. These corporations do not increase their wealth by selling products to private individuals who CHOOSE to buy their products. These corporations sell their products to governments who create their wealth by theft (taxes), and inflation (printing money out of thin air). So no, of course not, this is not capitalism.

Big government is what creates the environment Naomi Klein is referring to. Her point about "shock capitalism" is not really about capitalism proper (it's unfortunate she uses the term capitalism at all, as capitalism is about freedom of choice, not cronyism and fraud), her book is about government interference in business. If you read her book, you will see that. Those who think it is a work of anti-capitalism have not read her book. If they read her book and conclude it is an opus against free markets, then they can't read english very well.

This is what happenes when government is free to make it's own laws. When a government can make it's own laws, of course those laws will benefit the state and hurt the populace. The Constitution was supposed to check the powers of the state. But the Constitution is being raped by Bush, and it is this reason and this reason only that capitalism is seeming like it is failing. It is not. What is failing is government itself. It is failing because the current government does not believe in the Constitution. They are wiping their asses with it, they say it is outdated, they say it is useless.

Of course there are many non-government people who also think the Constitution is bad. God help those people.

Sounds something similar to what Ron Paul has been saying.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaxdUPNYj2s

Boy she sur is purdy and smart

fox_liiase @ 74:

Sounds something similar to what Ron Paul has been saying.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaxdUPNYj2s

Ya, Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who is actually talking about what the real problems are with this country. Every other candidate is just blah blah blah'ing in the debates.

I think it's offensive to be called a free market "fanatic", because fanaticism implies being crazy. How is wanting to be free, wanting to have everyone's standard of living rise, wanting no wars, to have liberty, how is this "fanatic"? Is wanting a better world "fanatic"? Geez, some people try and this is how they are treated...

I think anyone who does not want these things is the real fanatic. They are living in la la land, in a dreamworld. They think that by having a shit load of government that all our problems will go away?!? Whatever!!

Dude @ 78 "How is wanting to be free, wanting to have everyone's standard of living rise, wanting no wars, to have liberty, how is this "fanatic"?"

When it is a MYTH maintained by a REPUBLICAN, on his way to deregulating the oil, coal, and nuclear industries.

We will all be SO free when the coal companies destroy every mountain and burn it for profit.

The Shock Doctrine was the best non-fiction book I've read this year.

There is no compatibility with unregulated capitalism and popular democracy. When you hear about massive privatization (crony capitalism), no-bid contracts, anti-regulation (Reaganism), "free markets", vouchers instead of services, corporate mergers toward monopolies, "ownership society", death tax-itis, special interests against campaign reform, consolidation of media, or the variety of personal responsibility spin straw men against the public good, you're witnessing proto-fascism in action. It is the gradual wearing down of the public commons to meet the greed and ideology of right-wing economic fundamentalism.

Capitalism is only a tool for a better society, but it is not the only tool. It must be balanced with countervailing powers, such as a deep democracy. Deep democracy insures that all people get a place at the table, not just the rich and power. It counts all the votes and allows that all voices are heard. It insures an environment of adequate food, housing, health care, and respect in quality of living. Deep democracy shares the spoils with all citizens. Capitalism, in its so called "free market" form, will not do that. Corporatism is a form of slavery.

To me Ann Ryan was on drugs and Friedman was her pimp.

ATTENTION RON PAUL SUPPORTERS:

Naomi Klein's new book, "The Shock Doctrine," is guaranteed to help you realize why a "free" market cannot work. Once you read this book, you will want to stay as far away as possible from anything even remotely close to the Libertarian Party's backwards ideology.

Ron Paul supports a corporate-run hell devoid of any democracy. No one should waste their vote on him.

I think what is most ironic of all is that those who say this book is "proof" that free markets do not work make the huge blunder of forgetting that her book could only be written in a capitalist society! LOL...

Only a capitalist society guarantees free speech.

These people like Olbermann and others seem to be swayed by any old argument that claims to prove capitalist systems do not work. These people really don't believe in anything except the destruction of society, and if they see anyone say anything whatsoever about anti-capitalism, they immediately join in and say "I TOLD YOU SO!"

