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
Naomi Klein's Disaster of an Anti-Milton Friedman Case
Was Milton Friedman some kind of grave-dancing disaster capitalist, as the inexplicably popular Naomi Klein has been alleging? The L.A. Times' Paul Thornton takes a look at the longer context of Klein's favorite gotcha Friedman quote, and concludes: nu-uh.
Michael Moynihan puzzled at Klein's Friedman Derangement Syndrome last September, and took on her Friedman-was-a-Pinochite accusation two months later. I called Klein a burn-the-rich economic illiterate in a recent rant, and Julian Sanchez probed the vagaries of anti-consumerist capitalism back in 2003.
Speaking of my ex-colleagues' underappreciated Opinion L.A. blog, don't miss this tale of a Rambo charticle gone horribly wrong, plus Tim Cavanaugh's apt warning to his own colleagues: "People on the wrong end of the plummeting-circulation continuum should show some humility, and maybe even gratitude, toward the customers who are still showing up."
Episiarch|2.7.08 @ 10:43AM|#
If I get as stupid as Naomi can I make as much money? I'm willing to do the drugs necessary to achieve this, paid for by my stupidity millions.
|2.7.08 @ 10:44AM|#
John Mueller wrote a tablicle not a charticle - charticles
require charts or graphs; tabular data does not rise to level
required.
"John Mueller holds the Woody Hayes Chair of National Security
Studies at Ohio State University." Three peer reviewed papers and a
cloud of dust?
Naomi Klein: The worst thing to come from Canada since Bryan
Adams.
Mark Steyn belongs in there somewhere.
|2.7.08 @ 10:45AM|#
Naomi Wolf, Naomi Klein. Is there something about the name Naomi that makes you into an upper class leftist twit? It amazes me the low standards it takes to be a hard left pundit. There are leftwing writers like Michael Kinsley who, while I disagree with, I have to admit are really smart people. But Klein is just dumb. Only someone of truly limited imagination and intelligence could make the argument this guy links. I know the LA Times editors are leftists and don't see the world the way I do. I got that. But, I don't understand how anyone with an IQ above 80 could have read her article on the guy who was tazered to death in Canada and not thought "this is dumbest thing I have ever read in my life". How does she continue to get published?
Dave W.|2.7.08 @ 10:48AM|#
Still nibbling around the edges of the book, I
see.
Regular HitnRunners will be happy to know that I find
myself coming here a lot less than I used to. I just find this
place less interesting lately than it was a couple years ago. I
just don't engage with, or even disagree with, the posts like I
used to.
Like you said before, joe, there was a time when this would have
been THE cyberplace to bash it out over this controversial book.
Now? Not so much.
Episiarch|2.7.08 @ 10:49AM|#
I appreciate the offer, but what am I going to do with my stupidity millions if not drugs? I can't buy consumer goods, because, being as stupid as Naomi, I will see them as evil and forced on me by mind-controlling advertisers.
robc|2.7.08 @ 10:49AM|#
de stijl,
Three peer reviewed papers and a cloud of dust?
I was thinking he slugs Clemson economists.
|2.7.08 @ 10:53AM|#
Apparently, Klein so stupid that no one is willing to make a
serious effort to debunk a book that has become a significant
political tome by firing a shot directly at the political
philosophy espoused in Reason.
Julian Sanchez would have been all over this with one of this
uber-long blog posts. But then again, Julian Sanchez would have
acknowledged that Klein is not, in fact, stupid, and acknowledged
her legitimate points.
Can't have that now.
|2.7.08 @ 10:55AM|#
My favorite part of the Opinion L.A. comment board?
If you are under 13 years of age you may read this message
board, but you may not participate.
Also, Klein should put her money where her big mouth is and not
charge anything for her books.
Facile? Childish? You bet.
|2.7.08 @ 11:00AM|#
Ah. Dave W. withdraws his imprimatur from Hit and Run. It's a
real shame, I tells ya...
(And when are we going to hear from the guy who holds the John
Cooper Chair of Remedial Mathematics?
Episiarch|2.7.08 @ 11:02AM|#
Julian Sanchez would have been all over this with one of
this uber-long blog posts.
Drink?
Roger Maltz|2.7.08 @ 11:04AM|#
eXile.ru articles relevant to this topic & Reason:
http://www.exile.ru/blog/detail.php?BLOG_ID=14132&phrase_id=14692
http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=15607&IBLOCK_ID=35&phrase_id=14692
|2.7.08 @ 11:06AM|#
Epi,
No, in all that, this is the drink trigger.
a book that has become a significant political tome
Of course, that assumes you can keep from snorting the drink out of
your nose.
|2.7.08 @ 11:07AM|#
Yeah, Reason was better before Gillespie and Postrel took over years ago. I remember how exhilerating it was to read 10 page articles detailing regulation policy fine print.
|2.7.08 @ 11:07AM|#
"Apparently, Klein so stupid that no one is willing to make a
serious effort to debunk a book that has become a significant
political tome by firing a shot directly at the political
philosophy espoused in Reason."
