Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Defaming Milton Friedman
Naomi Klein's disastrous yet popular polemic against the great free market economist
The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, by Naomi Klein, New York: Metropolitan Books, 576 pages, $28.
In the future, if you tell a student or a journalist that you favor free markets and limited government, there is a risk that they will ask you why you support dictatorships, torture, and corporate welfare. The reason for the confusion will be Naomi Klein's book The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism.
In a very short time, the book has become a 21st-century bible for anticapitalists. It has also drawn praise from mainstream reviewers: "There are very few books that really help us understand the present," gushed The Guardian. "The Shock Doctrine is one of those books." Writing in The New York Times, the Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz called it "a rich description of the political machinations required to force unsavory economic policies on resisting countries."
Klein's basic argument is that economic liberalization is so unpopular that it can only win through deception or coercion. In particular, it relies on crises. During a natural disaster, a war, or a military coup, people are disoriented, confused, and preoccupied with their own immediate survival, allowing regimes to liberalize trade, to privatize, and to reduce public spending with little opposition. According to Klein, "neoliberal" economists have welcomed Hurricane Katrina, the Southeast Asian tsunami, the Iraq war, and the South American military coups of the 1970s as opportunities to introduce radical free market policies. The chief villain in her story is Milton Friedman, the economist who did more than anyone in the 20th century to popularize free market ideas.
To make her case, Klein exaggerates the market reforms in question, often ignoring central events and rewriting chronologies. She confuses libertarianism with the quite different concepts of corporatism and neoconservatism. And she subjects Milton Friedman to one of the most malevolent distortions of a thinker's ideas in recent history.
Exhibit A against Friedman is a quote from what Klein calls "one of his most influential essays": "Only a crisis-actual or perceived-produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable." This, says Klein, is "the shock doctrine." In a not-very-subtle short film based on the book, the quote appears over images of prisoners being tortured.
table border="0" cellpadding="5" width="480"> tbody> tr class="c1"> td> script src="http://www.reason.tv/embed/video.php?id=545" type= "text/javascript"> /script>/td>
JMR|9.26.08 @ 12:17PM|#
This is just the latest symptom of antilibertarian media bias. I hereby predict plenty of interviews with Ms. Klein, none of which will ask the obvious questions regarding her politically motivated distortions. Sadly, Stewart & Colbert will be among the first to fall into the pit, if my guess is correct.
texas_libertarian|9.26.08 @ 12:30PM|#
Sadly, Stewart & Colbert will be among the first to fall
into the pit, if my guess is correct.
Right. And most people actually believe half the shit on Stewert
and Colbert.
Check out this debate between Klein and Alan Greenspan on
Democracy Now!
|9.26.08 @ 12:52PM|#
Klein's responses to Norberg's criticisms are absolutely woeful.
She tries to cover her ass on her claim that Friedman supported the
war in that disingenuous way only Klein can get away with. Norberg
says that Friedman was against the war from the start, and to
counter this, Klein quotes Friedman as saying something along the
lines of "as long as we're in it, we should try to be successful."
Are her readers really so mesmerized by her that they fail to see
that this isn't even close to a counterexample? And she relies on
her own translations of an article published in German?
Really??
It's surprising that Klein has any credibility with anybody.
Instead of tempering her claims to fit the reality, she does what
George W. Bush does: distort the facts to fit her preconceived
thesis. That makes her a phony intellectual and a terrible person.
I've got my own criticisms of corporate power, but Klein way
outside the bounds of reasonable debate. She's the book version of
a troll.
|9.26.08 @ 12:53PM|#
Thanks for writing this, Johan. I'm constantly amazed, even though experience tells me I shouldn't be, at the lengths to which anti-capitalists will go to distort the truth about anyone who advocates for free markets.
taz|9.26.08 @ 12:57PM|#
Good timing. The Huffington Post just put up an interview with
her about the current "shock" to the economy. Somehow she still
believes that it fits her thesis. Wow.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wajahat-ali/the-economic-shock-an-int_b_128977.html
In my defense, I don't read the HO regularly; I just went to school
with the interviewer (I thank Facebook for the tip).
adrian|9.26.08 @ 1:09PM|#
she sounds like a fucking bitch.
Johan, really liking your book so far (yeah i'm a few years late).
Good work.
|9.26.08 @ 1:10PM|#
I'm constantly amazed, even though experience tells me I
shouldn't be, at the lengths to which anti-capitalists will go to
distort the truth about anyone who advocates for free
markets
What amazes me is the extent, in their minds, to which "free
markets" are this insane Bela Lugosi-level monster that will drain
the blood of the children and grind old people into hamburger to
feed to slightly less old people.
T Maz|9.26.08 @ 1:28PM|#
"Klein's basic argument is that economic liberalization is so
unpopular that it can only win through deception or coercion. In
particular, it relies on crises. During a natural disaster, a war,
or a military coup, people are disoriented, confused, and
preoccupied with their own immediate survival, allowing regimes to
liberal-ize trade, to privatize, and to reduce public spending with
little opposition. "
Of course!! That is why the current 'crisis' is being greeted with
cries to put government in charge of the banking system and spend
$700 bn of our money on junk loans. haha
Klein is 180 degrees out of phase with reality.
Dagny T.|9.26.08 @ 1:33PM|#
Somewhere in the bowels of YouTube, there is a crudely
cobbled-together video of actual Friedman quotes, and Klein
blatantly ignoring each and every one. That her argument is absurd
really ought to be common knowledge.
She's an embarrassment to Canadians everywhere.
classwarrior|9.26.08 @ 1:39PM|#
"Business corporations in general are not defenders of free
enterprise. On the contrary, they are one of the
chief sources of danger....Every businessman is in favor of freedom
for everybody else, but when it comes to himself that's a different
question. We have to have that tariff to protect us against
competition from abroad. We have to have that special provision in
the tax code. We have to have that subsidy."
Exactly. So why is it again that libertarians believe that
corporate donations to politicians should be unregulated because
it's "free speech" or that they be given the all the rights of
legal personhood?
Amakudari|9.26.08 @ 1:39PM|#
I remember reading his Cato paper back in May. Without RTFA (well, I skimmed), I'll assume his case or more or less the same. I'm content enough to know that none of my friends who desire any real influence in economics or finance take her work seriously.
|9.26.08 @ 1:42PM|#
From her wikipedia page: "Klein ranked 11th in an internet poll
of the top global intellectuals of 2005, a list of the world's top
100 public intellectuals compiled by the Prospect magazine in
conjunction with Foreign Policy magazine. She was the highest
ranked woman on the list."
Oh. My. Fucking. God.
Salvius|9.26.08 @ 1:43PM|#
You just aren't following her logic: Klein hates Friedman,
therefore everything she hates is "Friedmanite".
"'All wood burns,' states Sir Bedivere, 'therefore [he concludes],
all that burns is wood.' This is, of course, pure bullshit."
|9.26.08 @ 1:49PM|#
In fact its Disaster Socialism that's happening right now in this country. Every disruption is viewed as a chance for more state control.
|9.26.08 @ 2:11PM|#
I would say "In fact its Disaster Socialism that's happening right now in this country. Every disruption is viewed as a 'reason' for more state control."
|9.26.08 @ 2:17PM|#
During a natural disaster, a war, or a military coup, people
are disoriented, confused, and preoccupied with their own immediate
survival, allowing regimes to liberal-ize trade, to privatize, and
to reduce public spending with little opposition.