These people should be ignored because their intentions are not honest and not smart.

Dude @ 83 "She is smarter (and better looking, even though that has nothing to do with anything) than Naomi Klein."

She is not smarter, and if she would give the painter back his palette knife, which she uses for her makeup, he could finish painting the loo.

I love how the printing of money gets to acquire almost Satanic powers to Libertarians, what with their penny fetish and all.

110th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 4127 (sponsor: Ron Paul)
To amend title 31, United States Code, to prohibit the further minting of 1-cent coins until the Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System certify in writing that there is not a surplus of 1-cent coins already available for use in transactions, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
November 8, 2007

Because these are the important issues of the day. Nevermind the massive vote-fraud and the trillion dollar genocide. We MUST make fewer pennies, apparently because people keep going up to Ron Paul and putting a penny in his mouth hoping that he will dispense gum.

stanley Says: I think what is most ironic of all is that those who say this book is “proof” that free markets do not work make the huge blunder of forgetting that her book could only be written in a capitalist society! LOL…

Only a capitalist society guarantees free speech.

Capitalist are the only guarantors of free speech. What wagon did you fall off of?

ConcernedCanuck @ 49:

Could someone explain to me, how the US was ever a democracy? Democracies have numerous social programs, and most often electoral choices (more than two) and basically the evil "liberal" slant to all their federal laws to include the entire society. When did the US ever have that?

Democracy?

Hell, I thought we were a Republic... Considering the "popularity" of Brittany Spears and McFood, there IS something to be said of the dangers of direct election by Popular vote. What is popular at the moment isn't always the best choice. Hey, don't throw bricks! I'm just sayin'...

Interesting comments above. We obviously need freer markets AND better government regulation (not more, more effective). Corporations as entities need to fucking die, as corporations are proxies for PEOPLE. Not self-aware entities!

But one problem with completely unrestrained markets (other than the "golden eras" often cited depended on slavery or at least racism to provide cheap starving workers that weren't included in the stats) is their very nature. Sure things may explode. Then implode. Then explode. But who the hell wants to live like that? It is in everyone's interest (even the protesting "pure" capitalist) to smooth out the curve a little to more tolerable swings over longer periods. The busts are hard enough and fast enough risk killing the whole system. There is no such thing as "entirely free markets"... or, at least, not for very long... Just because your computer sim spits out a "punctuated equilibrium" doesn't mean that it creates livable conditions in reality.

I find the idea that markets are benevolent and never bubbles without that durn government monetary policy pretty suspect as well. The irony being that the government MUST be big enough and have enough teeth to save the markets from themselves, but of course, the libertarians would NEVER admit that. It is that precise point of balance that America keeps dancing around. It's foolish to think we'll ever arrive at a "solution" we just have to keep pushing towards the balance point. And man, are we out of control at the moment. A big, fat, bloated government that somehow fails to do ANY regulation OR provide a social good... gee, nice work Bushie. You managed to prove that you can fail at socialism and capitalism at the same damn time.

If I were all these Paul supporters, I'd divorce the word capitalist from what is going on. It isn't a damn system of government! Or does Iraq look healthy and well-governed to you? Of course, Ron isn't libertarian anyway. He wants to have a say on a woman's body against her own will! That is NOT libertarian. He would overturn Roe v. Wade, and voted against funding international family planning, and voted for a ban on all abortions, whatever the reason (pretty irresponsible for "baby doctor" as he calls himself).

If he's a libertarian the so is the damned pope. Good for him as a "country doctor" in a small town, and an entertaining character in local Texas politics. But the newbie worship in the internet is embarrassing.