To do that I would acutally have to read the book. I only have so
much time on this earth and there is a finite number of books I can
read. To read Klein means I won't read something else. Something of
more intellectual value, like the compilation of Penthouse Letters
I have meaning to get around to reading. Come on Joe. There are
smart people who agree with you. Defend them. Don't bother with
Klein. You are better than that.
|2.7.08 @ 11:10AM|#
"I'm not sure where Naomi Judd fits in."
Wherever it is. I am sure it is a tight sqeeze.
|2.7.08 @ 11:11AM|#
I'm missing something here. Why should anyone care if some
ignorant commie twat doesn't like Milton Friedman?
-jcr
|2.7.08 @ 11:11AM|#
If Lindsey had his way, Wal-Mart, rather than lose sales,
could just loan out money to keep its customers shopping,
effectively turning the big-box chain into an old-style company
store to which Americans can owe their souls. -Klein
Real (union-label progressive populist demagogue-lovin') Americans
would rather sell their souls to Big Nanny than to those evil
bastards at WalMart. Everybody knows that.
|2.7.08 @ 11:15AM|#
Naomi
Russell
from wikipedia
Naomi Russell aka Naomi (born on September 25, 1983 in Los Angeles,
is a pornographic actress. She has performed varied acts but
her trademark is rough anal sex.
I love wikipedia.
|2.7.08 @ 11:18AM|#
"If Lindsey had his way, Wal-Mart, rather than lose sales, could
just loan out money to keep its customers shopping, effectively
turning the big-box chain into an old-style company store to which
Americans can owe their souls."
Of course Klein will be the first one to raise hell if banks don't
lend to poor people. I guess also I missed the part where Wall Mart
loaned only company script to be used at Wall Mart.
You is so obvious Klein has no clue what it is actually like to
live paycheck to paycheck in this country. People, who actually do
that, don't care about that cute locally owned organic co-op down
the street. They care about feeding their kids and paying the rent
and shop at Wall Mart because it is cheap and they can't afford to
shop anywhere else. If Wall Mart ceased to exist, they would be a
hell of a lot worse off than they are. Klein is a classic
hypocritical leftist. She loves the People. What she really can't
stand are the people individually with bourgeois tastes and bad
habit of not doing what she tells them to and living as they are
supposed to.
|2.7.08 @ 11:20AM|#
Don't worry, John, I don't expect anything more elevated from
the commentariat than "stupid commie twat" about ANY book that
takes excepton to your political notions.
But once upon a time, we would have seen Reasonoid, who actually
are supposed to be engaginig with the opposition's ideas on the
level of ideas, put forward something more relevant than "Naomi
Klein hates capitalism, and her interpretation of this quote is
ambiguous."
Brian Carnell|2.7.08 @ 11:22AM|#
Okay, what I don't get is why Thornton and other seem to think
that the "out-of-context" quote is so awful. Hmmm...we have a
disastrous government policy that is going to remain in place until
it reaches a crisis, and Friedman sees his job as keeping alive
alternative ideas that are available when those crises occur.
As Klein herself celebrates, some of the progressive ideas she
loves so much were instituted as the result of a crisis (the Great
Depression).
Klein's problem is she doesn't really seem to have any sort of
argument beyond "free trade bad" and "high taxes good."
dhex|2.7.08 @ 11:23AM|#
joe, i'll assume you've read no logo, right?
she's maybe not steyn dumb - if such a thing be possible - but
she's not exactly bright either.
if you want to buy the book and mail it to me, i'll read it and
write a long-ish review. but i'm not going to give her any more of
my money.
|2.7.08 @ 11:27AM|#
I keep hearing this term "disaster capitalist" tossed around as
an epithet.
Without making me actually read an FA (unless its a short one, with
pictures), WTF is it supposed to mean?
Steve Horwitz|2.7.08 @ 11:29AM|#
Frankly, Joe, anyone who makes the accusations about Friedman
that Klein does has not demonstrated the good faith necessary to be
taken seriously in a discussion of the issues she raises. The
thesis of her book rests on an ad hominem, or at the very least an
*extraordinarily* uncharitable reading of the quote in question.
Put in the context of Friedman's whole life and work, there is
simply no way to read that quote the way she does and to draw the
conclusions from it that she does in the book.
I'm happy to take on anyone who raises objections to libertarian
ideas, as long as they can do so in ways that are clearly good
faith efforts to argue the ideas, not sensationalistic bashings of
the people they disagree with.
FWIW, I posed a couple of questions to Klein here.
Dave W.|2.7.08 @ 11:29AM|#
Dave W. withdraws his imprimatur from Hit and
Run.
Oh, I am sure I will still check in from time to time. Mr. Balko is
still doing topnotch work. joe still posts here, etc.
|2.7.08 @ 11:31AM|#
Nowhere in my Hit and Run commentariat contract does it say
anything about "engaging with the opposition's ideas on the level
of ideas."