That may be the most delusional sentence I have ever read. Since
when have wars, disasters, etc. ever led to smaller
government?
While, on occasion, a war will result in the overthrow of one
regime and the elevation of one that is less tyrannical, that is
usually the express purpose of the damn thing, not some sneaky side
effect put over on the proletariat by a cabal of illuminati.
|9.26.08 @ 2:23PM|#
So why is it again that libertarians believe that corporate
donations to politicians should be unregulated because it's "free
speech"
Not all libertarians believe that. Some of us olde schoole types
think that corporation donations of any kind, charitable or
political, are ultra vires, violations of the corporation's duty to
the shareholders. If the corporation has spare cash to give away,
it should be distributed as a dividend, so the shareholder can do
what they like with it.
Of course, non-profit corporations are a different matter. They are
generally free associations of persons seeking a specific end. I
see no reason not to allow people to pool their resources to pursue
mutually agreeable goals, which can include communicating with
their fellows.
or that they be given the all the rights of legal
personhood?
The usual statement is that a corporation is a "legal" person,
meaning that they can sue and be sued, etc. Unless you can find me
someone who thinks corporations should have the right to vote, I
don't think anyone believes they should be given all the rights of
a natural person, which is what you are implying.
|9.26.08 @ 2:52PM|#
Friedman may not be responsible for the neoconservative
interventions Klein describes, but he's certainly used for
intellectual cover.
Libertarianism keeps getting defined by what it isn't. Fine, it's
not the same thing as corporatism (though they both favor
deregulation). Can anyone tell me exactly what it is, why it's so
great, and provide historical examples to support this thesis?
|9.26.08 @ 3:04PM|#
Naomi Klein's diatribes are typically shrouded in contorted
factoids, lies, half truths, and non sequiturs.
What's new? She can't stand the idea of business organizations
existing, human beings trading natural resources, and private
property; that goes without saying. Doesn't that reveal her mind is
foggy and lacks any real perspective of how the western world
works?
|9.26.08 @ 3:06PM|#
Naomi Klein, basically, is a purveyor of black propaganda.
Her mission in life appears to be to craft carefully designed
disinformation to undermine support for free markets and drum up
support for socialist policies.
She's no so much interested in the truth as in advancing a radical
leftist political agenda through any means necessary. So she's
identified the main pillars of market-oriented philosophy and has
decided to systematically attack them though dishonest
polemics.
It's a strategy that is essentially Gramscian in nature. Hence the
close relationship between her style of debate and that of Noam
Chomsky and Howard Zinn, et. al. Tell half the story, twist the
facts to fit your narrative. Adopt a pose of outraged moral
self-righteousness while associating your opponents with all that
is evil.
In other words, socialism can't win through honest argument, so it
is forced to resort to dishonest demoagogury to take power.
|9.26.08 @ 3:15PM|#
Other Tony: Assuming you aren't deliberately trolling...
Can anyone tell me exactly what [Libertarianism] is, why it's
so great, and provide historical examples to support this
thesis?
Bad question. It's like stumbling into a deep discussion of
"Othello" and asking "who was Shakespeare, and why should I
care?"
There are many, many resources on teh interwebs. As with all
things, start with Wikipedia. The article may not be accurate, but
it will certainly give you a starting point and a list of where
else to look for info.
|9.26.08 @ 3:20PM|#
Tony-
Corporatism doesn't favor deregulation. It favors regulation and
other government intervention targted at benefiting the large,
oligarchal businesses that form one half of the mutually supportive
corporate-government complex.
They use free-market rhetoric because that's a lot easier to sell
than economic fascism, and their enemies on the left eat it up and
repeat it to bolster their fundamental opposition to actual free
markets.
economist|9.26.08 @ 3:45PM|#
So Naomi Klein is a fucking bitch who fantasizes about being
raped by Karl Marx.
Is that supposed to be news?
|9.26.08 @ 3:46PM|#
We should have free-elections too. Why all the rules. And
free-driving too, I hate the man telling me how fast to drive. And
free-child-rearing is also another good idea. Give child free
reign, without rules, and they will be able regulate themselves
without parental interference and grow up great, if not better than
there fascist brothers and sisters.
Why do we just have anarchy in the business world? The invisible
hand can work everywhere!
If only others had the idea of doing nothing and hoping/knowing
everything will work out for the better.
economist|9.26.08 @ 3:49PM|#
What I love is when leftists like Naomi Klein explain how corporatism and fascism are the same as laissez-faire capitalism, and in other arguments will explain why all of the communist regimes of the past century were "not what Karl Marx advocated". That is, once they gave up trying to deny the crimes of said regimes.
economist|9.26.08 @ 3:50PM|#
andrew,
While you're whacking to the thought of killing a straw man, I'll
be getting drunk.
economist|9.26.08 @ 3:55PM|#
Actually, andrew, what the hell are you arguing? Or are you just a troll?
economist|9.26.08 @ 4:02PM|#
"Sadly, Stewart and Colbert will be the first to fall into the
pit."
While Stephen Colbert mocking of the right is sometimes
laugh-out-loud funny, Stewart is a complete hack.
Main reason I watch the Colbert Report, not the Daily Show.
|9.26.08 @ 4:24PM|#
No I'm trolling accidentally...?
I respect what libertarians have to say about personal freedoms,
ending the drug war, etc., that's why I hang out here. But I've yet
to be convinced the second tier of their ideology, economic
libertarianism, is anything but a vague set of first principles
nobody is allowed to question and that have never been enacted in
the real world. A dogma that misses a central point of the
philosophy of liberty--that lacking certain pragmatic rules,
freedom becomes impossible.
I didn't ask the question because I don't know what libertarianism
is; I asked it because I don't think any of you do either.
Wikipedia defines like 10 different versions, some of which even
champion redistribution of wealth!
Which brings us to Klein. Libertarianism--personal freedom,
government downsizing--is pretty much a wispy academic thing EXCEPT
as used by conservatives in power today. Then it's used as an
excuse to gut governments and to essentially pillage countries for
the benefit of corporations and elites. Whatever the actual motives
of American Republicans from the 80s to today, whether they
actually believe government is too intrusive and shouldn't provide
safety nets, etc., or if they're just using that as an excuse to
plunder its treasury for their corporate puppet masters, I find the
philosophy abhorrent.
economist|9.26.08 @ 5:13PM|#
"Lacking a certain set of pragmatic rules, freedom becomes
impossible"
or
"We had to kill the patient to save him"
Of course, whether or not this comparison is valid depends on what
"pragmatic rules" means.
economist|9.26.08 @ 5:18PM|#
Tony,
Quick question: how would this "pillaging of countries" be effected
by protecting property rights and not interfering in voluntary
transactions between consenting individuals? The "corporate
plunder" argument only works if you ignore everything that
libertarians actually say about economic policy, rather than the
words or ideas attributed to them by others. Gee, maybe you could
read the article again, and it will make more sense.
economist|9.26.08 @ 5:27PM|#
"Wikipedia defines 10 different versions(of libertarianism),
some of which even champion the redistribution of wealth"
In general, I would argue that the farthest leftward one can go in
describing redistribution as "libertarian" is with
geolibertarianism, which is chiefly concerned with the Lockean
proviso that warned against unlimited private property in unused
private resources e.g. claiming an entire uncultivated valley as
one's own property without having labored or produced anything with
the resources. This actually seems like a reasonable view, and
because it usually recognizes private property in capital and labor
and individual rights, it is also libertarian.