Avi and Naomi. Who knew? Thanks Ian.
Case in point in Naomi's backyard:
Have you got your 9/11 commemorative coin clad in silver from the smouldering ruins of the WTC yet.
http://www.wtcproof.com/?cid=285029&gclid=COG0gYi8iZACFRChQAodgnNVpA
It is being marketed by a corporation with Barry Goldwater Jr. as the front man.
The CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corp, Newsworld.) ran adds for this rare collectible every fifteen minutes all summer. Of late they have backed it off to high viewership periods during the day. How many of these could they sell in Canada to justify the ad cost.
I would suggest that the marketing campaign has little to do with selling collectibles and a lot to do with post shock damage control. A microcosm of the shock doctrine at work. 

Pure capitalism DOES NOT WORK. We had pure capitalism in the late 1800s - early 1900s and what we had was a very wealthy class (robber barons, big oil) at the top while the majority of Americans barely got by or lived in squalor. A mix of capitalism and socialism seems to benefit everyone. Under the Bush Corporate Fascists this country has obviously taken a sharp turn back towards the good old days of pure capitalism. Anyone who believes in pure capitalism is either rich, greedy. or a complete moron.

Paul in LA @ 95:

swarmofkillermonkeys @ 92 "Hell, I thought we were a Republic... Considering the "popularity" of Brittany Spears and McFood, there IS something to be said of the dangers of direct election by Popular vote."

HORSESHIT.

The People are SOVEREIGN.

This is a democracy, and after we get the rest of our voting rights protected, that will be clear. Just because rights are withheld by tyrannical gov't does not make this less of a democracy. This Republic vs. democracy nonsense is the purest lard from the fattest pigs. Mmmm!

Maybe we can dig up Ross Perot and fry him in it.

Easy there Tex. But last I checked the popular vote counted for squat here in the U.S.A.

If you had a Democracy you would have universal health care.

swarmofkillermonkeys @ 98 "Easy there Tex. But last I checked the popular vote counted for squat here in the U.S.A."

Apparently you were born after 2006.

Next years' election will be legal in many states. By 2012, touchscreen voting will be GONE.

However, even if the elections are stolen, it is STILL a democracy. Just as the Constitution is not dependent on the impeachment clause, the democracy continues even with a coup. And the coup is losing power by the week, even though dystopic leftists really hope and double hope that somehow Bushco will manage to succeed in making their dreams come true.

They create an oligarchy that is the opposite of democracy.

This might have been a valid concern, except that thankfully our founders were wise enough to not establish a pure democracy.

Marcus Aurelius @ 1:

Never thought I'd say this, but the '50s and '60s were the height of the America experiment - and the beginning of the end..

Hmmm - I don't remember the 50s and 60s as halcyon days. I remember them as days of McCarthyism, whites only water fountains, and lynchings. I grew up in Fayetteville, NC - the town had welcome signs from the KKK at the town border. If that was the height of the American experiment...

read the article in today's NYT about the norwegian town in the arctic circle.
any sparks?

Paul in LA @ 103:

stanley @ 97 "What the hell does that mean, the "people are sovereign"?"

"Of the people, by the people, for the people" ring any bells with you?

Yeeeaaah, okay. So what was the name of that document on which such was written again? You know, the one that is the FOUNDATION and final word of all authority in America? (Hint: it is not a person or group of people.) Besides it obviously sounded like a good way to open. Why is it people never read the whole thing?

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[... bunch of stuff about the branches, and amendment procedures...]

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Everything else is designed to be as inefficient as possible to make sure everybody really does want to make whatever changes are in fashion. Could you imagine if Constitutional amendments were subject to a direct popular vote?! Holy Crap! "Amendment 12,875,335,289: Dudez! Sanjaya totally Rulez. Also my friend Chris is a douche. Shout out to Englewood, yo!"

History weeps at the idea.

Everyone must stand up for INDIVIDUAL rights, not group rights. To think that groups have rights is to believe individuals do not exist.

HA! Yeah, good luck getting that through the [insert corporate lobby here]! They definately think groups have rights and believe that individuals don't exist!

Paul in LA @ 79:

fox_liiase @ 74:

Sounds something similar to what Ron Paul has been saying.

H'yeah, except Naomi Klein isn't a racist clown who wants to torch the UN and all international law.