Sometimes it happens, but for me, that's just gravy.
|2.7.08 @ 11:32AM|#
Joe,
Follow the links and read her article about the guy in Canada. It
is the dumbest thing I have ever read. There are lots of reasonable
critiques of capitalism. I don't agree with them, but they exist.
Read Ha Joon Chang's Bad Samaritans. Klein's just isn't one of
them. I really think she is stupid and gets attention by making
outrageous claims. Sort of like Ann Coulter without the sense of
humor and long legs. Coulter is just putting on half the time.
Klein really believes the goofball things she writes.
As far as ideas go, Wall Mart is the best thing that has happened
to rural America in the last 40 years. If you don't believe me, go
ask the people who live there and are old enough to remember the
good old days when you had to drive two or three hours to get to so
much as a JC Penny. Klein has no understanding of how people
actually live.
Neu Mejican|2.7.08 @ 11:33AM|#
A good place to start a serious discussion of the book?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/books/review/Stiglitz-t.html?_r=3&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&ref=books&adxnnlx=1191080508-xgqHp+i170M7vW5X5Q4Yeg&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Klein is not an academic and cannot be judged as one. There are
many places in her book where she oversimplifies. But Friedman and
the other shock therapists were also guilty of oversimplification,
basing their belief in the perfection of market economies on models
that assumed perfect information, perfect competition, perfect risk
markets. Indeed, the case against these policies is even stronger
than the one Klein makes. They were never based on solid empirical
and theoretical foundations, and even as many of these policies
were being pushed, academic economists were explaining the
limitations of markets - for instance, whenever information is
imperfect, which is to say always.
Neu Mejican|2.7.08 @ 11:36AM|#
I guess the author of the above quote will not meet the high
standards of "economic literacy" demanding around here, but at
least he passed ekon 101.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_E._Stiglitz
|2.7.08 @ 11:37AM|#
dhex,
Why would you assume that I'd read No Logo? I certainly haven't
written anything to suggest that I did.
Steve Horowitz,
The thesis of her book rests on an ad hominem, or at the very
least an *extraordinarily* uncharitable reading of the quote in
question. No, Steve, it doesn't. That is one quote she uses to
back up her case, which is mainly based on the observed evidence of
how global capitalist institutions have operated. I can understand
how you could draw this conclusion based on Reason's treatment of
the book, though. That's sort of my point.
|2.7.08 @ 11:38AM|#
basing their belief in the perfection of market economies on
models that assumed perfect information, perfect competition,
perfect risk markets.
Isn't that pretty much exactly backwards?
|2.7.08 @ 11:39AM|#
It is a horrible book. She leaves out so much in regards to Freidman that it is almost a joke. First Friedman was invite to Chile by a PRIVATE university to speak not by the Chilean government. Second, he turned down several lecture offers by Chilean schools to be a visting professor. Third, Klien implies that Chile was this great worker's paradise under Allende which we all know was not true. Fourth, she tries to imply that Friedman's policies can only work in a dictatorship or during war yet never mentions that Friedman's policies have been implemented in Iceland,New Zealand and Estonia with popular consent. The former prime minister of Estonia has said several times that the only book that inspired his free market reforms was "Free to Choose"....
Steve Horwitz|2.7.08 @ 11:40AM|#
And I address some of those other arguments about her supposed "observations" in the link in the previous post.
Neu Mejican|2.7.08 @ 11:40AM|#
http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2008/01/naomi-vs-milton.html
Uncle Milt take Naomi mano y mano
|2.7.08 @ 11:43AM|#
"Fourth, she tries to imply that Friedman's policies can only
work in a dictatorship or during war"
Of course if Klein knew anything about history, which she doesn't,
she would know that most of her most cherished progressive policies
came about under dictatorships or during war or both. If you look
at what Klein actually advocates, it is pretty damned close to the
German war socialism of World War I, just without the war. But in
terms of government control over industry and commerce it is pretty
close. Further, when you consider the fact that economic affluence
translates into political influence, it is hard to see how Wolf's
policies could ever be implemented absent a dictatorship or a
national emergency like a war. It is funny that she claims that
about Friedman. Talk about projection.
Mike Laursen|2.7.08 @ 11:43AM|#
Apparently, Klein so stupid that no one is willing to make a
serious effort to debunk a book that has become a significant
political tome by firing a shot directly at the political
philosophy espoused in Reason.
joe, I'm not familiar with her work. Can you summarize Klein's most
salient criticisms of the "political philosophy espoused in
Reason"?
|2.7.08 @ 11:44AM|#
By their fruits ye shall know them. How many times must I pay attention to someone who performs sloppy analyses or reaches unsupported conclusions before I can dismiss him/her? Criticizing Friedman is fine--certainly, he made his share of mistakes--but my problems with Klein are greater than just disagreement. She certainly isn't doing anything to effectively challenge my views. She's just writing for an echo chamber. Frankly, joe, there are better critics of capitalism (and consumerism, whatever that is) more worthy of your support.
|2.7.08 @ 11:44AM|#
Steve,
Good for you!
