>> but could it not simply be that his work was motivated by trying to improve human lives? It is pretty natural to consider in the face of disaster what might have caused it and what might have prevented it.

But that's the thing. He SAYS he believes in the free market, which means, in my mind, put up an idea and see who takes to it, but in PRACTICE he basically means, "People are too stupid to know what's good for them - so we'll shove changes down their throats when they least suspect it and are the most distracted."

The thing that may distrub you (I'm a bit more familiar with friedman) is that his "solutions" have nothing to do with the crisis itself, or, as you say, preventing it. He has said numerous times that "free market solutions" are the best way to lift people out of poverty en masse.

Yet, his particular suggestions are not aimed at "solutions" for most people but rather opportunities for a select few.

The fact that they have to be slipped in sneakily while nobody's paying attention because they're too scared and trying to survive makes me suspicious - if all the things that he advocates should be quietly sneaked in while we're too traumatized from disaster to pay attention were as good for us as he claims, why then do they have to be snuck in quietly while we're all reduced to fear an panic and can't think straight?

In other words, why not let his suggestion actually be put to the test of a real democratic free market - why does he insist that "free market solutions" are best introduced during times of fear and panic and by using stealth and secrecy and decption?

Could it be that none of his "free market solutions" would ever actually be successful in a properly functioning free market?

If so, could it be that the people at the top of the food chain don't really want a properly functioning free market where people make rational decisions based on self-interest?

>> It happens all the time, in fact, it is standard practice when starting wars to fake some attack of the enemy to be first. That is not what we are discussing, though.

But in a way it is. Once you accept the possibility that people are willing to exploit tragedy to push their agendas on a weakened populace, then the next step in the economic model is to make "progress" of that sort more efficient and business like by being able to predict and prepare for such scenarios in advance - and the only way to have the sufficient knowledge necessary to do this is to somehow have asymetric distrubtion of knowledge of such events a priori, which suggests that people who have such knowledge would be colluding with the people who cause the disasters.

> Also, let's think the other way round. Naomi seems to > claim that people don't want free markets because the > evil power people have to force it on them. But could it > not be the other way round, people would actually want > them, and the evil power people are actually trying to > prevent it? The "evidence" could be interpreted in both > ways.

I actually agree with you 100% on this.