Standard Ron Paul Ad Hominem - paint the agent of change with the crazy brush.

Phantom @ 84:

ATTENTION RON PAUL SUPPORTERS:

Naomi Klein's new book, "The Shock Doctrine," is guaranteed to help you realize why a "free" market cannot work. Once you read this book, you will want to stay as far away as possible from anything even remotely close to the Libertarian Party's backwards ideology.

Ron Paul supports a corporate-run hell devoid of any democracy. No one should waste their vote on him.

The reason this liberal democrat is backing Dr. Ron Paul is to get us out of this fucking war. He will serve with a Democratic House and Senate. He seperates his personal beliefs from his responsibilities as a representative of the people. Or we can elect more smiley facists or baptist ministers to continue the slaughter of our republic.

President PNACcio @ 115:

I'll go one further than Freidman economics stifling democracy. Freidman economics require a police state to be implemented and sustained.

Here in the land of Freedumb?

#7 Clytemnestra: Thank you SOOOOOOOOOOO much for those links!!!

Naomi Klein is my new hero, her book is awesome, and I can't get tickets to see her in Santa Fe because it's already sold out!

Shyster economics is the 'privatization of profits' and the 'socialization of costs' - aka, Freidman economics.

AJFan @ 114:

Phantom @ 84:

ATTENTION RON PAUL SUPPORTERS:

Naomi Klein's new book, "The Shock Doctrine," is guaranteed to help you realize why a "free" market cannot work. Once you read this book, you will want to stay as far away as possible from anything even remotely close to the Libertarian Party's backwards ideology.

Ron Paul supports a corporate-run hell devoid of any democracy. No one should waste their vote on him.

The reason this liberal democrat is backing Dr. Ron Paul is to get us out of this fucking war. He will serve with a Democratic House and Senate. He seperates his personal beliefs from his responsibilities as a representative of the people. Or we can elect more smiley facists or baptist ministers to continue the slaughter of our republic.

Thank you for confirming my suspicion: Most Ron Paul supporters support this psycho simply because of his anti-war stance. Let's try putting to power someone who sees the government as an institution that PROTECTS the rights of people from corporate oppression, not someone who sees the government as a hinderance to corporate "prosperity."

uh, Klein's book was trashed by Dani Rodrik and others, progressive economists, political scientists, who sort of know what they're talking about, namely because she appears to have never heard of sample selection bias. If that weren't bad enough, Klein has no background in economics. thats fine and all, its just i'd rather hear about evolution from someone with a background in microbiology than in, say, journalism. Same goes for econ and development policy and all that fun stuff. wouldn't you agree? Take her with a grain of salt, please, if not several.

read the links and comments on Rodrik's post. a lot to chew on but good discussion.
http://rodrik.typepad.com/dani_rodriks_weblog/2007/10/bad-books-need-.html

Phantom @ 122:

AJFan @ 114:

Phantom @ 84:

ATTENTION RON PAUL SUPPORTERS:

Naomi Klein's new book, "The Shock Doctrine," is guaranteed to help you realize why a "free" market cannot work. Once you read this book, you will want to stay as far away as possible from anything even remotely close to the Libertarian Party's backwards ideology.

Ron Paul supports a corporate-run hell devoid of any democracy. No one should waste their vote on him.

The reason this liberal democrat is backing Dr. Ron Paul is to get us out of this fucking war. He will serve with a Democratic House and Senate. He seperates his personal beliefs from his responsibilities as a representative of the people. Or we can elect more smiley facists or baptist ministers to continue the slaughter of our republic.

Thank you for confirming my suspicion: Most Ron Paul supporters support this psycho simply because of his anti-war stance. Let's try putting to power someone who sees the government as an institution that PROTECTS the rights of people from corporate oppression, not someone who sees the government as a hinderance to corporate "prosperity."

No, I just want someone to end the fucking war.

You got to be kidding me, we haven't seen a free market in the last 100 years. We have Govt managed trade protecting the monopolies not the consumer. The easiest way to tell, if there are two thing in this country where you the individual have some power to exercise Voting, and your buying power as a consumer. People rarely vote and they have never really held a consumer to task for the corruption. Just think about that next time you buy anything.