One would think that the flagship publication of libertarianism in
the America would consider it worthwhile the engage in a similar
undertaking, given the significant audience Klein's book is
reaching and the influence it is having over our public
discourse.
Episiarch|2.7.08 @ 11:44AM|#
OH NOES, we're making fun of Naomi! joe, please set us straight and slay our humor like the knight in sanctimonious stodginess you are.
|2.7.08 @ 11:45AM|#
Mike L,
I'm not familiar with her work, either.
Isn't it interesting that, for all of the attention Reason has
given to this book, and the way they write about having debunked
it, you don't know what the book's thesis is?
|2.7.08 @ 11:47AM|#
Pro Libertate,
Pointing out that Reason's coverage of this book has been shallow
is not defending it.
It's amazing how many people seem to be under the impression that
I've ventured an opinion about Disaster Capitalism.
|2.7.08 @ 11:47AM|#
One would think that the flagship publication of
libertarianism in the America
For pity's sake; can't you at least wait 'til noon? It's 9:45 AM
here.
|2.7.08 @ 11:48AM|#
Joe,
Andrew Murphy above made some very good substantive points
illustrating how the book is both poorly written and dishonest. You
want a serious discussion so badly, there is your chance. What is
your response to his points?
dhex|2.7.08 @ 11:50AM|#
Why would you assume that I'd read No Logo? I certainly haven't
written anything to suggest that I did.
cause it was pretty popular?
i mean, i fucking read it, broseidon.
|2.7.08 @ 11:51AM|#
John,
OK, I'll repeat it again: I don't have a response to his points,
not having read the book.
Why is this such a confusing point?
|2.7.08 @ 11:51AM|#
joe,
Come on. If Reason were dismissing a work you agreed
needed dismissing, I hardly think you'd call them out on it.
PantsFan|2.7.08 @ 11:54AM|#
Joe's asking us how we know its a crappy book without having
read it.
Joe> Does that mean you can't say that dropping an anvil on your
head won't hurt until you've actually tried it?
thoreau|2.7.08 @ 11:55AM|#
BTW, I love that the latest "Reason is going to hell in a
handbasket" complaints look back fondly on the Julian Sanchez
era.
I'm old enough to remember when Sanchez was a sign that the
magazine was going to hell in a handbasket. Ah, 2004. Good times,
man. Good times.
|2.7.08 @ 11:57AM|#
"Don't worry, John, I don't expect anything more elevated from
the commentariat than "stupid commie twat" .
Oh, I assumed we were discussing this Naomi Wolf:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Wolf
Is there some other Naomi Wolf who isn't a stupid commie twat who's
written a critique of Friedman?
As I recall, you're more than slightly pink around the edges
yourself, aren't you?
-jcr
ed|2.7.08 @ 11:57AM|#
the significant audience Klein's book is reaching and the
influence it is having over our public discourse
The only time I ever see her mentioned or discussed is here, but I
don't get out much. Take a poll of "average" Americans and I'll bet
maybe one in a hundred has heard of her, if that.
|2.7.08 @ 11:58AM|#
"Of course if Klein knew anything about history, "
You can't be a commie and know anything about history, unless
you're utterly depraved.
-jcr
Mike Laursen|2.7.08 @ 12:00PM|#
I'm not familiar with her work, either.
Then what basis did you have for declaring "book that has become a
significant political tome by firing a shot directly at the
political philosophy espoused in Reason." All you're going on is
that it's sold a lot of copies, and is part of some vague "public
discourse"? But you, yourself, don't know much about what her books
say?
Isn't it interesting that, for all of the attention Reason has
given to this book, and the way they write about having debunked
it, you don't know what the book's thesis is?
Hell, I read a lot of stuff in reason. I can't remember it
all. That's got nothing to do with whether reason has done
a good job of covering these books that have had such a profound
impact on the "public discourse" that you haven't bothered reading
them.
|2.7.08 @ 12:01PM|#
"Apparently, Klein so stupid"
Yep, it's about like trying to debate with creationists. They both
start from a fundamentally irrational, emotional position, making
them impervious to logic.
-jcr
stephen the goldberger|2.7.08 @ 12:04PM|#
Joe is absolutly right. Reason needs an economics commentator who can show the fallacy of Klein's important (sadly) book, instead of just saying she is stupid over and over again. Just showing one of her recent moronic opinion pieces as evidence does not do the trick.
tarran|2.7.08 @ 12:05PM|#
I watched her do an interview on some PBS show recently (I think
it was Charlie Rose but am can't remember with any
certainty).
It really bothered me. Not that she was making points that were
difficult to refute. What made the interveiw almost impossible to
bear was that her "logic", the way she organized her thoughts,
reminded me so much of George Bush II, except she had better
diction and lacked that fake Texan accent & mannerisms.