However, other "left-libertarian" or "libertarian socialist"
philosophies are just anarchistic forms of collectivist ideologies.
They generally lack well-defined ideas of what constitutes
legitimate possession or the initiation of force, and thus tend to
see all inequalities (whether created by force or arising
naturally) as injustices that must be remedied by collective
action. This philosophies are not truly libertarian, and ought not
be described as such.
Sam Grove|9.26.08 @ 7:42PM|#
Then it's used as an excuse to gut governments
Excuse me!?
Libertarianism used as an excuse to gut governments?
Show me anything to that effect.
Paul|9.26.08 @ 7:49PM|#
During a natural disaster, a war, or a military coup, people are disoriented, confused, and preoccupied with their own immediate survival, allowing regimes to liberal-ize trade, to privatize, and to reduce public spending with little opposition.
Wow, this is false on its face. Let's take a little test:
We're currently in a "crisis" (or so we're told).
Choose one of the following:
Congress and the Washington establishment are rushing to:
A: Liberalize trade and reduce public spending and deregulate the
economy.
B: Nationalize major aspects of the economy declared as "not
working".
C: Boost public spending and and create a New New Deal.
D: Re-regulate and create entirely new market "oversight" through
SEC and FED interventions.
E: B, C & D
paul|9.26.08 @ 7:51PM|#
Like George Shultz said, "Everybody loves to argue with Milton,
particularly when he isn't there."
RIP compadre.
Paul|9.26.08 @ 7:53PM|#
Here's another one.
During WWII, FDR Moved to:
A: Liberalize trade, allow people to own gold. let the market
dictate prices.
B: Provide price and wage controls and declare the ownership of
gold illegal.
Joel|9.26.08 @ 8:02PM|#
Somewhere in the bowels of YouTube, there is a crudely
cobbled-together video of actual Friedman quotes, and Klein
blatantly ignoring each and every one. That her argument is absurd
really ought to be common knowledge.
This might be the one you mean:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2kTy7glZ9s
|9.26.08 @ 8:29PM|#
Tony, there's a difference between a "set of pragmatic rules"
designed to facilitate voluntary transactions between informed,
consenting, individuals, and a set of rules designed to implement
social welfare programs and wealth redistribution schemes.
Many libertarians are perfectly fine with contract enforcement and
transparency. (Well, some are more radical than others.) We have a
problem with using regulations as a means of social engineering or
economic manipulation, which is what most of our current
regulations do.
In truth, IMO, the regulation of mortgage backed securities failed
in the area of transparency. People didn't, and weren't able to,
know what they were buying, because these instruments were too
opaque. I.e. even an informed investor could not make an informed
decisions. Another take would be to argue that the securities were
effectively fraudulent and the sellers should be taken to court.
The distinction between libertarians who accept some regulations
and those who don't is the degree to which we're willing to permit
an agency to play the role of the courts in contract
enforcement.
Unfortunately, this crisis will probably be used to ram through not
just improved financial regulations aimed at transparency. but a
whole massive agenda of social engineering projects and wealth
redistribution initiatives.
Andy|9.26.08 @ 8:35PM|#
First off, to anyone dissing the promotion of free markets: it's
a question of degree. While most libertarians philosophically
advocate close to complete freedom (morally speaking, everyone
should understand that position), in reality it isn't going to
happen. So, look to degrees.
America is pretty free, and also pretty rich. China and India are
booming after freeing up their economies. Places like Hong Kong do
very well by being free. Europe is coasting on its free-market
foundations and will be for some time. They are a good example of
how free markets create wealth and prosperity, allowing average
people the comfort to entertain socialist-lite ideas.
But my original point: Naomi Klein sucks. Complaining about
corporations exploiting poor workers in foreign countries; well
Naomi, what kind of policies make those workers poor? India, China,
Africa, Latin America, bastions of free markets?
Arguing the Bush administration had a plan for post-invasion Iraq,
a documentary about a collective factory in Argentina (how cute).
And yes, the argument that crises lead to radical free-market
reforms.
She is pretty cute though.
Mike|9.26.08 @ 11:15PM|#
In the future? College kids say that *now*, and have since the early 20th Century.
|9.27.08 @ 10:38AM|#
Tony: "I didn't ask the question because I don't know what
libertarianism is; I asked it because I don't think any of you do
either. Wikipedia defines like 10 different versions, some of which
even champion redistribution of wealth!"
Because you find a subject complex, and because it eludes
understanding at a cursory glance, your rationalization is that
nobody understands it?
Libertarianism is to one of its subsets as monotheism is to
Protestant Christianity. It is a loosely defined category of
philosophies, in other words, not a school of thought unto itself,
and to properly "understand" a libertarian philosophy, be it
Hayek's or Friedman's, you must open a book or two, not read
Wikipedia entries or sample the comments section of a libertarian
website. The same can be said of any other serious political
ideology.
And, to explore the monotheism analogy further (but not literally),
the philosophy of a Hayek or Smith contrasts with common
libertarian doctrine like academic theology does with vulgar
fundamentalism.
Tony: "Which brings us to Klein. Libertarianism--personal freedom,
government downsizing--is pretty much a wispy academic thing EXCEPT
as used by conservatives in power today. Then it's used as an
excuse to gut governments and to essentially pillage countries for
the benefit of corporations and elites."
What you mean to say is that neoliberal economic arguments have
been used to advocate an interventionist foreign policy. I have no
objections save the inappropriate and sensational choice of
terms.
Tony: "Whatever the actual motives of American Republicans from the
80s to today, whether they actually believe government is too
intrusive and shouldn't provide safety nets, etc., or if they're
just using that as an excuse to plunder its treasury for their
corporate puppet masters, I find the philosophy abhorrent."
This is a false dichotomy, of course, but I find the moralistic
simplicity of it to be more damning.
|9.27.08 @ 1:14PM|#
Johan Norberg does a great job of refuting Naomi Klein's lies
about Milton Friedman.
My only criticism is that he is too polite to call her a liar. But
she IS a g**d****ed liar ... an utterly reprobate liar who calls
evil good and good evil.
|9.27.08 @ 2:42PM|#
Naomi Klein and the anti-market types surely must consider Friedman their most vexing opponent. With Friedman's recent passing, only now do these people sense that they have a chance to win arguments against him.
|9.27.08 @ 4:19PM|#
Actually Milton Friedman is a communist.
