Hacker News Reader

Comment by nerfhammer | Hacker News Reader

Widely regarded by experts as best placed in the fiction section

There are reasons to suspect the author's story as told. What stands out to me is that he really doesn't seem like the genius he portrays himself to be. It's possible but doesn't seem likely that a Business Administration BA with two years of Peace Corps experience would suddenly be recruited by the NSA to be an economic hitman for a shadowy consulting firm.

The firm fell apart 10 years later. The man who hired him (and later recanted some of his vague corroborations) was fired for insider trading and eventually ended up running a local Tuscon power company. His partner from his post-consulting enterprise (a power company of his own) admits they failed but that the author is a fun guy and full of ideas. This was followed by a pivot to writing books about shamanism, indigenous cultures and psychedelic experiences.

Of course, the NSA version could be true. But the circumstantial evidence offers a simpler explanation where the author is embellishing or inventing his own role and first-hand knowledge of how global economic structures and forces operate.

I don't want to discredit the macroeconomic skepticism. But I think there's a good chance this particular author is weaving things he's read about with things he's made up in his mind.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Perkins_(author)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chas._T._Main

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/2006/05/economic-hit-man/

Fiction? Read a little 20th century history outside from countries outside of the US or talk to people there (Latin America would be a good example) and you'll find out it's anything but fiction in the general practices (if not in the specifics).

When the author started suggesting that the woman he had an affair with was planted by the government to temp him, my hackles went up a bit.

The US policy he talks about is real enough, but autobiographical points struck me as questionable.

Why?

It's pretty well known that intelligence services and others placed female agents in positions to develop sexual relationships with men and women in order to get information and apply influence. Hell, US propaganda books and movies (The Green Berets) have featured women in this role as quasi-heroines.

I'm not asserting that the book is credible or not, I recall reading it a long time ago and honestly don't remember enough about it. But if the person is what he claimed to be, seems like the type of shenanigans that would take place.

Women (and men) are used (sexually) as agents all the time by government agencies.

"One former CIA officer said that while sexual entrapment wasn't generally a good tool to recruit a foreign official, it was sometimes employed successfully to solve short-term problems."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clandestine_HUMINT_asset_recru...

Which experts? The moon landing is also considered fiction by some "experts".

We are to believe the NSA recruits spies now? To go abroad and pose as economists? It sends human agents on missions to help the IMF?

CIA actually sent agents posing as vaccination teams when the US was searching for Osama bin Laden, ruining polio eradication efforts in some places in the world. So no, sending fake economists is not beyond belief.

"So no, sending fake economists is not beyond belief."

The CIA - yes, entirely plausible.

The NSA - no, absolutely not, no way, completely absurd.

Why exactly?

Because the CIA sends spies out into the field - that's what they do. Many large American corporations have offices overseas, often some of the 'workers' are CIA, they use sales jobs etc. as cover. Esp. in the Middle East.

The NSA does not have agents out in the field as we understand it. The NSA is mostly nerds, crypto, tech. They're not spies or agents.

But the author's claims of being seduced by an NSA (or even CIA) 'honeytrap' are not corroborated in any way by anyone. Given that he's on record as claiming he can 'transform' himself into a Puma (I mean literally), well, his credibility is a little too 'off' to accept uncorroborated stories.

You're not helping your argument here.

Then I'd suggest The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein. That book is reference city.

Why? It doesn't seem like quite the same thing.

Popular economics on both the left and the right is always some of betrayal narrative. Bad things happen in the economy because powerful figures betray us. There's a million stories, all different, that fit this theme. The far left and far right use strikingly similar stories about this with only slightly different language.

Naomi Klein's first book - 'No Logo' was quite good.

The 'Shock Doctrine' was kind of a mess.

What happens is that these authors become very famous by putting out a good book with an opinion.

Then, like a one-hit-wonder rock band, they are urged to publish more red-meat for their readers, who want to hear about how the world works in a certain way.

Though the 'Shock Doctrine' is not a work of almost fiction as is 'Economic Hitman' - the premise of the accusations are really, really shaky, in many cases absurd.

She's very unrealistic about most things, and recently indicated that the Canadian Postal Workers should double as nurses and visit people door-to-door (because hey, they already do that). Which is neat for a brainstormed idea but fails in so many ridiculous and obvious ways it's laughably absurd.

Since that book (Shock Doctrine), which by the way makes some reasonable points, but mostly not - she's become a 'book agitator', she can't be taken credibly.

I can understand how people could read the 'Shock Doctrine' and be upset, but it's the absent contextual information that is missing that ultimately makes these books in some ways 'misinformational'. There are a lot of facts - but they are highly, highly selective. Add to this - some of the actual bad things the USA has done in the past - and you get the allowance for someone to spin great conspiracy theories.

Klein lives in my neighbourhood BTW. I see her around :)

Shock doctrine had some great points like about the economic collapse of Russia and South Africa in the early 90's under neoliberalism.

I can think of a couple of issues which might underlie the economic issues of South Africa and Russia: namely thee end of one party rule in both states.

There really was no 'collapse' of the South African economy - it's been growing rapidly since the end of apartheid. Just some chaos during the transition. Crime expanded quite a lot and it had nothing to do with 'neoliberalism'.

And both nations would have had to go a heavy and chaotic transitionary period.

To imply that it was part of some cabal of Western Imperialist 'Doctrine' is completely false.

There were a lot of resources up for grabs - and a lot of money ploughing in.

Naomi Klein is part of the reason I dropped supporting SJW/leftist causes by default, I'm pretty skeptical these days, I pick and chose.

There was a dramatic downturn in the South African economy after 1994, not a collapse like Russia but our industry took a huge knock, the Rand weaken dramatically, there was vast disinvestment and job losses. Yes there was growth, but like all neoliberal regimes it has gone to the wealthiest 1%. Today South Africa is significantly worse in most social indicators than it was in 1994.

"Today South Africa is significantly worse in most social indicators than it was in 1994."

And do you blame this on capitalists? Or do you blame this on your utterly, completely and totally corrupt and inefficient political system?

Which one do you think is the source of the problem? :)

Because we have capitalism here in Canada and are doing just fine.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com