Johan Norberg vs. Naomi Klein and The Shock Doctrine

[@themovingkitchen5238]

It may be true that Klein overestimates Freidman's direct influence at times but it is also true that Nordberg here overestimates the extent to which Klein cites Freidman as directly involved. Freidman, for Klein, is not a master manipulator, but more an influential archetype of the kind of free market capitalism she is criticizing as a whole, that others also advocated, and also changed and evolved over the decades. She is not saying that Freidman had a direct hand in disaster capitalism around the world, but that the type of political economics that developed out of the thinking of Freidman transformed into disaster capitalism under the hands of others. She also argues that Freidman's economic is inherently problematic, and she provides a critique of its underlying logic. It doesn't matter whether or not Friedman was directly involved, or even an advocate of particular interventions like Iraq, because Klein's argument is that the underlying logic of Friedmanite economics leads to this kind of policy. Nordberg seems to be arguing that Klein is wrong because Freidman didn't explicitly advise brutal regimes to be brutal, nor advocate deliberately causing disasters. Well Kleins exlicit argument is that he didn't need to, his followers worked that bit out on their own.

[@xcarusax]

Stability is false. The concentration of wealth in Chile is brutal. We have more people on the Forbes list that Sweden, but 50% of Chileans live on less than USD 450 per month (2.5 dollars per hour). Chile's minimum wage is U.S. $ 2 per hour. We have education world's most expensive, the monthly fee of any university is us 450 USD or more. No pension system, the minimum pension is $ 161 a month. Wealth in Chile is only visible from the outside of country.

[@generalofschiffsrussiantro9722]

If Milton is her radical, apparently she's never heard of Murray Rothbard.

[@Godzilla52]

Yeah, I figure that the people who go after Friedman for being radical (when he was quite centrist) probably never listened to Rand, Rothbard or Mises before in their lives or are so far left that they think anything right of centre is radical.

[@stella3265]

@@arpitakundu8133 Yes. She most defiantly did. Jeffrey Sachs did as well. Sachs has become an outspoken critic of the Chicago Boys. Both Klein and Sachs agreed that massive aid packages and debt forgiveness were needed to stabilize the shock therapy policies in Russia. The US officials Clinton Administration disagreed.

[@yeahyeahyaha2]

5:42 So according to Norberg, Freedman visited Chile during Pinochet's regime, gave lectures in the country about his economic policies to private universites and institutions with the regime's approval (Becuase, indeed, nothing was done without the brutal regime's approval), met with Pinochet in person, wrote him a personal letter telling him the bad job he was doing with economy (Since the Chicago boys, that he taught as well, weren't pushing neoliberal policies hard enough, as Klein explains in the book) and ADVISED him what to do in order to fix it in the same letter. But he wasn't an economic adviser to the Pinochet regime since he wasn't paid for it and declined a honorary degree that would have publicly put him more in evidence of that controversial support at the time. And since Friedman loved democracy, he though the best way to restore it was not by restoring the democratically and overwhelmingly-elected goverment brutally ousted by the regime, but to maintain the regime and applying these economic policies that the absolute majority of the population would've rejected if it wasn't by the regime's violence. Got it.

[@sonnyjim5268]

"You never let a serious crisis go to waste." Rahm Emanuel, Barrack Obama's Chief of Staff

[@MA-go7ee]

Because only when a system has categorically failed do people actually agree that change is necessary. Otherwise the status quo is almost impossible to shift because those who benefit from it understandably do not want it to. There's a reason why almost all major reform or change happens after a crisis. Whether it is the french revolution (after a financial crisis) or Britain introducing the NHS (after WW2) or india ditching fabian socialism (balance of payment crisis) and dozens of other inbetween. Change happens because a crisis is when no one can deny that the system has failed. It is nothing sinister.

[@themovingkitchen5238]

@@MA-go7ee It becomes sinister when people start using disasters to implement change as a way to further their own interests at the expense of others.

[@marcosrebello3886]

@@MA-go7ee You mean to say "It is nothing BUT sinister."