See, Milton Friedman developed the idea for a Negative Income Tax,
a flat tax + a government handout so the poor could have some
money.
Obama's ideas stem somewhat from this, and as we all know Obama is
a communist. Therefore Friedman is as well.
|9.27.08 @ 7:22PM|#
isn't the fact that we have and allow corporations legal protections part of the problem in the free market? Say if we didn't and the actual people who ran them were liable for their actions wouldn't we then see more care taken in their running?
|9.27.08 @ 7:56PM|#
Is Klein a pheonemon cast in the Paris Hilton mold - famous for being famous? She's not particularly well educated, nor is she a gifted writer and she isn't a hottie. What the hell is it that gets attention - oh, that's right, incredible mendacity for a noble cause.
Nick|9.27.08 @ 9:04PM|#
Thank you so much, Johan, for your thorough debunking.
This is why the only way libertarians will even get through the
Left's thick heads: start criticizing corporations more. Friedman
did it, Adam Smith did it, etc. but not enough to get the far Left
to believe them. Unless we completely dislocate any connection
between libertarianism/classical liberalism and corporatism, we're
never going to make any progress in that direction.
I would even advocate replacing the personal and corporate income
tax with a corporate value tax, creating disincentive for
corporations to merge and reduce market competition. Such a tax is
justified because the corporate entity is a protection granted by
government, and the larger a corporation gets, the more legal
protection required for their property. This would also encourage
corporations to return excess profits to their stockholders instead
of hording them for themselves. Combined advocating for easier
piercing of the corporate veil for corporate criminals who commit
fraud or violations of rights and property, this would potentially
change the Left's view of laissez-faire economics (as corporations
are automatically not laissez-faire by their very nature, and
reducing their power by taxing government protections and forcing
individuals to be personally responsible for their actions actually
encourages a freer market.)
shoefly|9.28.08 @ 12:43AM|#
I have read numerous memoirs, biographies, histories, and political economic studies of modern China. I have had numerous discussions with Chinese colleagues in my academic career. I have traveled widely in China and discussed the 89 uprisings with Chinese people (and they say different things alone than when they are in groups, naturally). While opinions differ on whether the Chinese leaders needed to put a stop to the protests (their methods as well, the degree of violence, etc.) I have never heard it argued anywhere that the reason that the leaders acted in the way they did was that they, the leaders, actually wanted to speed up the reforms which the protestors (according to Klein) opposed! This is surely a parody.
ant|9.28.08 @ 7:12AM|#
Klein responds to some of this or rather to another article on
Cato, same topic.
http://www.naomiklein.org/articles/2008/09/response-attacks
btw, I was trying to read the original article and came close to
stopping because those pop-ups kept blocking my view of the text.
If you actually want a wider audience to read your posts, you might
consider doing something different with these fucking pop ups.
Really really annoying.
|9.28.08 @ 1:24PM|#
I agree with the "corporation vs {personal responsibilty'"
opinions super. I will also point out that for every hard-core
Friedmanite, there are moar than 9000 corporatists who will quote
what Friedman they like when it's convenient for them, but ditch
him when desired...similarly, on the American Right, I can recall
loads of vigourous defence of the Pinochet régime on the basis of
"at least they're doing Free Market [Heavenly Choir: Aaaaah!]
reforms.
I don't blame Friedman entirely for the Friedmanites, but he
certainly came in handy for them....
JMR|9.28.08 @ 2:31PM|#
Reason, are you listening on the pop-ups? Get rid of them, or make them blockable by normal pop-up blockers so we can't see them 1000 times. If people want to donate to Reason in these hard times, they will, but if anything the popups REPEL donations. I've given money to libertarian causes before, but I hereby urge all donors NOT to give to Reason until they get rid of that fucking screen. Just kill it. Now. Give up. It sucks. If you don't have things that suck, you'll do better financially. Just beg normally, not annoyingly.
|9.29.08 @ 6:43AM|#
The situation in the economy just goes to show where a totally deregulated free market economy takes you. Now which instituations have to come to the rescue? Big surprise, the goverment, in the form of taxpayers who the majority og will never see the salaries and bonuses the bankers enjoyed and have now stashed away. Thankfully free market ideology is looking dead, along with friedman, and good riddance.
|9.29.08 @ 10:28AM|#
Hmmm...wasn't part of the problem with the current crisis was that the Federal government required institutions to make loans that they normally would not make, i.e. regulation can, in part, be blamed for the current mess?
|9.29.08 @ 11:17AM|#
It's surprising that Klein has any credibility with anybody.
Instead of tempering her claims to fit the reality, she does what
George W. Bush does: distort the facts to fit her preconceived
thesis.
Unfortunately, it's not surprising in the least. Her readers share
her preconceptions are looking to her for support and confirmation.
They're not looking critically for distortions, lies by omission,
and contradictions.
But Klein, on the other hand -- I think she knows exactly what
she's doing. The distortions are not an accident. The way she
justifies this to herself, I'm sure, is that this is all in service
of a 'deeper truth', that the selective portions of Friedman's
writings that she cites are the ones that reveal the 'true'
blackness of his heart while the exculpatory passages she
intentionally excluded would only have obscured this 'truth' and
confused her readers.
|9.29.08 @ 10:36PM|#
classwarrior:
So why is it again that libertarians believe that corporate
donations to politicians should be unregulated because it's "free
speech"
This completely misses the point. Of course libertarians believe
that corporations (or anyone else) should be free to give as much
money as they like to politicians (or anyone else).
But in your dishonesty, you neglect to mention the rest:
Libertarians believe that politicians should not have the power to
do anything worth paying a bribe for. So, give the politician
$1million, $5million, $10million, whatever...fine. But he should
not have the power to take that money and bestow some kind of state
favor to that corporation (or anyone for that matter). That's the
whole point of libertarianism, the free market and
laissez-faire capitalism.
As for the shareholders - it is up to them whether or not they
agree to such donations. But in a libertarian world, there would be
no point in making such a bribe in the first place.
|9.30.08 @ 1:32AM|#
I didn't read all of this ranting against Naomi Klein, so maybe
somewhere in there, someone has replied to some of the distortions
in the first part of this thread.
Here is a big one. Lamar says: "Klein's responses to Norberg's
criticisms are absolutely woeful. She tries to cover her ass on her
claim that Friedman supported the war in that disingenuous way only
Klein can get away with."
Really? What is woeful and disingenuous about showing how in 2004
when Friedman was asked if he judged the war criticially said "A
clear no. US President Bush only wanted war because anything else
would have threatened the freedom and the prosperity of the
USA."
Lamar fails to mention the content of the translation which he, on
no grounds, insinuates should not be trusted.
What is woeful and disingenuous are the bulk of the comments in
this thread. Does anyone here actually know of a more objective and
careful critical review of Klein's work?
oxgrind|9.30.08 @ 2:00AM|#
Benson,
Isn't it strange that the only source that Klein can find where
Friedman allegedly supported the war was a German magazine? Doesn't
that strike you as just a bit fishy?