Friedman was 100% correct, what you not getting is it does take your participation to work. Its not like socialism where everyone one just sits on the hands waiting for something to happen. People in this country are a bunch of sheep, Govt creates a problem then sells the solution. you people are so lazy I am surprised we made it this far, if you diots can figure out by now that the naming convention is Washington means the opposite then you are pretty stupid. Patriot Act, FREE TRADE, etc....

AJFan @ 112 "Standard Ron Paul Ad Hominem - paint the agent of change with the crazy brush."

His KKK followers are already doing that plenty.

And his penny fetish.

Remember that in a society where wealth is being transferred more and more to one class of people, by how much do you think we out number them? :)

These lies about Friedman doesn't become truth just because you repeat them a thousand times. Friedman was against Pinochets totalitarianism. Friedman talked to Pinochet for one hour once, and he gave the advice that his protectionism and totalitarianism would hurt the economy.

"MILTON FRIEDMAN: And I gave a talk at the Catholic University of Chile under the title ´The Fragility of Freedom.´ The essence of the talk was that freedom was a very fragile thing and that what destroyed it more than anything else was central control; that in order to maintain freedom, you had to have free markets, and that free markets would work best if you had political freedom. So it was essentially an anti-totalitarian talk.

INTERVIEWER: So you envisaged, therefore, that the free markets ultimately would undermine Pinochet?

MILTON FRIEDMAN: Oh, absolutely. The emphasis of that talk was that free markets would undermine political centralization and political control. And incidentally, I should say that I was not in Chile as a guest of the government. I was in Chile as the guest of a private organization. [...]

I must say, it´s such a wonderful example of a double standard, because I had spent time in Yugoslavia, which was a communist country. I later gave a series of lectures in China. When I came back from communist China, I wrote a letter to the Stanford Daily newspaper in which I said, ´It´s curious. I gave exactly the same lectures in China that I gave in Chile. I have had many demonstrations against me for what I said in Chile. Nobody has made any objections to what I said in China. How come?´"

Urbatect @ 134:

These lies about Friedman doesn't (sic) become truth just because you repeat them a thousand times. Friedman was against Pinochets totalitarianism. Friedman talked to Pinochet for one hour once, and he gave the advice that his protectionism and totalitarianism would hurt the economy.

You poor wee mannie. If you think the US is a free market economy, I've got property you might want to consider on the far side of the moon.

You poor wee mannie. If you think the US is a free market economy, I've got property you might want to consider on the far side of the moon.

The US economy could be a lot more free for sure. Too many subsidies to large coorporations for example. The solution to that is a smaller state, not a bigger one.

I'm gonna guess you don't travel much. The Scandinavian countries are basically socialist governments and they have the highest quality of life of all the nations--universal health care; free university educations; low crime.

Sweden got a very high living standard because of free market deregulations between 1900 and 1950. The situation is also unique with considering Sweden avoided ww1 and 2. The welfare state and high tax system only kicked in during the seventies, and thats also when Swedens growth started to go down. Sweden has now been overtaken by many countries when it comes to prosperity, and the once unique work ethics of the population is changing rapidly. My grandmother doesnt spend an unnecessary nickel and worked until she was way too old, yet I have many classmates that lives on welfare to play wow on the summer break rather than taking a summer job. The welfare state corrupts people's work ethics and stunts economic development.

Urbatect @ 138:

Sweden got a very high living standard because of free market deregulations between 1900 and 1950. The situation is also unique with considering Sweden avoided ww1 and 2. The welfare state and high tax system only kicked in during the seventies, and thats also when Swedens growth started to go down. Sweden has now been overtaken by many countries when it comes to prosperity, and the once unique work ethics of the population is changing rapidly. My grandmother doesnt spend an unnecessary nickel and worked until she was way too old, yet I have many classmates that lives on welfare to play wow on the summer break rather than taking a summer job. The welfare state corrupts people's work ethics and stunts economic development.