[@haroldlebo2005]

I did watch shock doctrine and while I do agree with her points she does seem to paint Friedman's influence with a broad brush, the fact that she fails to recognize is that since at least the early 1900s the United States has supported even backed coups and interventions in Latin America and the Caribbean

[@iorbit]

Before I read Norberg's "In defence of global capitalism" I was Klein follower. And now after having read "När människan skapade världen" (When man created the world) I call myself a libertarian. What I want to say is it is not impossible to change minds - and Johan Norberg is doing a fine job.

[@556deltawolf]

I have talked to a few Chileans and even read a blog by a US citizen who have all said that while Chile isn't perfect, it definitely is one of the better South American countries to live. As for Argentina, Argentina was never really a true free market, yeah they introduced some free market reforms, but Argentina has been at it's core of politics a judicialist society which is a radically centrist form of politics which rejects both communism and free market capitalism.

[@joeylongjohn1979]

If Naomi Klein ever debated Milton Friedman it would be the equivalent of a 6 year old trying to fight Mike Tyson. She has no clue about economics or history.

[@QUABLEDISTOCFICKLEPO]

+Joey Long John , She did, and KZbin has it

[@yeahyeahyaha2]

No clues about history? That exaggeration shows that either you haven't read any of her books or you're the one with no clues about about anything in here. Klein is not an economist, she's an activist/journalist, so your comparision between her and Friedman would need an explanation if you wanna say something more than gibberish, for she could crush Friedman in a debate about social movements, history and many others (Which is pointless, btw.) If you read The Shock Doctrine, you should know how she acknowledges Freidman being a "brilliant mathematician", as well as acknoweldging how the neoliberal policies applied in Bolivia after the 70's led to a "by any means impressive result" on hyper-inflation reduction. What Klein's essay demostrates directly is how, during desastrous events, neolibral policies have been forced into popultations that would otherwise reject these economical policies, and how, as in most cases, economist have no interest into putting their field along with social justice or ethics, for that's the WRONG way in which economics have been taught for more than a century. Persons are not just numbers you can add or substract from.

[@matrixman8582]

Martin Dekker His policies were never fully implemented anywhere

[@AtlasFullsun]

+Marten Dekker Is that even an argument or were you just throwing insults? I think it's the latter. What specific policies and problems were you talking about?

[@masoudsalehi2564]

she would never debate him,because she would not stand a chance agaist him. that is why she wrote her book and made her documentary after Friedman passed away. to show the difference of level between Friedman and klein, I'd like to state this quote: A lion doesn't concern himself with the opinions of a sheep.

[@atag1960]

Host and guest in agreement. How charming and wonderful. very insightful, i'm coming back, not again

[@noless]

Go Johan! From a fellow swede

[@fikamonster2564]

hejsan!

[@mrvendetta123]

She took a quote from Friedman in which he basically said that alternative solutions need to be explored so that when economies decay, new ideas can be tested to rescue the economy. However, Naomi Klein implies that Friedman believes that markets have to fail through coercion so that his ideas replace current systems. Correct me if I am wrong.

[@MrDrewlips]

Freidman's opposing the Iraq invasion did not prevent his ideology from being the prime motivator behind the privatizing of Iraq's economy and the privatizing of the occupation itself. Neo liberalism as predatory capitalism is opportunistic and takes advantage of disasters, often intentionally increasing their severity for ideological reasons. Norberg himself is intentionally engaging in obfuscation.

[@C_R_O_M________]

And socialism is made out of pure angelic dust! You people need to read a lot more history! Capitalism is now implemented and lifting Chinese and Indians out of miserable poverty. Any ideas why the 80+% of wealth producing Chinese GDP comes from the private sector?

[@adstanra]

70 years of economic experimentation has unequivocally demonstrated that free-market capitalist systems are the best. nuff said...

[@adstanra]

WanderleiSilva29 you need to retire Wanderlei.