For more on this, Klein had a response to Norberg, then Norberg
responded to Klein's response. I haven't seen if she responded back
to this. But I found Klein's website and then on wikipedia I found
a reference to Norberg's latest response. I think he covers just
exactly what Friedman said in that German magazine interview and
how Klein distorted it. But read it and judge for yourself.
|9.30.08 @ 2:06AM|#
oxgrind, No, i don't find that particularly fishy. Why should I? Is Friedman talking about this everywhere all the time? Does it not count that it was in Germany? What I find fishy is Lamar not mentioning the content of this. I doubt he searched out Norberg's response. Klein gave the exact cite to the site where Friedman's comments can be found. On the other hand, I cannot find what you are referring to. Why can't you provide a link to it?
|9.30.08 @ 2:24AM|#
Okay, I found it (google "Three Days After Klein's Response, Another Attack"). No, that is really not very impressive as a reply, I'm afraid. In any case, it was Lamar's (and similar ranting) that I was complaining about above.
shoefly|9.30.08 @ 8:04AM|#
Dave,
The market was "totally deregulated." Wow, I didn't even know it
was partially deregulated.
Bensen,
You say you didn't find his comments convincing but then you don't
provide any reasons. He does address what Friedman actually said in
the article. Do you read German fluently yourself? I also think it
interesting that Klein doesn't address any of the comments about
China that Norberg made. Perhaps because deep down she knows she's
got China completely backwards, as anyone with even the vaguest
familiarity with Chinese culture and modern history can tell
you.
If you don't find it fishy that Klein was only able to find one
source on Friedman's views ( journal in a foreign language ) than
that just demostrates a personal bias or ignorance of Friedman's
career on your part. Friedman was not known for hiding his views on
any political or political economic subject.
|9.30.08 @ 12:26PM|#
I am no Milton Friedman scholar to say her depiction of him is correct or not. But the reality is Naomi Klein's shock doctrine observation is right on the spot. Look at the oil-price and off-shore drilling. And the "we-have-no-other choice" $700 billion for Henry Paulson. You may try to argue the past, but she is right at the present.
|9.30.08 @ 4:50PM|#
shoefly, let me first make one point clear. I want to see Naomi
Klein taken down as much as anyone else here, but for different
reasons. I am a left winger, and I think she makes left wingers
look bad with her fast and easy and manipulative approach. But I
don't want to do this viscerally or through name calling or through
any argument that contains any weak components that seem just to be
ideological and dismissive.
Many of the comments here are like this, and the one I chose to
make a comment on was an example. That I do not speak German is
irrelevant. Until Klein's translation is shown wrong, we should be
able to use that, and we should not dismiss it as Lamar did, simply
because it is in German. He did not even refer to the content of
it, instead referring to other parts that were far easier to
explain away.
I didn't say it wasn't fishy that Klein was able to find only one
source (again, so what if it is not from the US and in English? I
am not from the US either). I don't know how many sources she could
find. I don't think its fishy that she cited this one, is what I
said.
I know in general a certain kind of "libertarian" line that
generally Friedman tends to support considers most wars to be
"aggression" and thus not legitimate (with the simplistic analysis
of "aggression" typical of that sort of libertarian). I think that
is neither here nor there in this case. Note that Rose Friedman for
example disagrees with him in this case. So it is not obvious that
he would hold one particular view in all cases like this.
Friedman doesn't hide his views, maybe not, but can you find any
sources from the early days of the war that contradict the one
Klein supplies? The only source I find that contradicts it is the
much later one (recited very frequently so it looks like a lot
more). The one where Rose herself supports the war.
I didn't provide reasons for why I was not impressed with Norberg's
reply for two reasons. One it would take a bit of time, would have
to quote him and the translation etc., and two, because as I said
it was not that important, I was referring to Lamar's comments on
this specifically.
But to say a little, he does not quote a translation directly, and
he tries to make it look
shoefly, let me first make one point clear. I want to see Naomi
Klein taken down as much as anyone else here, but for different
reasons. I am a left winger, and I think she makes left wingers
look bad with her fast and easy and manipulative approach. But I
don't want to do this viscerally or through name calling or through
any argument that contains any weak components that seem just to be
ideological and dismissive.
Many of the comments here are like this, and the one I chose to
make a comment on was an example. That I do not speak German is
irrelevant. Until Klein's translation is shown wrong, we should be
able to use that, and we should not dismiss it as Lamar did, simply
because it is in German. He did not even refer to the content of
it, instead referring to other parts that were far easier to
explain away.
I didn't say it wasn't fishy that Klein was able to find only one
source (again, so what if it is not from the US and in English? I
am not from the US either). I don't know how many sources she could
find. I don't think its fishy that she cited this one, is what I
said.
I know in general a certain kind of "libertarian" line that
generally Friedman tends to support considers most wars to be
"aggression" and thus not legitimate (with the simplistic analysis
of "aggression" typical of that sort of libertarian). I think that
is neither here nor there in this case. Note that Rose Friedman for
example disagrees with him in this case. So it is not obvious that
he would hold one particular view in all cases like this.
Friedman doesn't hide his views, maybe not, but can you find any
sources from the early days of the war that contradict the one
Klein supplies? The only source I find that contradicts it is the
much later one (recited very frequently so it looks like a lot
more). The one where Rose herself supports the war.
I didn't provide reasons for why I was not impressed with Norberg's
reply for two reasons. One it would take a bit of time, would have
to quote him and the translation etc., and two, because as I said
it was not that important, I was referring to Lamar's comments on
this specifically.
But to say a little: First he poo-poos the accurate truth, which is
that Friedman's views can have been very influential in regardless
of what Friedman thinks on this issue. Second, he snarls that the
quotation is not found in her book, so it must be recently found,
etc. So? The first accurate truth above is that she did not have to
include this in the book if she is talking about the attitude of
others, not Friedman himself, who does not set US policy. Third, he
says she can do this "only by" certain actions, but he doesn't
argue that this is the only way. He could say "all that she does"
to do this, implying her treatment of this case is inadequate, but
he more strongly implies that no other treatment would be adequate,
and ironically his own account on that point is inadequate, since
he does not provide a single reference to the "many" statements
Friedman allegedly made against the war. I have seen only the one
statement, the one where Rose is in favour, and the one which is
made quite late on.
Norberg then deals with this quotation, without giving it. He
should give it so we can see what he is trying to do with it. Klein
at least did that:
"President Bush only wanted war because anything else would have
threatened the freedom and the prosperity of the USA"
Klein did take it slightly out of context. But I am not impressed
with Norberg's treatment. In context, it could be interpreted as
saying "I don't say anything one way or the other about whether I
support the war, no, not at all. However, I am strongly not
critical of Bush because he believes that it threatens our freedom
and prosperity".
But, it is hard to imagine he would say this, if he himself was
opposed to the war. He would take the opportunity to say he did not
support it. And he would at least explicitly say that it was Bush's
belief here. However, in the quote he gives the condition as a
fact. He says "Bush did this because P", not "Bush did this because
he believed P". Well, P is "ANYTHING ELSE WOULD THREATEN FREEDOM
AND PROSPERITY". He states that as a fact. So, that strongly
implies support of the war. After all, not going to war would be
something that threatened freedom and prosperity. And also, if it
was not a fact, he would at least criticize Bush for believing this
falsehood and then going to war based on it. But he doesn't do
*any* of that.