In the end, her thesis was that evil free market supporters use
crises to trick/force governments to adopt free market ideas, and
the poor are hurt. And no matter how little the actual evidence of
history supports this thesis, she was determined to hammer the
square pegs into the round holes.
But, she, or her publisher, is a marketing genius, so she'll make a
pretty penny from peddling her snake-oil policies to a gullible
public.
|2.7.08 @ 12:05PM|#
Mike/ed,
She has appeared on various tv outlets to discuss the book, include
the Daily Show and CSPAN, and it is one of the better-selling
political books on the market.
Yes, Mike, this is observation about the SIGNICANCE of her work,
and not the QUALITY of her work. We can call this cleared up now,
right?
|2.7.08 @ 12:07PM|#
PBS? Oh, that can't be, tarran.
Since I haven't read the book, that means it isn't making any
splash in our political culture at all.
Ask Mike L. He'll explain it to you.
|2.7.08 @ 12:09PM|#
ed,
The only time I ever see her mentioned or discussed is here,
but I don't get out much. Take a poll of "average" Americans and
I'll bet maybe one in a hundred has heard of her, if
that.
The reason it's "influencing discourse" is because the converted
love being preached to.
Keep wiggling joe, you'll get out from under it eventually.
dhex|2.7.08 @ 12:10PM|#
klein, not wolf.
seriously, if you're going to play the "You can't be a commie and
know anything about history, unless you're utterly depraved." card,
you might want to be a wee bit informed about the subject at hand,
like with uh names and stuff.
tarran|2.7.08 @ 12:13PM|#
Oh, and she kept conflating crony capitalism, mercantilism,
corporatism and free market capitalism.
According to her, California's energy "deregulation" what with its
managed markets and strictures forbidding long term contracts was
"free market capitalism" of the sort Milton Friedman
supported.
I guess if I call every shape I see a square, I could "prove" all
kinds of things about squares too.
Taktix®|2.7.08 @ 12:13PM|#
Joe is absolutly right. Reason needs an economics
commentator who can show the fallacy of Klein's important (sadly)
book, instead of just saying she is stupid over and over again.
Just showing one of her recent moronic opinion pieces as evidence
does not do the trick.
What is the point of debunking these long-argued screeds against
capitalism just because it has a new champion.
Collectivist opinions like Klein's have been repeated, without much
alteration, for over a century now. To have to go back and debunk
them for the umpteenth time would only make the Naomi "broken
record" Klein's opinions more valid.
If she were to pose a serious argument, I'm certain many would pose
a serious response. But why dignify such echo-chamber tripe with a
thoughtful response, when the premise itself was not
thoughtful?
Save your time and refute those that matter; ridiculing idiotic
twits is all they deserve...
|2.7.08 @ 12:14PM|#
I haven't budged, SugarFree.
In fact, I'll repost my original comment, just for you:
Apparently, Klein so stupid that no one is willing to make a
serious effort to debunk a book that has become a significant
political tome by firing a shot directly at the political
philosophy espoused in Reason.
Julian Sanchez would have been all over this with one of this
uber-long blog posts. But then again, Julian Sanchez would have
acknowledged that Klein is not, in fact, stupid, and acknowledged
her legitimate points.
Can't have that now.
Yep, I sure have wiggled away from that point.
|2.7.08 @ 12:15PM|#
Appropriate response to red-meat-for-true-believers
pop-economics or pop-political books like Klein's or Goldberg's
Liberal Fascism?
Read them if you want. I won't.
They are intended for a core audience who already believes or wants
to believe the thesis, and books of this type give the readers
exactly what they're looking for.
|2.7.08 @ 12:15PM|#
Now if she gets a show on the new Oprah Winfrey Network, well,
then maybe I'll take her seriously.
Yeah, that's right, OWN. What used to be Discovery Health is going
to be all Oprah, all of the time.
|2.7.08 @ 12:16PM|#
Since we're drinking early, Taktix just did a good job laying
out why libertarianism is approximately 1/1000th as important in
our society as Naomi Klein:
"Why should we have to argue against such ideas? Everyone with a
brain in their head already knows we're right."
|2.7.08 @ 12:18PM|#
In the end, her thesis was that evil free market supporters
use crises to trick/force governments to adopt free market ideas,
and the poor are hurt.
I'll take that as a definition of "disaster capitalism."
Thanks.
Of course, any government that has to adopt free market
ideas presumably wasn't following them in the first place.
Show of hands - who here is surprised that governments that are
blocking free markets in their countries experience economic/social
crises?
robc|2.7.08 @ 12:19PM|#
One would think that the flagship publication of
libertarianism
I always considered Liberty the flagship publication of
libertarianism. Its Reason? Huh.
BTW, I havent had a subscription to either in years, but I had my
Liberty one for much longer than Reason. However, I just heard a
few months ago that Bradford had died (in 2005).
Taktix®|2.7.08 @ 12:19PM|#
They are intended for a core audience who already believes
or wants to believe the thesis, and books of this type give the
readers exactly what they're looking for.