[@adstanra]

WanderleiSilva29 actually you need to get a life ---begin by submitting to drug testing.

[@adstanra]

WanderleiSilva29 lol.

[@AtlasFullsun]

70 years? It's the entire history of human civilization.

[@cosmicviewer477]

@lol101lol101lol10199 Brilliant points, indeed. My contention with Milton Freidman is that later in his life he recanted on a lot of his philosophies (or had his "come-to-Jesus" moment) AFTER they were already taken seriousily and nearly ruined certain societies. Additionally, all Naomi Klein argued in "Shock Doctrine" was that his outlook was taken seriously by several societies in the developed and developing world, helping to ruin many lives. I think that is a fair conclusion.

[@c0unt_WAVnstein]

@fadelapouit I'm sure I've read Adam Smith as I am sure you have not. "A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." -- Adam Smith, the Wealth of Nations.

[@garymorrison4139]

It would appear that the Cato Institute has taken an interest in rehabilitating the reputation of Milton Friedman, but if Norberg had bothered to check the backstory of Kliens account of what took place in Latin America under economic liberalization Friedman himself appears as a minor character. Tacit support for the rationales that supported the US policy of intervention in Chile was offered by another Mont Pelerin economist Friedrich Von Hayek. Like Friedman, Hayek saw in Pinochet an avatar of his own economistic conception of freedom who would rule only for a "transitional period." only as long as needed to reverse decades of public employment and state regulation, "My personal preference," he told a Chilean interviewer, "leans toward a liberal dictatorship rather than toward a democratic government devoid of liberalism." In a letter to the London Times Hayek defended the junta reporting that he had "not found a single person even in much maligned Chile who did not agree that personal freedom was much greater under Pinochet that it had been under Allende.". Of course, the thousands executed and tens of thousands tortured were not consulted in forming Hayek's assessment of the situation. There were no union strikes because there were no unions to trouble Hayek's idyllic vision of freedom.

[@SaulOhio]

Now you turn to trying to smear ANOTHER good man. Please show me how Pinochet's own economic policies were consistent with Hayek's ideas? Did he abolish the central bank in Chile and institute a gold standard? No. For years after the coup, his regime tried central planning, which is inconsistent with the ideas of both Friedman and Hayek. It was only after his militaristic economic management failed that he finally admitted to failure that he allowed more free market reforms. Hayek's "ilyllic vision fo freedom" includes the freedom of association, and unions would be allowed. So to the degree that unions were banned (if they indeed were. I do not trust "facts" you present any more than I trust a Disney movie to teach me history) Chile did not represent anything resembleing Hayek's "idyllic vision fo freedom".

[@zeezoromlars9987]

gary morrison what is your job? be honest.

[@garymorrison4139]

You have a point. people of color have for the past couple of centuries posed a public image problem for their masters. Those imported from Africa have gone from being useful as slaves, to become a political liability. The question that vexes libertarians today is the same one that has dogged the trail of capitalism's utopian theorists for generations. Given that society exists for one purpose which is to produce capital for the wealthy how are we to dispose of the evidence?. The problem of what to do about the unemployed can be dealt with in a rational manner if we conceptualize it as a problem of overpopulation caused by the sexual depravity of the poor rather than the failure of the labor market as theory believed to demonstrate a self-regulating equilibrium. The problem of how to dispose of a surplus population of millions, subsequently to be feared once it has outlived its usefulness? Attempts at avoiding the inherent problem of unemployment has seen numerous historical incarnations, The Nazi's dreamed up a system of forced labor camps to assist in war production to dispose of surplus labor but this proved as costly to operate as our 30 year experiment with mass incarceration. Conceiving of this unemployed surplus population as criminals was more recently mainstreamed by smooth talking libertarian Ronald Reagan under the guidance of senior economic advisor Milton Friedman. The main advantage of long term incarceration being that once people are trapped in cages they can easily be prevented from reproducing which avoids facing the problem of how to efficiently exterminate them Capitalism as a regime exists in a perpetual state of crisis in practice because it is continuously beset by the intractable problem of of how to escape from itself. Should we try genocide again?