Enough on that, turning to Klein's treatment of China. Well, maybe
you are right. But that is not what I was talking about, was it. I
have not seen her reply. It is *very* fishy, indeed, that she did
not address this point, instead spending time on the mostly
irrelevant Friedman interpretations. But your own dismissive claim
about what "anyone" can tell you, I also cannot accept.
But let me reiterate, this is indeed very fishy behavior on Klein's
part. This sort of thing is what leads me, a leftist, to want to
see her taken down. But that is only a starting point. Let's call
her out on that, specifically, and continue, and force her up
against the wall. It is not adequately satisfying to let her bob
and weave and she has successfully done on the Friedman
issue.
And why doesn't she even address this point (or does she): her
claim really is not general enough. The general claim is that for
any ideology, many of its advocates will take advantage of crisis,
or perhaps even create crisis, in order to install the system they
prefer. Communists are well known to have supported that. Why
doesn't she try to produce a more general thesis where possible?
It's like saying "black guys like to beat their wives" and citing
some examples. One criticism (valid) is that she cherry picks and
ignores all the decent black guys. Another criticism (this one) is
that why has she focussed on black guys? White guys also do, and
every kind of guy.
(Klein is actually closer to libertarians than I am. Really, you
guys both oppose big states. She just erroneously cannot separate
"big state" from capitalism and thinks her vague musing about how
things could go instead are not equally just as statist, and to my
mind, probably more onerous (a matter of the devil you know versus
the devil you dont).
|9.30.08 @ 5:00PM|#
Super Hero, this is the kind of breathless, vague claim that gives Klein and her disciples (justly) a bad name. The Shock Doctrine is a general thesis. You can't just say "she is right at present". And what exactly is she right about? How is the rescue bill "shock therapy"? What is wrong with the claim "we have no choice"? Maybe we do have another choice, but is that less shocking? The claim "we have a choice", what is that? Shall we put Klein in power and let her decide what shall be produced, how it shall be distributed, who shall do what? What is her solution that is not "shocking"? And some people take advantage of the situation? Yeah, what else is new. Naomi Klein gets money from the Canadian government's "art funding" to fly around promoting her book. A small example. But the point is that whatever set of institutions you have, they will not work ideally as intended, there will be corruption and also just plan failures from time to time, especially when they are very complex, coordinating hundreds of millions of people. Where is her proof, or at least her honest attempt at some kind of proof, that this particular set is intrinsically corrupt or error prone and that we would not have a similar amount of corruption and error in her own (rather underspecified) set of alternative institutions. Alan Greenspan makes this point fairly well in his interaction with her available at Democracy Now.
shoefly|10.1.08 @ 11:10AM|#
Friedman here states that he opposed the war. It's from the
WSJ.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008690
Here he says "We should not have gone in," but then adds that once
in, we should get the job done - a position no different from
mainstream Democrats who also opposed intervention but believed
that once we were already in we had a responsibility to clean up
our own mess.
http://www.mskousen.com/sknews-031201.html
On China, I believe the burden of proof is on those who believe
Klein's idiosyncratic view (that the leaders favored reforming the
country faster than the students) to produce evidence for such a
view, since the overwhelming evidence and standard view is the
other way around (from both groups - Chinese students who favored
moving the country towards democracy and those who opposed the
reforms or rationalized the leaders actions at the time - they
feared the country was moving too fast towards capitalism and could
end up like Russia).
|10.1.08 @ 3:57PM|#
It is difficult to believe that anyone outside of Hollywood and
academia is going to read this book, still less take it
seriously.
I genuinely appreciate Mr. Norberg's going through the hardship of
reading the book, and saving me the same hardship; still, I think
it will disappear once Hugo Chavez gives it his endorsement.
Benson Bear|10.1.08 @ 4:57PM|#
shoefly, the first citation you give, of course, is the one that
was repeated all over, the one Klein even quoted, the one where as
I said Rose explicitly supports the war, the one many years after
the war started. But I could not find the other one, can you tell
me how you found it. I spent a lot of time googling. In any case,
you still can't blame Klein on this very much because her quote is
from a large professional newsmagazine and the other quote is what
some guy reports he heard Friedman say at lunch.
But I wouldn't say his position expressed there is simply about
"cleaning up our own mess" either. From reading the rest of the
thing it's about "not letting the terrorists win" and all that sort
of thing (seemingly buying into the bogus claim about the role of
Iraq in 911 (maybe not, it's vague enough he could be referring to
Hussein's funding of suicide-bob attacks against Israel I
suppose))
shoefly|10.2.08 @ 9:09AM|#
Benson Bear,
How is it relevant that Rose supported the war?
As far as that being the only quote, the other one I found was on a
page by Mark Skousen, respected economist. That "some guy" you
mentioned was Doug Casey, a noted financial investor and
journalist. I found it by simply googling Milton Friedman Iraq War
and then going through the sites. The address is above.
I think there are a few main points that deserve focus: the
preponderance and quality of the evidence needs to be weighed, not
only in relation to Friedman on just this quote (and it's possible
he didn't make a lot of public pronouncements about it) but to
Friedman's career and general, as well as (perhaps even more
relevant), Klein's blurring the distinction between neocons and
libertarians (which Norberg shows she has explicitly done through
quotations, despite her denials). As mentioned here a few times, we
also need to look further to Klein's claims on other subjects - how
she has cherry picked evidence and then twisted it around when it
didn't suit her thesis.
Exhibit A is this claim: "Sorry boys, Milton Friedman supported the
war."
Considering that his position was no different from many mainstream
Dems (we shouldn't have gone in, I opposed going in, but since we
already did go in, let's get the job done) it's rather disengenous
to make such a blanket statement. If you didn't know anything else
Friedman had said about the war (or anyone else including Barack
Obama) you would just assume he had favored invasion in the first
place, which was obviously not the case. This is a deceitful style
of argumentation. Furthermore, her evidence here, came from only
one source, a magazine in the German language. We have to either be
able to competently read German or trust that an unbiased German
translator would accurately represent his remarks. Most reasonable
people would call that piss poor evidence.
Exhibit B: Her general twisting of Friedman's remarks. Notice that
she has completely misrepresented what he meant by the tyranny of
the status quo, stated in plain English to mean business and
government leaders in both Capitalism and Freedom and Free to
Choose. Once again, it's obvious she had an agenda and needed to
twist this statement in order for it to fit that agenda.
It should also be noted that Friedman was the one who got us the
all-volunteer army, ending conscription, the closest thing to
chattel slavery in modern times. Is this taken into account by
Klein?
Exhibit C: China: not going to say it again. I think the burden of
proof should be on her or her followers to produce credible
evidence to overturn the reams of documentation and evidence
presenting the opposite view.
Exhibit D: As mentioned, she had conflated libertarians and
neocons. This is the biggest crock she has told in that
libertarians are not only much more anti-war than neocons, they are
generally even much more anti-war than many Democrats or even more
hard-core leftists, save for total pacifists of the left. Many
libertarians opposed the war in Kosovo, the first Gulf war, and
some opposed the invasion of Afghanistan (Ron Paul was one, I
believe).
