Y’all should give this a watch:
Edit: If conspiratorial stuff like this is the entirety of your media diet, you're going to have a hopelessly warped view of reality.
To say, as you’ve done down thread, that this is mere fiction I think is wrong. It sounds more to me like a viewpoint you’re unfamiliar with. Here is more reading on the topic:
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/Globalization/Brief_Hx_StrucAd...
More often than not, those who subscribe to these conspiratorial views of "big evil Capitalism coming to get you" become blinded to actual solutions and end up perpetuating the very problems they purport to wish to solve.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Corporation_(2003_film)
there is no need for deliberate conspiracy, because of bad incentives, immanent to the structure of our current systems.
Of course that does not necessarilily exclude deliberate gaming of the system.
Perhaps the so-called "critics" of corporate greed are really just telling on themselves...
How do you feel about The State as an institution?
It's very hard to discuss the State without referencing Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu, etc. Over the past century min-anarchism (of which I at least consider anarcho-capitalism to be a variant of) in general has not offered anything convincing to solve the issues they raised. I'm not optimistic it will do so in the next century either. I'm open to having my mind changed though.
How does one assure security with a minimal "night watchman" State? Note that security does not just mean physical security, but also an intangible feeling of safety in the sense that one can go outside without fear of anything untoward happening to them. And I'm well familiar with Ben Franklin's aphorism. Nevertheless it is a real issue and one that the U.S. Constitution solved reasonably well.
Edit: Also I find it hard to take seriously anybody that references "neoliberal policies" as that article does. What does that even mean? Free markets? Property rights? Movement of capital? All those things are ingredients to prosperity, in my view. Often "neoliberal" ends up just being those parts of capitalism that one doesn't like. And of course everyone has their own subset. Mass confusion, non-stop arguments over I'm not sure what exactly ensue.
You could just look it up.
"Capitalism when it does something I don't like" isn't a definition. If you want to criticize laissez-faire capitalism then use the proper term for it, not some squishy, mysterious neologism. Unfortunately when that happens, this becomes a discussion on comparative political economy. Those these critics tend to lose on the merits. Hence they insist on the mystification.
If you read it, you might stop criticising other people for things you don't know. You will also find out that neoliberal policies have delivered quite poor ecobomic results conpared to kenzian and shumpeterian alternatives
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit...
and
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine
too?
"This man is a frothing conspiracy theorist, a vainglorious peddler of nonsense, and yet his book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, is a runaway bestseller." [1]
"Although the accuracy of the content has been questioned, the book did well in terms of sales, placing on the best-seller lists of both the New York Times and Amazon." [2]
Who needs evidence and reasoning when vacuous, fact-lite writing makes for great sales!
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine
"Klein is not an academic and cannot be judged as one. There are many places in her book where she oversimplifies." [3]
"Klein isn’t an economist but a journalist" [3]
Stiglitz (cited by the author herself!) states that Shock Doctrine contains no understanding of actual economics. I'm sure the spy thriller narrative makes up for it though.
"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." [3]
Ah when you've nowhere else to turn, let's do some what-about-ism. We cannot back up our arguments, but the other side cannot either! It's rich to accuse Friedman of oversimplifying when his own writing shows otherwise. He is against precisely what he is being accused of supporting. Never let the facts get in the way of a good story!
"I do not believe it’s proper to put the situation in terms of industrialist versus government. On the contrary, one of the reasons why I am in favor of less government is because when you have more government industrialists take it over, the two together form a coalition against the ordinary worker and the ordinary consumer. I think business is a wonderful institution provided it has to face competition in the marketplace and it can’t get away with something except by producing a better product at a lower cost; and that’s why I don’t want government to step in and help the business community." [4][5]
It helps to read multiple perspectives on an issue as complex as economics and development. It may not provide the easy answers we crave but it does act as an immunizer to shallow, doctrinaire thinking displayed in these "works".
I'll forgive the downvotes if you'll read a book by Friedman (or Hayek or any economist with whom you disagree) for every one you've read that's critical of him. Then make up your own mind. We might still not be in agreement, but at least we can have a factual discussion.
[1] Sebastian Mallaby https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/0...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit...
[3] https://tsd.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/reviews/bleakonomi...
[4] Milton Friedman: Free to Choose
[5] https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/bp102.pdf
How did you find the time to view the clip thoroughly enough to dismiss it so nonchalantly?
Putting the topic on its head, he is still widely respected in academia by amongst others, IIRC, Chomsky
If that's what you enjoy watching, that's cool man, but just keep in mind it's fiction and is of very little practical use besides entertainment value. Definitely don't try to build a political movement based on it! Unless you want it to fail. Repeatedly.