[@janne9502]

Hahahaha!

[@ohedd]

LMAO 😂 time to break out the tinfoil hats guys

[@rajasmasala]

@jathan : where'd you get that from? Point out one thing Norberg says that's a fair counterargument against Klein.

[@xcarusax]

False. The reforms to implement neoliberal model in Chile began in 1979 under the dictatorship. Pinochet left power in 1990, eleven years later.

[@dgphi]

@epsilon8998, what do you make of the fact that Friedman opposed the war in Iraq?

[@JohnAnonymous]

(cont) The essence of the talk was that freedom was a very fragile thing and that what destroyed it more than anything else was central control; that in order to maintain freedom, you had to have free markets, and that free markets would work best if you had political freedom. So it was essentially an anti-totalitarian talk."

[@mobworksofficial]

The free market has brought about innovation and mass production. However the fundamental principles of capitalism where firms prioritize profit/acquisition/expansion over people and the planet should be criticized. The continued use of fossil fuels, deforestation, outsourced labor, prisons for profit and mass incarceration, pollution... Yet free market enthusiasts want to keep government from regulating countless dangerous and unethical business practices?? Why should we continue using a socioeconomic model that is proving to be counter productive, regressive, and even harmful? If we acknowledge the planet has finite resources, it's pretty absurd that in the 21st century we're trying to preserve a system that promotes mass consumption, planned obsolescence, exploitation and scarcity.

[@dewjameskatz]

And I'm not the first one to call her a liar. At least one man did that before me. Hint: he's interviewed in the video you're responding to, and his name is Johan Norberg.

[@JohnAnonymous]

It’s true that Pinochet employed some of the econ. policies Friedman had been advocating for decades, that some of Pinochet’s advisors had studied economics at the Un.of Chicago, and that Friedman subsequently cited the success of those policies. But just as Michael Moore’s endorsement of Cuba’s health care system doesn’t constitute endorsement of Castro’s dictatorial rule, so Friedman’s endorsement for Chilean tax or pension policies don’t constitute an endorsement of coups, purges, or torture.

[@thejazzguy2553]

are people forgetting about the letters between friedman and pinochet...where he uses the term "Shock treatment" and explains how.

[@puremercury]

Um, Norberg mentions Friedman writing Pinochet a letter in the video.

[@dinomiskovic294]

Liberty AboveAllElse and we all know what happened to average Americans after 1981 until now.... disperse of middle class lower standard and lower life expectancy and yes welfere for the rich and foreclosure for the poor, all thanks to Milton Friedman and the Chicago school of economics...

[@e-d-w-a-r-dswf8919]

"You have to lower inflation you had to make sure that people had an opportunity to get a job only then could they begin to demand personal freedoms and democratic freedoms as well! " *E P I C !*

[@mrvendetta123]

I agree! it seems though that we agree in the most important factor, which is that ideology can be harmful. Best wishes!

[@Shemywinks]

...some of which are answered in previous posts, for instance, "The reason the shareholders don't care is because even after the ludicrous pay offs, they're still making absurd amounts of money not in spite of..." does not imply that they're distracted. It implies that they are complicit. Returning to your appeal to the judicial system; Class action suits were a way for people to hold business to task in the U.S now all but substitutead with arbitration with a recent SCOTUS decision.

[@KamalShariff]

False advertising. This isn't a debate. It's an interview of a critic.

[@556deltawolf]

But that was the CIA, Friedman had nothing to do with the 1973 coup detat. Friedman even stated during an interview that while yes he did give some speeches on economics in Chile and he met with Pinochet for around 45 minutes and wrote a few letters to him. Also, contrary to popular belief, Pinochet was exactly a free market reformer, in fact in his early reign, many of his economic plans were largely interventionist.