Actually, I was referring to Norway and Denmark, both countries I have spent a great deal of time in. Denmark, in particular, has been making incredible strides in alternative energy development, something this country should have had the foresight to be on the cutting edge of.

I simply cannot address your anecdotal evidence of the "welfare state" stunting economic growth by using your hard working grandmother. In study after study, notwithstanding your slur on your fellow Swedish citizens, the Scandinavian countries rank highest in education, average income, health care, life expectancy, crime and other factors that contribute to standard of living. The U.S. is far, far below them. Are they perfect ideals? No.

However, my comments were to rebut the ridiculous notions put forth by Mark as to how repressive socialist governments are.

I would also respectfully suggest that you read The Shock Doctrine to understand what I mean by Milton Friedman's policies not working. I studied Economics at university, I do know the basic tenets, all of which make sense in the abstract. The problem lies in the application, which is not done in a vacuum. Further, I have not found that it benefits consumers or workers to lift safety measures from the marketplace. The poisons found in products coming to the US from China is a perfect example of the failure of the free market.

And about China, can you elaborate on why it would be a free market failure? The free market policies in China does lift thousands of humans out of poverty each day, so I would say that it is a very clear proof that free market policies does work. Not everything that a market produces will be of good quality, but a free market has a built in mechanism to weed out the bad products and spread more efficient ways to produce. Decades ago China didnt even produce enough to feed its population, and now they produce enough for the whole world to benefit strongly from it. the quality of the products are going up too, after all “poisonous” products doesnt sell as well as good quality products.

As to the earlier part of your post, I cannot respond. Yes, it is true that the fewer people contributing to tax base and more people pulling from it does in fact hurt the economy. I'm not familiar enough with Sweden to know any more than that. I do caution you to not think that the Quality of Life index, which I've been promoting, is the same as whatever economic index (GDP, unemployment, etc.) that you've been referring. There is more to life than making money. Here in the US we have 10% of the population making 80% of the wealth and that disparity leads to a far more complex economic situation.

Now as to China, I don't know that it is as utopian as you point out. American companies are outsourcing the jobs (i.e., taking them away from Americans) to pay drastically reduced (and in some cases, near-slave) wages. Great for the corporations, not so great for the workers, on either continent. The "free market" of which you speak brings toys and other consumer goods to the US that do not have our safety regulations applied to them. So US consumers get anti-freeze in their toothpaste or lead paint in their toddler toy. Ideally, yes, the consumers would then choose to not purchase these items, but how many people must be sick or die from them first? Further, economically-disadvantaged people (who are now MORE disadvantaged because their jobs are overseas, but their former CEO is making multi-million dollar bonuses) often do not have options to NOT buy from discount stores, which is where you find these Chinese products.

I personally do not think that 'free market' philosophies are beneficial to anyone other than corporations. I would much prefer that we go back to "fair market" practices, where we imposed tariffs on foreign made goods.

However, this conversation strays from the tenets of The Shock Doctrine, which I promise you, makes a whole lot of sense if you are a student of the American economy.

I want to chime in to this debate.

There are number of awesome points raised, and some very terrible ones too.

One good point raised is about how free market capitalism raises the standard of living of everyone in a country. This fact cannot be disputed (by anyone who truly understands economics, not just studied it in a university that could be anti-free market oriented, which almost every university is today).

It cannot be disputed because freedom is the only source of long term prosperity. If oppressive regimes (socialist countries) could create more wealth than free countries, then the human race would be inherently contradictory. How can tyranny be worse than freedom? It makes no sense. Socialism as it should be properly defined IS terrible and poverty creating. Socialism is when the government owns the totality of the means of production. I see in some arguments here that since the Scandanavian countries are allegedly socialist, and allegedly have the highest standards of living, then this must mean that socialism must work.

Nothing could be more wrong. The Scandanavian countries are not socialist economies, they are mixed economies. Private ownership makes up the bulk of what is owned. This is important because no matter what a political party calls itself, even if it calls itself the Socialist Workers Party or whatever, yet at the same time private ownership exists, then that country is simply not socialist, it is more free market (mixed).

