25 Responses to “Naomi Klein vs Fox Business News”

1. 

   rajasmasala November 23rd, 2009 at 7:59 pm

   read the book.

2. 

   MillionthUsername November 23rd, 2009 at 7:59 pm

   What does she demonize him for then?

   Regarding money, you need to understand that “dollars” are not real things. They are just numbers now. People make silly arguments about needing more gold than exists to match all the fiat money and debt at current prices. That’s nonsense.

   A price is simply a ratio of one thing to another. An unmet increased demand for gold merely increases it’s purchasing power, and so things priced in gold oz fall. The ratio adjusts like it does for monetary inflation.

3. 

   rajasmasala November 23rd, 2009 at 7:59 pm

   Your argument for Klein honestly doesn’t work because that’s not what she demonizes Friedman for.

   As for the gold, I’ll read up on it.

4. 

   MillionthUsername November 23rd, 2009 at 7:59 pm

   I’ll read the book, but I can see right here that she says in her own words she wants to take advantage of a crisis to push through legislation, and this is the exact same thing she demonized Friedman for. Someone should edit this clip and show it with the one where she quotes Friedman to the same effect then castigates him for it. Then people will see the hypocrisy for themselves.

   On money, there is widespread confusion on the topic. There is no problem whatsoever with using gold/silver.

5. 

   rajasmasala November 23rd, 2009 at 7:59 pm

   I passed you the book, read the book. Friedman’s undoubtedly right that when things are volatile is when you have the best chance of getting your ideas voted in. Ron Paul thinks the US should go back to gold & silver. I don’t understand how these currencies could keep pace with the economy.

6. 

   MillionthUsername November 23rd, 2009 at 7:59 pm

   Did you mean to say gold and silver is frightening to you?

7. 

   MillionthUsername November 23rd, 2009 at 7:59 pm

   So when she says we should use a CRISES to IMPLEMENT POLICY which SHE approves of, then it’s ok? But if Friedman does it, then it’s evil?

   How is it that the victims of Naomi Klein’s policies are not “shocked into compliance?” They don’t have a choice!

   What the hell’s the difference?

8. 

   rajasmasala November 23rd, 2009 at 7:59 pm

   I honestly hope next time round there can be an independent or independentesque candidate winning on an internet run campaign a la Ron Paul. But jesus christ mr candidate, make sense! Gold and silver! Frightening.

9. 

   rajasmasala November 23rd, 2009 at 7:59 pm

   She’s not proposing shock therapy at all. She’s creating jobs, if you read the book she shows how often Friedman’s interventions destroy jobs. Remember it is the man on the ground who is shocked into compliance. It’s egregious to complain about Naomi Klein when you go around conflating liberty and free market reform. Honestly I think right now you could use some regulation in your system. Obama was bought from the start, the data now seems to indicate.

10. 

    MillionthUsername November 23rd, 2009 at 7:59 pm

    Hey, man, at 4:01 on this video the nutbag says, “This crisis is an opportunity to make those investments.”

    I thought that’s what she demonized Milton Friedman for? What a colossal hypocrite!!!

    She goes on and on about how evil it is for people who believe in liberty and free markets to have solutions ready in a crisis, that this is “shock doctrine” and “shock therapy” but then she says the same thing. It’s ok for her to advocate policies in a crisis but not others?

    What do you have to say?

11. 

    MillionthUsername November 23rd, 2009 at 7:59 pm

    In order to have less economic shocks, you’d have to get rid of the looters and the counterfeiters, and I don’t think Naomi wants to do that. She seems to like that kind of power.

12. 

    rajasmasala November 23rd, 2009 at 7:59 pm

    also, Gernany’s “right wing” government would in America be considered liberal democrat.

13. 

    rajasmasala November 23rd, 2009 at 7:59 pm

    never mind that argument is misleading business, but my argument still stands. need to sleep.