[@mrvendetta123]

I can agree with the fact that Friedman was too ideological, and that because of it, some of his theories were incorrect. For example, he was against "socialized medicine," but even Kenneth Arrow, a big proponent of the free market recognized that healthcare was the nightmare of capitalism since healthcare has all kinds of information assymetries in the free market. Arrow won the nobel prize because of his research in assymetrical information.

[@mrvendetta123]

Yes, you are right, it is subjective. However, I rather read value judgments from economists rather than politicians and journalists about the economy. They are the experts in the economy.

[@mrvendetta123]

Mainstream economics is also heavily influenced by emotions and politics because those who watch it the most are non-economists. So, it is like a popularity contest. Also, economics has a more systematical approach than politics to attempt objectivity. Political works, however, are filled with subjective and moral arguments.

[@Lennybird91]

In terms of China, yes, they may have been protesting for Democracy at Tiananmen Square-but ultimately, if the citizens had voting power they most likely would not have accepted the radical adoption of the free-market.

[@Shemywinks]

Lastly, this" I don't advocate 'crony capitalism' at all. Less state involvement = less cronyism for me",to me,sounds like "there are a few corrupt officers in the police force. Instead of weeding them out and diminishing the likelihood of recurrence let's just do away with the police force all together and hope everything'll be alright".

[@556deltawolf]

Oh and btw, Pinochet was NOT pro-free market capitalism, and Friedman criticized his economic policies. Pinochet was an inflationist who used government to manipulat Chile's markets. The capitalist reforms didn't occur until the late '80s when Pinochet was starting to lose power.

[@JOALIDE]

All this to say that Germany never undertook the kind of large-scale collectivization as did the USSR where private property was fully abolished. Nazi Germany never prevented individual prosperity. Remember that industrialists such as Oskar Schindler were allowed to make a fortune. Something that was just impossible to achieve in USSR. This means that both collective property and private property can well fit in a dictatorial political regime. Both can lead to a dictatorial regime.

[@JOALIDE]

In the European tradition libertarianism is synonymous with anarchism. And the anarchists believe that individual well-being, prosperity, and social harmony are fostered by "as much liberty as possible" and "as little government as necessary" can be combined with collective property as in self-managed or cooperative companies.

[@JOALIDE]

"Well there was a full scale collectivization of jewish property in Germany and contribute most rights, but you often omit that." This collectivization struck only one portion of the German population not the whole population or the vast majority of the pop. as it was in the USSR. The upper and middle classes didn't mind obeying Hitler as long as this enabled them to make unlimited profits.

[@thegillotine09]

Friedman was dead less than a year when Klein came out with her smear campaign. Pretty friggin pathetic.

[@mrvendetta123]

I just want to mention that although his followers might have supported government intervention for corporation and rescues for the big ones. Milton Friedman himself did not agree with that notion since he strongly opposed lobbying, when corporations gain political privilege, and government bailouts. He strongly criticizes corporatism.

[@JohnAnonymous]

Milton Friedman: "While I was in Santiago, Chile, I gave a talk at the Catholic University of Chile. Now, I should explain that the University of Chicago had had an arrangement for years with the Catholic University of Chile, whereby they send students to us and we send people down there to help them reorganize their economics department. And I gave a talk at the Catholic University of Chile under the title “The Fragility of Freedom.” (cont)

[@nomore2001]

Does anyone know if Naomi Klein has ever responded to these refutations?

[@c0unt_WAVnstein]

@spader49 "You keep on saying no accountability, where did Friedman ever advocate that? Please educate me with your decades of studying. If someone 'screws over someone', there is punishment through the law." When Friedman said that, he expanded on it by saying that he meant you could sue people that fuck you over, not in the context of regulatory laws. So great, if you can afford a team of lawyers and can wait for years to drag a case through court, you can hold somone to account.

[@JOALIDE]

(Second part) Referring to British socialists he notably wrote (p.4): "many who think themselves infinitely superior to the aberrations of Nazism and sincerrely hate all its manifestations, work at the same time for ideals whose realisation would lead straight to the abhorred tyranny". You just forget one important aspect: in right-wing tyranny such as Nazi Germany, Pinochet's Chili, property rights were not abolished. Pinochet was even advised by American liberals inspired by Friedman.