The point that Norway and Finland have high standards of living I would agree is only partly true. Free healthcare and free education are not "free". There is no such thing as a free lunch. Yes their lives are very good, but every country must be looked at on a case by case basis. They pay super high taxes, which means they have less choices. I visited there a couple of times in my life, and you must admit, there is very little in the way of VARIETY there. It is very monotonic and drab there. IN other words, it is just not "exciting" there. This drabness is something to be admired? I think not. If it were so good there, then more people would be yearning to get in. That is not happening. You must admit that there is very little to do there other than ski, play hockey, or go to the dance clubs (which kick ass by the way). This is not a knock on the Scandanavians, its just my personal belief. They are great people, but their way of life is rather boring to me.

There is also no doubt that these countries created their wealth by free market principles, as Urbatect and Mark mentioned above. You simply cannot have rising standards of living under pure socialism, because the government has no way of knowing what to produce and where, etc, because there is no price system. Price systems are required for increasing production because they represent the individual valuations of individual people. Every choice every person makes everyday results in prices forming that signal what is needed and where it is needed. In Socialism this process is stunted. That's why in Soviet Russia it was common to have lots of tanker trucks being built, but not enough tire bolts to fasten the tires onto the trucks, making the whole set of trucks useless. Shortages were also rampant because not enough stuff was being produced, and what was produced was done in a random manner. Line ups were rampant too, and people in the line-ups didn't even know what they were lining up for in many cases, but lined up nonetheless, because they could buy SOMETHING. Events like these were common. Not to mention the millions of deaths at the hands of the dictators who had to be oppressive in order to prevent social uprisings, uprisings which are inevitable under such squalor.

To say that socialistic regimes are not oppressive is VERY dangerous, because they are extremely dangerous. Learn more history is all I can say. In socialist countries, I mean truly socialist, not like Sweden, the government MUST be tyrannical. If it were not, then the people would overthrow the government for creating such misery. Socialism would then fail, as it did in Russia.

When people talk of free markets, Nicole, you believe that it only applies to rich corporations and not regular folks. This view is not correct. Please consider,

I think deep down you equate becoming rich with looting and stealing and not by working hard and making stuff people want. This is a common conception among people concerning wealth creation, because it is an intellectual throwback to feudal eras when it was absolutely true that being rich was a consequence of power and coercion and exploitation of the less well off (populace). In such non division of labor societies, yes, increasing richness was not a consequence of honesty and productivity. But we are in the human historical infancy of creating wealth through production, not theft.

Under modern day division of labor societies, such as our own and Norway's, where one must work to produce goods that are for sale for OTHERS, then it is absolutely true that becoming rich is a consequence not of being a slave-owner or exploiter, but because of how well you satisfy consumers. Of course a free market is not perfect, there will be cases when companies lie, make bad goods, engage in fraud, etc. But as a whole, as a general phenomenon, free markets are the only way of ensuring that bad people and bad product disappear from existence in a market context. When it is discovered that a company in a free market has "cheated", then it will be punished and in all likelihood go bankrupt if the cheating was severe enough. This process of punishing bad producers is the fastest and most efficient in free markets. Not so in socialism. Since everything is owned by the state, they have no incentive to produce good products, and they have no incentive to not pollute. If you know your history, you will find out that Soviet Russia was the most pollutive country on the planet, and they were also, incidentally, the most socialist. Free markets do not maximize pollution. It minimizes it, all things considered. China is more socialist than we are, they have less respect for property rights, and hence they pollute more.

I have to admit, most free market believers tend to only focus on how markets are able to produce the best "goods", which is true, but I think they often ignore the other side of the coin, that is, how free markets can identify "bads" much more effectively than any other social system (at least that mankind knows of so far). When something bad happens in a free market, it is very hard for companies to sweep everything under a rug and wish it away. Sooner or later things will get out in the open, and because a company operating in a free market depends on the free choices of other individuals, and is not protected by the state (as it would be under fascism like the US is right now), it must either fail entirely or change their ways (if its consumers still solicit its services and think the violation is not severe). The point is that the overall tendancy is for companies to improve over time, because there are INCENTIVES to do so.