Exhibit E: Norberg has already pointed out how she has simply
picked economic indicators that suited her purpose so I won't
repeat all those here, but it is again, a telling example of her
style and dishonesty.
In short if you simply weigh the body of evidence, the quantity and
quality of it, I find it hard to believe you could not indict Klein
for her argumentative sleight of hand. If not, then it's clear that
no amount of evidence could possibly sway you.
shoefly|10.2.08 @ 9:41AM|#
For anyone else interested, I believe this was Norberg's last
word on the Klein debate. She responded to his article, then he
responded to her with this:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9626
Benson Bear|10.2.08 @ 2:02PM|#
That Rose favored it (and that Friedman favored Vietnam, and
originally favored Iraq in some ways it still definitely seems) is
relevant because it shows the idea that people of Friedman's
professed ideology would *not* favour it is not at all
obvious.
The "some guy" is not Doug Casey but a guy with Doug Casey, and it
would still be some guy at lunch reporting on one of his heroes no
doubt in what he hope to be a favourable light, it is not a formal
interview in a very large respected newsmagazine.
I agree Klein confuses ideologies, particularly neocon and
libertarian. Of course however ideologies are ideal types, there
are a lot of overlaps and strange bedfellows, etc. Everybody does
this, with monolithic enemies of "the right" and "the left". But
she is particularly bad. (Like describing the current "bailout" as
"shock doctrine" by "the right" when it is supported widely by all
sorts of ideologies).
Exdhibit A: Not really "mainstream democrat". Not just "clean up
mess" like you said but victory against the terrorist and again
"anything else would be harmful to freedom". And note now that his
main objection appears to be not the horrible harm it is doing to
Iraqis (let along violating some sort of "rights" they have) but
how it is "killing the Republican Party". Regarding the source:
show her translation wrong. One guy at lunch is the other source so
far. And also, this is kind of irrelevant, as she has pointed out
even in this response. Trying to protect herself, while still
trying to win points.
Exhibit B: Volunteer army doesn't imply being against many military
engagements. It does imply letting off rich guys, though, and
forcing (through economic force -- something he ideologically
denies to exist) poor people to fight for everyone else. That is
arguably closer than chattel slavery than fairly requiring everyone
able to take on some of the onerous burdens. Re: twisting. Yes, I
agree. Like most other ideologues on all sides, but she is worse
than most. However, one should overlook this when there are
substantive theses and deal with those in the best light they can
be put. That is intellectual fairness.
Exhibit C: I didn't disagree with you on China did I. Looks fishy.
I suspend judgement pending seeing further research.
Exhibit D: I agree. Even many non-ideologues do this. because they
agree on a lot and this someimes also leads to strange bedfellows
(Even social conservatives support libertarians a lot of the time
because when you dismantle the welfare state, their so-called
"traditional communities" get more power: see Charles Murray.
Libertarian or conservative? Opinions differ in the ranks). Very
many who support free markets also support strong military for
various reasons (some even the honourable one of spreading free
markets -- libertarians wouldnt of course because they feel no
moral obligation to help others unilaterally)
Exhibit E: Like "libertarians" including Norberg do not? His
argument on this very point is also guilty. (See WHO documents on
effects of inequality for example -- but this is getting far afield
for obscure comments on a specific point in an obsure thread. If
you want to set up a new one...)
In short: Klein: like the ideologues of the other side, only,
probably, better at it when preaching to the nonconverted.
Ironically, a much better marketer.
Benson Bear|10.2.08 @ 2:09PM|#
Oh yeah, my point about the Friedman quotes. It was said there were "many" where he was against the Iraq War. I asked you to show them. I looked for a long time and found none (from an early point in the war). I asked how you found the one you did. Can you please say more precisely. What was the Google search you used, so I can locate the quote. My point here is that I tried quite a while, and could not find any. Despite the claim that there were "many". I could not find one and I looked in very good faith. So, however Klein found the FOCUS one, it does not seem "fishy" to me. The original point about disparaging her on this therefore remains.
shoefly|10.4.08 @ 1:06AM|#
Benson Bear,
There are many points here but since I have other things to do I'm
going to just respond
to some of your points as I've got a busy weekend ahead. Perhaps
more later:
On the forum with Mark Skousen. No, you are wrong on that. It *was*
Doug Casey who asked him that question, not "just some guy" or
"friend of Casey's." I've quoted the response for you below:
'My "anarchist" friend and investment speculator Doug Casey
accompanied me, along with coin dealer Van Simmons. Doug asked
Friedman about the war in Iraq, and Milton replied, "We should not
have gone in, but now that we are there, we must make the best of
it, and should not retreat."'
Go back and read it for yourself if you like.
In any case, you appear to not see a distinction between, "We
shouild not have done X. I wouldn't have done X if I had the power
to do X. But since other people did X, we should do X to the best
of our ability" ("should not retreat" if you will)
And "I'm in favor of X."
So, you see no distinction there? Interesting.
Similarly, you seem to blur the distinction between
A: legal force, where resistance would mean imprisonment or deadly
police power if necessary if resistance to arrest follows.
and
B: a situation where the circumstances provide less than ideal
options.
In the first case, rich *and* poor could be sent to a fiery death
against their will, but that is a preferable option, and more akin
to chattel slavery to you because rich and poor would have an equal
shot at being killed in gruesome circumstances against their will,
where they would equally be robbed of their life and liberty.
Even if you isolate out the *poor* from this case, I fail to see
how they are better off having no choice than having other choices
available to them, however less than ideal they may be. Obviously,
they also see it this way in that not everyone who is poor ends up
choosing the military. Most do not. Some work at low paying jobs
until they move up the ladder or find higher paying jobs as their
skills develop. While it is true that some do not lift themselves
out of poverty, some do improve their circumstances over time. You
would take that choice from them, just so that rich and poor have
an equal chance at a gruesome military death?
It strikes me as a form of Orwellian doublespeak to say that no
choice equals freedom and increasing choices (however less than
ideal) where no choice existed before equates to slavery.
On the point about Rose Friedman:
Klein was addressing Milton's stance in this particular case. Of
course, her underlying point is about libertarians in general and
how this worldview allegedly is alligned with militarization. So,
in that sense, it's fine to mention Rose's view. But then, we might
also dig around and find out that David is more
anti-interventionist than either one of them or that their weird
uncle in the basement is a radical zionist. As you acknowledge,
libertarians in general though are more anti-interventionist than
either conservatives or liberals.
I found this interview in Reason online where Friedman says a bit
more about his view on war and its relationship to libertarianism
in general. It's sort of interesting in that, unlike some other
libertarians, Friedman does not seem to think there is a
"libertarian policy" or "philosophy" on war. Yet, it also conveys a
view in favor of scaling down the military, which is consonant with
his position on the draft and on being wary of interventions in
general:
(Reason: Do you consider yourself in the libertarian mainstream on
foreign policy issues?
