The Shock Doctrine...The rise of disaster capitalism

[vortexring 0]

This is quite a remarkable book, written by Naomi Klein. Here's a brief YouTube introduction on what it's about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kieyjfZDUIc

Her website: http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine

A review:

"A highly polemical, and persuasive, assault on free-market fundamentalism. She rips into the big-business agenda to show how economic opportunists need and promote misery and disaster, challenging us to look at world-changing events....Klein upends assumptions and demands that we think -- her book is thrilling, troubling and very dark."

Los Angeles Times


Further review:

"Anyone who wants to understand how the world really works should read it immediately."


Needless to say, a fascinating and of course, troubling read.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[lawrocket 3]

Interesting. Does she cite Al Gore as an example? Or Michael Moore? How about Jesse Jackson?

And more importantly, does she also contrast this with political opportunists promoting misery and disaster for their own benefit? Think, "I feel your pain."

Or more ironically, does Ms. Klein actually sell this book, thus herself "capitalizing" on the capitalists of disaster? Or is she giving the book away?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[vortexring 0]

A good point! Perhaps she justifies selling the book through a need to inform the masses of her research! I suppose it'd be a little expensive to mass produce a book these days.

Gore, Moore & Jackson aren't mentioned as far as I remember. They're also not mentioned in the index.

But why should they be mentioned?

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[nerdgirl 0]

Thanks for the recommendation. Always appreciate hearing about intellectually provocative new ideas, even if I disagree with them.

Klein's discussions of Milton Friedman's ideas, q&a with Alan Greenspan, and interview with Bill Maher should be provocative ... how intellectually provocative is TBD.

It's not apparent to me that Klein's assertions on economics, politics, conflict, marketing, and natural disaster are going to hold up to scrutiny. Must acknowledge that my skeptic's filter narrows anytime a claim or hypothesis seems to turn on/rely on a conspiracy theory, whether it be the CIA or the Bilderbergs. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[SpeedRacer 1]

well I haven't read the book. It seems to me that she's saying that disasters allow capitalists to slip in extreme agendas. The thing is: socialist totalitarians do that same thing even more, and to worse effect, than capitalists do.

In fact, most capitalists make more $ when things are relatively peaceful.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[vortexring 0]

I think that's why her assertions are so fascinating - where is the evidence to counter her claims? What makes you disagree with her assertions Marg?

I disagree that her assertions can be simply brushed under the 'conspiracy theory' carpet.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

I think that's why her assertions are so fascinating - where is the evidence to counter her claims? What makes you disagree with her assertions Marg?

I disagree that her assertions can be simply brushed under the 'conspiracy theory' carpet.

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear; I have not read the book ... whether I agree or disagree, I appreciate reading well-thought out arguments that make me think.

One person's conspiracy theory is another's revealed truth (that the rest of us silly/naive fools fail to see. )

From the free excerpt and the additional resources, it's evident that there are underlying "truths" (facts); it's what appears to be the set-up of strawmen and anti-capitalism causality that causes my skeptic's filter to narrow. Perhaps the text will emerge as a companion to Herman & Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media."

What do you find so remarkable in the book's thesis?

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[vortexring 0]

What do you find so remarkable in the book's thesis?

VR/Marg

[mnealtx 0]

Tim Robbins

Annnnnnnnnnnnnddddddddddd...........we're done.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[vortexring 0]

Whatever his political leanings, one persons opinion on a book, whatever it may be, shouldn't therefore make the book unreadable, or have reason in itself to not read the material.

That's quite a remarkable stance to take mate.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[mnealtx 0]

When you match it with some of the nutball stuff he's said over the years, it gives a pretty good clue as to content / context of the book.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Amazon 7]

Perhaps we could get a couple of our hard core fringe right posters here in SC to read it. Perhaps it might help them to "read between the lines".
I will be happy to buy it for them... just need a shipping address to send it to.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

In fact, most capitalists make more $ when things are relatively peaceful.

So the evidence that those in the defense industry have done VERY well certainly belie that opinion. I would say that those in that sector have done VERY well for the last 60 years... and it is not peace that they are profiting on.

A VERY good REPUBLICAN president warned us about them.. yet here we are 50 years later controlled by them down to our very souls

[kelpdiver 2]

She didn't ask for book review excerpts - she asked what you found compelling about it. Something more than 'it's neat.'

[vortexring 0]

I never said it's neat. The points I made from the book reviews gave a broadbrush point. What's your point with my point? More to the point; what is your point with my point? Have you read the material? Or have you just read my point and decided to be an argumentative f........ucker.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[kelpdiver 2]

Marg tried to engage - if you had interesting answers, I would get interested. Otherwise, nope, don't give a fuck. But in general these sort of books are crap, trying to make a simple reality out of a very complicated interaction of billions of individuals.

[vortexring 0]

Quote

When you match it with some of the nutball stuff he's said over the years, it gives a pretty good clue as to content / context of the book.

How can it then, if he's said nutball stuff? Surely that makes his opinion unreliable?

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[vortexring 0]

Ok, but will you promise to just send the book?

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[vortexring 0]

Quote

Marg tried to engage - if you had interesting answers, I would get interested. Otherwise, nope, don't give a fuck. But in general these sort of books are crap, trying to make a simple reality out of a very complicated interaction of billions of individuals.

How can you say it's crap without having read it? How can you even shelve it into a particular type without having read it? How can I debate with you over this subject? I'm only bringing to peoples attention a book I find interesting - and the fact that a significant amount of people find it interesting too.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[vortexring 0]

What do you find so remarkable in the book's thesis?

VR/Marg

[lawrocket 3]

I mention those like Gore because, as I hear it, unless 40 or 50 trillion is spent over the next 40 years, the worst disaster in the history of mankind, if not the world, will happen.

For 100k, Al Gore will give a personal appearance to tell you why people who aren't him should limit their carbon footprints.

He's a gazillionaire now because of his extremely shrewd business practices - there is a disastr, and I can tell you how to stop it.

Of course, disaster business aint new! There is a thought a thousands of years old explaining that people will suffer disaster even after they are dead!!!

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[vortexring 0]

I think I recognise your point, but omgwtf; Gore's cashing in!?

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

I mention those like Gore because, as I hear it, unless 40 or 50 trillion is spent over the next 40 years, the worst disaster in the history of mankind, if not the world, will happen.

For 100k, Al Gore will give a personal appearance to tell you why people who aren't him should limit their carbon footprints.

He's a gazillionaire now because of his extremely shrewd business practices - there is a disastr, and I can tell you how to stop it.

Of course, disaster business aint new! There is a thought a thousands of years old explaining that people will suffer disaster even after they are dead!!!

What is Gore's carbon footprint? He reportedly pays a large premium on his utility bills to get carbon-neutral energy.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

What is Gore's carbon footprint? He reportedly pays a large premium on his utility bills to get carbon-neutral energy.

While carbon neutral is a neat way for the rich to buy their energy indulgences (much like the Catholics a long long time ago), it would be much better for the planet to consume less energy. Carbon credits in no way make up for the opportunity cost of the non renewable energy consumed.

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

Quote

What is Gore's carbon footprint? He reportedly pays a large premium on his utility bills to get carbon-neutral energy.

While carbon neutral is a neat way for the rich to buy their energy indulgences (much like the Catholics a long long time ago), it would be much better for the planet to consume less energy. Carbon credits in no way make up for the opportunity cost of the non renewable energy consumed.

I'm asking for some facts, not speculation or opinion. What is Gore's net carbon footprint? Lawrocket made a claim about carbon footprint, not about energy use, so I'd like to know the details.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.