Like ReganBooks?
|2.7.08 @ 12:21PM|#
The problem is not a lack of ideas "alive and available" --
to borrow Friedman's phrase. There are plenty available, from
single-payer healthcare to legislating a living wage. Hundreds of
thousands of jobs can be created by rebuilding the ailing public
infrastructure and making it more friendly to public transit and
renewable energy. Need start-up funds? Close the loophole that lets
billionaire hedge fund managers pay 15% capital gains instead of
35% income tax, and adopt a long-proposed tax on international
currency trading. The bonus? A less volatile, crisis-prone
market.
"Legislating a living wage" is not an idea which requires much in
the way of debunking. Ask Nixon.
"Closing the loophole" et c, are likely to produce an effect
substantially different than that anticipated by Klein. The "bonus"
is likely to be a much easier time finding a parking space in lower
Manhattan.
stephen the goldberger|2.7.08 @ 12:22PM|#
What is the point of debunking these long-argued screeds
against capitalism just because it has a new champion.
Because people listen to her, she is culturally relevent, and a new
generation has not heard all the arguments and counter-arguments
regarding capitalism. The new generation doesn't remember Soviet
communism, and is relatively naive.
Also a lot of what she's attacking is what happened in the
transitional period for these countries, relatively recent history.
Its important to distinguish what was caused by market forces and
what was poor gov't policy.
By Ignoring Klein you are letting her control that debate.
dhex|2.7.08 @ 12:22PM|#
joe, i assumed you'd read klein because you'd so readily
defended her instead of just walking away from a fight you had no
dog in.
i know that this is your thing and all, but still.
i also assumed you'd read klein because, well, everyone i know has,
and most of them are closer to you politically than they are to
me.
Sam Grove|2.7.08 @ 12:24PM|#
But Friedman and the other shock therapists were also guilty
of oversimplification, basing their belief in the perfection of
market economies on models that assumed perfect information,
perfect competition, perfect risk markets.
I was not aware of any claim among free marketers that there is a
'perfection of market economies'.
Being a free marketer, you would think I'd be aware of such.
Perfection is an ideal and, like value, usually lies in the eyes of
the beholder.
The implication of ascribing this 'fault' to free marketers is that
there is something better...ah, yes, democratically optimized
markets. Now that sounds of perfection.
|2.7.08 @ 12:24PM|#
[L]ibertarianism is approximately 1/1000th as important in our society as Naomi Klein. . . .
Yet you clearly read Hit & Run (and presumably
Reason) about a 1,000 times more than you read
Klein.
Feel the distrust of government flowing through you. Turn away from
the Dark Side. Learn the value of closing HTML tags. Levitate
various objects. ☺
Taktix®|2.7.08 @ 12:26PM|#
Since we're drinking early, Taktix just did a good job
laying out why libertarianism is approximately 1/1000th as
important in our society as Naomi Klein:
"Why should we have to argue against such ideas? Everyone with a
brain in their head already knows we're right."
Perhaps I was unclear. I didn't mean that refutations of Klein's
old, tired rhetoric are absolute truth.
My point is that if you want serious responses to things being
repeated over and over, look to the zillion or so times they have
been refuted.
Let me give you an example:
If I came on here and asked you, joe, to refute that the Earth is
flat, every day, would you:
A) continue making thoughtful, researched responses every time I
repeated it, or...
B) grow tired of having to refute the same stupid-twit points over
and over again, and eventually just lighten up a bit and poke fun
at me?
|2.7.08 @ 12:26PM|#
What stephen the g said.
And I'll add, "because Naomi Klein isn't actually making the same
argument that the CPUSA was making in 1955, as dear to your heart
as it might be to tell yourself she is."
|2.7.08 @ 12:26PM|#
Oh, I see, joe, it's about the significance of her work, not the
quality... so why not demand an article from reason about
leftist gullibility and dogma and not an in-depth analysis of
easily and oft-refuted claims she makes?
But I guess that wouldn't highlight what awful people we are, would
it? Confirmationbiasgasm imminent. Attain minimum safe
distance.
stephen the goldberger|2.7.08 @ 12:28PM|#
I just want to say this shows the fundamental problem with Reason which is that it is a cultural commentary magazine. It cannot attack Klein, because its main attack on Klein is "She is a cultural critic with no background/understanding in economics". Which is exactly could be used to describe what anyone writing the rebuttal to Klein would be.
|2.7.08 @ 12:28PM|#
Dave W. withdraws his imprimatur from Hit and
Run.
[thunderous applause, toasts all around]
Oh, I am sure I will still check in from time to time. Mr.
Balko is still doing topnotch work. joe still posts here,
etc.
Damn, damn, and double damn! I'm wearing out my page down key
skipping moronic posters and Dave W. inanity is part of the
solution.
|2.7.08 @ 12:30PM|#
And you know that her argument sre weak, and have been
oft-refuted how SugarFree.
