I could be wrong, but from what you're saying / what I saw on the video there's a strong implication, I'm wondering - if you read the book, is it actually stated, inferred, hinted, ignored, etc.:
In other words, if it benefits policy-makers/corporations to have a disaster - political, natural, economic, etc. - as a prelude to shoving massive change that would otherwise be unnacceptable in nature or scope while people are too busy recovering from disaster, well, does that mean then that policy-makers/corporations would have a strong incentive to actually invest in the creation of the disasters?
In other words, since businesses are based on plans and plans are based on predictability, why wait for "nature to take her course?" when you could "push the hand" to setup disasters to get the scenario that would most likely benefit your company's particular "market solution"?