I think it is here where you don't want to accept a fundamental and inescapable part of humanity. Humans must have incentives if they are going to improve their lives and actions. If you take away those incentives, then humans will tend to shirk and not improve. Thus, free markets provide both incentives AND mechanisms for punishment. I think you want to have a society where people act "good" in the absence of incentives. I may be wrong, but that is inhuman.

In socialist regimes (again, I mean true socialist regimes), there are no incentives. There are no incentives because one does not keep what one has earned, and also the compensations (wages) would not be set by how much effort is given. You are given what you are given and you are supposed to shut up. Everything would be standardized. There are no incentives in socialist regimes because incentives is what the oppressors of socialist regimes aimed at destroying in the first place. Socialist dictators and their intellectual advisors want people to work for the state and not themselves. They must convince people of this because the state basically owns the people. When socialist regimes begin to form, it is usually done in the name of things like "teamwork", or "brotherhood", or "sharing", or most popularly "equality". These philosophical concepts are impossible to implement because the nature of mankind is opposite to these. Each person must be free to live their lives. They cannot do this under socialism because socialism is an attempt at obliterating the concept of the individual, for individuals are not what is important in socialistic countries. What is important is the state. Everyone must work for the state, to promote the state, etc.

Getting back to my point of free market talk and who benefits, well, that is easy to see. Free market talk is not only about corporations. In a division of labor society it is about everyone. In division of labor societies, each of us benefits from the talents and productive capabilities of everyone else. That is the true magic of it. The magic of free markets, that is truly amazing in the highest sense, is that everyone's talents end up making other's lives better, and everyone acts in their own interests in doing so!!!!

Take for instance a large company like GM or Microsoft, and the people at the so-called "top" of those companies. The overwhelming fraction of wealth these people personally own consists not of cash, but of invested capital. Bill Gates is a billionaire, but that doesn't mean he has billions of dollars. It means that what he owns is worth that much in the market, but until he decides to sell it, the overwhelming majority of his wealth is made of invested capital like factories, machines, etc.

This invested capital does not benefit Bill Gates personally in any way whatsoever. This invested capital directly benefits the consumers, people who do NOT personally own his wealth! In other words, the people who personally benefit from large amounts of wealth are not the capitalist owners themselves, but the consumers. Wage earners benefit more from the wealth of Bill Gates than Bill Gates does himself. You have to see this, when you do, you will have discovered the secret of free markets.

This is true for every large company. Large companies do not exploit the masses. In non-division of labor societies this may be true, but in division of labor societies, the beneficiaries of wealth are overwhelmingly made up of the wage earners (in absolute terms). The common saying that 90% of the world's wealth is owned by 10% of the population is irrelevent. The source for good lives is not for everyone to personally own wealth in the form of capital. What is important, what should be looked at, is what percentage of the population BENEFITS from this 90% of wealth. That 90% of the wealth goes to service the wants and desires of 90% of the population!! What should always be remembered is that we must never confuse wealth with riches, i.e. goods with money.

Now I can anticipate a possible complaint like "well ok, if everyone benefits, then why are poor people having a tougher and tougher time? Shouldn't we all be super well off then?"

This complaint should not be directed at the market, but rather at our monetary system that debases the value of our wages through credit expansion. You said you studied economics, surely you must know of this. Our dollars buy less and less every year (with the exception of electronics). This can only be caused by inflation due to the Fed, not the market. The market tendancy is for prices to fall, not rise. What happens in electronics is what would happen with every good if money was tied to gold.

I think in summary then, your want for a "fair" system is what a free market is actually. Imagine that! Fairness is maximized in free economies. Fairness is compromised when the government becomes too invloved in business (fascism) or owns everything outright (communism). Both forms of socialism are destructive.