Oh, right. Because everyone who disagrees with you about politics
is exactly the same, so that you can look at the refutation of
something somebody wrote in 1972 and just assume that Klein must be
making exactly the same arguments.
Such lazy, flabby, self-satisfied reasoning - I don't have to
answer what she says, and don't even have to know what she says,
because all of those people are just the same and are wrong - I
have not seen since the welfare debates of the late 80s.
robc|2.7.08 @ 12:33PM|#
I will use an example to illustrate why it isnt necessary to
read her:
Before I read Atlas Shrugged, I read Anthem to see if I wanted to
spend the time reading a brazillion page novel. I liked Anthem, so
I went ahead.
On the same level, many of us have read Klein's shorter works and
have determined that reading the larger work is a waste.
|2.7.08 @ 12:34PM|#
Like ReganBooks?
I was thinking along the lines of Regnery Publishing and whatever
the left-wing version of that is. But in looking at the Regan Books
line-up, yeah it fits, in that it is basically a polemics and
apologia publisher but with some juicy bits thrown in like the OJ
"If I did it" book and the Jenna Jameson autobiography.
|2.7.08 @ 12:36PM|#
Off Topic- Romney drops out! Got sick of spending his own money-doesn't have thousands of supporters who are willing to contribute like Ron Paul does!
Taktix®|2.7.08 @ 12:39PM|#
On the same level, many of us have read Klein's shorter
works and have determined that reading the larger work is a
waste.
Thank you.
|2.7.08 @ 12:39PM|#
Whoa--I thought you were kidding! That's odd. Will Huckabee pick up a lot of votes? I doubt Paul will, not from Romney supporters.
|2.7.08 @ 12:40PM|#
Apparently, Klein so stupid that no one is willing to make a
serious effort to debunk a book that has become a significant
political tome by firing a shot directly at the political
philosophy espoused in Reason.
joe -
I've a confession to make. I haven't read the latest Holocaust
denial tome. Maybe it has new reasoning that has heretofore not
been presented.
I've also been neglecting to read the latest intelligent design
biology textbooks. Maybe there is convincing evidence there that I
should consider.
Hell, having not read his work, I'm completely unable to criticize
Erich Von Daniken.
Call me out if I ever again call any of those subjects absolute
nonsense.
fling93|2.7.08 @ 12:40PM|#
Not that anybody here disagrees about the quality of her work
anymore, but if Tyler Cowen and Steve Horwitz aren't enough, here's
another
critique of Klein, this time from the left.
It basically says that it's clear that she didn't do her
homework.
|2.7.08 @ 12:46PM|#
The world's largest retailer said Thursday it will open "The Clinic at Wal-Mart" as a joint venture with local hospital systems in Atlanta, Dallas and Little Rock, Ark., starting in April.
Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart is among several U.S. supermarket and drug store chains that in the past couple of years have begun opening store-based health clinics, which are staffed mostly by nurse practitioners or physician assistants and offer quick service for routine conditions from colds and bladder infections to sunburn.
About 7 percent of Americans have tried a clinic at least once, according to an estimate by the Convenient Care Association, an industry trade group formed in 2006.
That number is expected to increase dramatically, as chains like Wal-Mart, CVS Corp., Target Corp. and Walgreen Co. partner with mini-clinic providers like RediClinic and MinuteClinic to expand operations. The trade group estimates there will be more than 1,500 by year-end, up from about 800 in November.
-from the AP
Those perfidious DisasterCapitalist bastards- driving down the cost
of health care. It's outrageous!
|2.7.08 @ 12:47PM|#
J sub D,
Has the latest Holocaust denial tome been featured on several
major-media outlets?
No?
Have fun with your cult, and don't pay any attention to what the
nonbelievers think.
|2.7.08 @ 12:52PM|#
joe,
By that measure, the mental health of Britney Spears is the
greatest issue facing America today. I wonder where the remaining
candidates stand on this (Romney dropping out--Was ist
los?)?
|2.7.08 @ 12:55PM|#
You certainly seem to be having fun with our cult, joe. I often
enjoy your comments and always am entertained by your battles here,
but sometimes I wonder -- what's in it for you?
And what about "The John Wilce Chair of Intestinal Fortitude"?
|2.7.08 @ 12:56PM|#
Off Topic- Romney drops out! Got sick of spending his own
money-doesn't have thousands of supporters who are willing to
contribute like Ron Paul does!
Rick Barton,
I heard that, too, but I didn't see any press releases about it. My
Google is broken, maybe?
javier|2.7.08 @ 12:57PM|#
Reason needs an economics commentator who can show the
fallacy of Klein's important (sadly) book, instead of just saying
she is stupid over and over again
what is the thing that the african tribes do to promote peace??
Like a family member exchange with the other tribes. I think reason
and the LvMI should exchange people so that reason gets someone
whom actually knows something about economics and the LvMI will get
someone to make them more tolerant.
|2.7.08 @ 12:58PM|#
smacky,
Looks like it's true--it's popping up all over in the press. He's
"suspending" his campaign, whatever that means. I guess if McCain
dies during the rest of his nomination run, Romney wants to be
ready.