14. 

    rajasmasala November 23rd, 2009 at 7:59 pm

    Your argument is again misleading when the point is that businesses control government and taxes and are completely profit-driven as shown by the unethical loans issued by banks to people they knew weren’t going to be able to pay up in the subprime crisis and can cause the deaths of millions of people because of their political power. Is the capitalism you imagine even feasible? As far as I can see you’d have to vote Ron Paul in first, and then his throat will probably be slit one way or another

15. 

    snoopster000 November 23rd, 2009 at 7:59 pm

    the failure of socialist/communist economics in the soviet union china north korea cambodia north vietnam and any number of south american countries has led to more capitalistic policies in those countries. france declares insolvency everytime its over extended and then calls itself a “new republic” and germany is arguably the most capitalist nation in europe.there relative success is a reflection of that.business advertise what they sell its up to you to decide what products you buy and why

16. 

    rajasmasala November 23rd, 2009 at 7:59 pm

    … it seems to me that because in the context of a failure any apparently working solution becomes seen as the only way out, even if there were other alternatives, the people giving the solutions become the only right people. For instance this notion that socialism has failed when France and Germany have alway tended to socialism. Are customer contracts fair in capitalism? In this age of misinformation? You’re certainly not objectively told what you’re buying, unless it’s cigarettes.

17. 

    rajasmasala November 23rd, 2009 at 7:59 pm

    this is however the age of big money. which can do anything down to faking wmds. Corporatism and fascism is what the media doesn’t say when it tells the viewer/listener ‘capitalism’ anyway. Rule by big money is rule by a few for their own gain, which in today’s third-order simulacrum world is so easy to stage as for the common man’s good. When money and the resulting quiet clout is everything you get things like AIPAC and Israel.. Why failure?…

18. 

    snoopster000 November 23rd, 2009 at 7:59 pm

    but whats the rationale of capitalists who offer solutions during a crisis, to perpetuate crisis? if so that doesnt seem a good way to convince people of benefits of capitalism.somewhere on u tube klein talks about clintons use of disaster capitalism in the mexican tequila crisis.the problem was a shortage of agave cactus and distilleries.investors built modern destilleries and introduced weather,pest resistent seeds. since then business is booming more financial security for mexican workers

19. 

    snoopster000 November 23rd, 2009 at 7:59 pm

    no alt. energy isnt socialist. klein has long advocated for gov’t control of huge sectors of private industry i.e. socialist economics, planned economies. she also ignores the fact that the “shocks” she talks about are generally caused by gov’t bungling to begin with. capitalist principles are the solution to the failed policies previously in place.

20. 

    rajasmasala November 23rd, 2009 at 7:59 pm

    i think her rationale is that we should use the volatility of the situation to move towards a world with less economic shocks and volatility of individual livelihoods.

21. 

    rajasmasala November 23rd, 2009 at 7:59 pm

    alternative energy is socialist?

22. 

    snoopster000 November 23rd, 2009 at 7:59 pm

    go to 4:00 naomi says… “this crisis is an opportunity to make those investments” meaning investments in alternative energy. so shes in favor of using a crisis to accomplish goals she deems worthy? i guess this would be disaster socialism

23. 

    VaQm10 November 23rd, 2009 at 7:59 pm

    But the real point is that neoliberalism isnt “free” trade, it’s rich coutries exploiting poor countries and taking everything they can get their hands on. Further, the US isnt that special counry that is best fit to police the world. Just like the Americans dont want to be policed by Chinese, Chinese dont want to be policed by the US. Better for you maybe (probably not actually), but not for the world or world peace. Human Rights doctrines > Bagran prison

24. 

    VaQm10 November 23rd, 2009 at 7:59 pm

    Poverty is in fact NOT the default condition of man. Although it is true that it has been the condition of most of mankind for a lot of it’s history. Poverty is actually something relatively new to man although it did not always have the comfort and means to its disposal that it has now. Anyway, free trade isnt so much responible for that change, it’s factories, medicine and agricultural improvement. They could well have been achieved without capitalism, in fact probably better.

25. 

    rollotwomassey November 23rd, 2009 at 7:59 pm

    You’ll have to refresh my memory but I cannot recall discussing free trade and “success stories.” I discussed neoliberal economics and the fact that it has raised MILLIONS out of poverty in Asia and South America. The question you should be asking is not: “Why are there poor people?” It should be: “Why are there rich people?” Poverty is the default condition of humanity. We’re born into this world naked, shivering and ignorant. ANY change from that is due to free market economics.