Friedman: I don't believe that the libertarian philosophy dictates
a foreign policy. In particular I don't think you can derive
isolationism from libertarianism. I'm anti-interventionist, but I'm
not an isolationist. I don't believe we ought to go without
armaments. I'm sure we spend more money on armaments than we need
to; that's a different question.
I don't believe that you can derive from libertarian views the
notion that a nation has to bare itself to the outside without
defense, or that a strong volunteer force would arise and defend
the nation.
Reason: What did you think about the Gulf War?
Friedman: I always had misgivings about the Gulf War, but I never
came to a firm decision. It was more nearly justified than other
recent foreign interventions, and yet I was persuaded that the
major argument used to support it was fallacious.
After all, if Iraq took over the oil, it would have to do something
with it. If they don't want to eat it, they'd have to sell it. I
don't think the price of oil would have been much affected. The
more important consideration was the balance of power with Iran and
Iraq. I have mixed feelings about that war; I wouldn't be willing
to write a brief on either side.) End Quote
Certainly, Friedman does not come across as a pacifist here. But he
also certainly does not come across as the war-monger, the man who
want to create "shock" circumstances that Klein presents. He was
also not in favor of the first gulf war (so certainly it
contradicts Klein's central thesis again). I think it was in the
WSJ interview mentioned above that he says he's against wars of
aggression in general.
On Vietnam. I do remember something vaguely about his support for
that war. So, you might be right on that one, but I'd like to see
the quote or the website, or the location. Do you have that?
I also remember him saying in an interview that he thought Reagan
could have accomplished more if not for his getting involved in
wars in Central America, appearing to be opposed to that. My
initial digging though didn't turn anything up on that so I won't
state that unequivocally he was opposed to Central American
intervention. I'll have to dig some more at another time.
In any case, even if Friedman favored the Vietnam war (and I want
to see more on that), the body of his work and positions suggested
he was less in favor of wars of aggression and was more in favor of
demilitarization than either mainstream conservatives or liberals.
Certainly, his position (and the position of most libertarians) is
very distinct from the neo-con view.
On this most recent invasion of Iraq: bear in mind that the
invasion began 5 years ago, when Milton was winding down his
career. He was in his mid to late 80's by then, and not conducting
as many interviews as he had in the past; by 2007 this had slowed
even more. Secondly, since as he states above, he didn't think
there really was a libertarian philosophy of war, it's clear that
he didn't really think of it as his specialty or major focus (so
advocating war to create his alleged "shock" policies would also
not follow), so as I stated previously, it's possible he simply
might not have made many public pronouncements about it. So, what
does Klein do. She doesn't have any support for this heavy pro-war
view on Friedman's part, so it's not even originally sourced. Then,
the one article she does fish out to demonstrate unequivocal
interventionism, is in German, with a translation that non-native
speakers are supposed to take at face-value. She uses this to
unequivocally state: "Milton Friedman supported the war" removing
the essential nuance to his position that he only supported
continuing to fight on, to not retreat, since troops had already
been committed. But notice that if her intention was to demonstrate
that *initiating* wars was part and parcel of the economic doctrine
of Friedman that his nuance demonstrates he sought nearly the
opposite - in other words, *it would have been better to have not
gone in* vis a vis a libertarian economic and political policy.
Klein tries to give the impression that it was Friedman's and other
libertarians' position from the beginning to *initiate* these wars
in order to jump start their policies into a country. That's
demonstrably false for anyone who is able to parse out an
argument.
Last point, related to the previous point: I did not claim there
were *many* sources for Friedman's view of the war. Go back and
find out where I said that. It appears there are only a few sources
on this war specifically, and see my point above for why this might
be so. Sorry, but I do not see how you can continue to claim that
Klein has presented a credible thesis that Friedman supported the
war, and more critically, that this alleged support is a necessary
element to Friedmanesque economics.
Benson Bear|10.5.08 @ 3:07AM|#
jackie: "Klein looks pretty right on this last few weeks." On
what? The "shock doctrine" is a general thesis. One data point that
fits it is not being right. But anyway, how does the last few weeks
fit it? On an interview with Maher she said it was "absolutely" an
example, but then went on to say it only would be if McCain was
elected and used the situation to privatize social security, cut
taxes, etc. This current situation is at best a "shock". The shock
doctrine requires that it now be used to install "unpopular" market
reforms. Maybe she meant getting people to cave on the bailout is
the payoff of the shock doctrine, but that is a very big stretch,
because it is not just her amorphous "the right" who supported
that, but all sorts of people, and it is in fact logically tied to
the crisis, and not an opportunistic non-sequitur.
shoefly, it's not worth the trouble to reply to all of the
confusions and bad pro-libertarian arguments in your reply (almost
all of them irrelevant to my original point) so let me just mainly
say where I agree. While I think Klein is right, based on what I
have seen, that Friedman supported the Iraq war originally (and
even later, his main argument against it mainly being that it was
costly for no real benefit), I don't think she is right that in
general Friedman supported "shock doctrine", if she in fact claimed
this (and if she didn't actually claim this, there is (apparently
-- I haven't read her book, but now I will!) unacceptable innuendo
that he did and that is one more aspect of her book that is slimy
and misleading, similar to the work of many of her
opponents).
As for Friedman and the Vietnam War, that is easy to find, I think
the first thing I found was the Independent Institute site where
the article seemed
to praise Friedman so I took it as accurate. Perhaps not though.
Anyway, just google: "milton friedman" "vietnam war". Easy to find,
on the first page. But it was hard to find quotes where he came out
against the Iraq war early, so I asked you how you found that one
that you did (you didn't say). It remains "non fishy" to me that
Klein quoted the one she did. (Although I also suspect if she
couldn't find that one she would have just shut up and not admit
anything to the contrary). Sorry if no one here said there were
"many" quotes to find, people say that elsewhere, but implied by
the accusation of "fishiness' is that Klein passed over contrary
quotes that were easy to find.
Re: the other quote, "the some guy" was this Mark guy with the web
page. As I said he says he heard some other guy, this Doug guy, ask
Friedman a question at lunch, and reports what he heard. Not the
same as a formal interview not with just a bunch of pals and
admirers of Friedman, but presumably a professional interviewer for
a major newsmagazine.
Many other points to clear up, not worth the trouble. Just one: I
did not "acknowledge" anything about "libertarians" simpliciter
contra conservatives and liberals regarding intervention. Note that
I referred to "a kind of libertarianism". And since there is no
principled conception of "aggression" that is not already moralized
by a theory, the whole foundation given for various forms of
libertarianism ("NCP" for example) will allow no clear agreement on
this. (thus the disagreement between Rose and Milt: "its not
aggression"/"of COURSE its aggression"). Etc.
Leave a Comment
Related Articles (Economics)
- The Secret Message of Stimulus Spending, Veronique de Rugy, November 3, 2009
- A Hard Pill to Swallow, Jacob Sullum, October 29, 2009
- Self-Governance Works, John Stossel, October 29, 2009
- 'The Last Gasp of the Dinosaurs', Matt Welch, October 28, 2009
- Financial Market Reform, Jeffrey A. Miron, October 27, 2009
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245