T|2.7.08 @ 12:58PM|#
joe,
Try this, it works better:
Klein so stupid that no one is willing to make a serious effort
to debunk a book that has become a significant political tome by
firing a shot directly at an incoherent political philosophy
imagined from whole cloth by Klein that purports to be what she and
her readers think people they disagree with believe.
I have read parts of No Logo and Shock Doctrine. I don't need to
comment on it because it's fantasy. That some people want to
believe it is fine. People started a Church of the Jedi, too. When
somebody cites either one as a evidence or support for policy, I'll
take them off at the knees. In the meantime, she can go about her
business of selling books based on fantasy just as George Lucas
can. It don't confront me one way or the other.
|2.7.08 @ 1:11PM|#
Has the latest Holocaust denial tome been featured on
several major-media outlets?
joe, Erich Von Danikens work was. So was Velikovsky's. That didn't
preclude them from being complete bullshit.
Sam Grove|2.7.08 @ 1:17PM|#
From what I have seen of Ms Klein, from her own mouth, in her
own hand, in her own words, like mu ch of the left, they are adept
at burning their capitalism straw man.
Ms Klein is obviously not dumb, but she is emotive and unable to
engage in intellectually honest discourse on the object of her
articulate (puts words together in coherent sentences) rant.
First Little Pig|2.7.08 @ 1:17PM|#
I have not read the book, but I did listen to two interviews
with her about it and I think I heard enough to call it crap.
Her argument boils down to the idea that evil capitalist scum
either use disaster as a pretext (natural as in earthquake,
political as in revolution/assassination/coup, economic as in
hyperinflation, currency run, commodity collapse) to impose the
Friedman, monetarist, capitalist, exploitative, model onto the
backs of poor brown people with the help of the US Govt and the
IMF. If there is no extant disaster, they create one of their own
as in Chile.
She believes that the poor brown people are tricked into this
economic model and that it makes their lives worse and enriches
rich people. What she fails to see is that in the vast majority of
cases where structural economic reform (what we disaster
capitalists would prefer to call it) is implemented it is 1) due to
the fact that the previous economic model did not work and made the
vast majority of people miserable; 2) that while the economic
reform does make some people much better off, it tends to make all
boats rise; and 3) every alternative to fiscal and monetary
discipline, efforts to reduce official corruption, and the
imposition of legal reform (especially dealing with property
rights) leads to a return to the mess that the so-called "economic
shock" therapy was meant to address.
She fails to recognize that capitalism has improved the living
standards of most who toil under it and that those who do indeed
end up in "sweat shops" volunteered for it as a better alternative
to starving in the countryside.
I don't know if it is in the book, but I doubt that she understands
the rise of Asia and the vast improvements in Eastern Europe are
because capitalism-with-structural-economic-reform has worked
there.
BTW I have an advanced degree in economics and used to work as an
economist on Wall Street. I know, I know, that automatically makes
me a "disaster capitalist"
Mike Laursen|2.7.08 @ 1:19PM|#
Ask Mike L. He'll explain it to you.
joe is ostensibly a liberal, but likely a closet libertarian, who
likes to hang out on a libertarian blog and argue with other
commenters for the fun of it. Many of us enjoy arguing with him,
primarily because he has a unique and entertaining ability to twist
the logic of his original point into stranger and stranger
contortions as he refuses to ever concede defeat.
|2.7.08 @ 1:45PM|#
"Not that anybody here disagrees about the quality of her work
anymore, but if Tyler Cowen and Steve Horwitz aren't enough, here's
another critique of Klein, this time from the left.
It basically says that it's clear that she didn't do her
homework."
And neither did that guy.
fling93|2.7.08 @ 3:55PM|#
Juan: "And neither did that guy."
Curious. That you chose the word "neither" indicates that you agree
with the underlying point about Klein, but chose to voice that
agreement in troll-like fashion.
Tim Cavanaugh|2.7.08 @ 4:39PM|#
Jeez, you guys can talk all day and miss the point:
Naomi Klein: Hot
Milton Friedman: Not
Is that so complicated?
|2.7.08 @ 4:41PM|#
http://www.smh.com.au/ffxImage/urlpicture_id_1062901943879_2003/09/07/naomi_klein,0.jpg
Maybe you have met her in person Tim and if so I defer to your
judgment, but frankly she doesn't do a whole lot for me. At least
not in the pictures on the web.
Franklin Harris|2.7.08 @ 4:57PM|#
Actually, the main flaw in Klein's pathetic argument is that the vast majority of disasters result in larger government and more government spending, not more capitalism. So, at best she comes across as whining that capitalists are finally using disasters to advance their policies in the exact same way anti-capitalists have for decades.
economist|2.8.08 @ 10:32PM|#
John,
Not cool. My grandmother's name was Naomi, and she wasn't a leftist
twit.
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