[@1000101er]

"assumption that Klein intentionally "distorts" information is a bit unprofessional. " It's not an assumption. He says quite specifically why it is obvious that she is trying to distort the facts. She devotes much of the book to the Iraq war and implies again and again that Friedman, his followers, and their ideas were behind the war, when even the most superficial investigation would have revealed that he was quite openly opposed to it (and that his ideas are fundamentally pacifistic).

[@mrvendetta123]

I do not know if he was dishonest or if information asymmetries were a new theory that he did not know yet. What I can say, however, is that he did not always oppose government intervention. For example, he awarded Hernando de Soto with his prize for his research on property rights that would eliminate many information assymetries. He was not opposed to the FED's intervention to prevent the banking system from collapsing for which Austrian economists would criticize him.

[@whiff1962]

"interference in business.A free market can not survive with this type of gov. involvement" From the mouths of babes! Indeed, I fully agree that more govt. interference in the free market has meant the hobbling of the golden goose. The point is is that western society has evolved, and it is as good a time as ever to re-examine the role that govt. should play in the free-market. Look at American healthcare insurance as a good example of state incursions into a free-market! You want more govt!

[@rajasmasala]

2) He talks about people changing their minds freely, whereas in each of her examples including many past the '80s the people were against the free market reforms, and either because they believed their government was still left or because of dictatorially imposed fear/war/terror they were kept docile and were fleeced. Norberg is relying on the viewer having not read the book.

[@deldia]

@August1977 Where in the video does Norberg or Friedman deny that? Naomi Klein also uses the shock doctrine herself by that definition. You've completely missed the point. Norberg is being completely fair when he explains the context of Friedman's quote.

[@rajasmasala]

9) She shows in her book just what harm his theories caused in Russia, so his arg doesn't work there either. In China now, 70% of the capital is owned by 1% of the pop. Both these places are in a bad way, however he intended his theories to be implemented. Her point is that the international support for the implementation of these reforms is the colonial agenda of MNCs, and that aid is never forthcoming if free market reforms are not on the table, so it's a kind of extortion.

[@556deltawolf]

But that was caused by Pinochet's economic administration intervening in the Chilean economy by pegging the Chilean dollar to the US dollar. A decision which many free market economists including Milton Friedman himself criticized.

[@mrvendetta123]

Klein opposes, I believe the Chicago school of thought, and Friedman is the main advocate. Also, he is still one of the most influential economists. So, she may have tried to discourage people from reading or watching his work since he is a political opponent to her. Also, one reason I believe she defames him is that all of her followers heavily criticize Friedman as if he was the devil. I may be wrong, but I am not going to research her work because I do not read political work. I study economy

[@JOALIDE]

One last thing in this respect: the classical liberals began calling themselves libertarians only from the 1940s, whereas the anarchists had already done it from the 1850s.

[@JOALIDE]

"It says it in the preface... " He never wrote such a thing in his 1943 preface. He might have done it in later publications when he realized that collectivization had not led to tyranny. Whether you like it or not, Hayek argued in his book that countries such as the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany had already gone down the "road to serfdom", and that various democratic nations are being led down the same road, and notably Britain.

[@OneBigRetard]

Good for them. That's their purpose. Of course over paying their execs is not maximising profit. Thank you for proving my point.

[@MosquitoBite82]

You as a Swede should know what has happned to Thailand and to the sea gypsies (Klein writes about it). Swedes are used to go there swimming and make business. The free market in Thailand has turned out to be the beginning of a new apartheid. You should also know that the consequences that Klein writes about are facts. You want to dismiss all this because Freedman wrote a letter? What he did had consequences, and you should know that it is what you do that matters, not what you say.

[@rajasmasala]

7) Friedman's ideas translate to a movement towards democracy in Chile. From the start his Chicago Boys had been advising Pinochet on how to run his government. So... does democracy come, in the midst of a reign dedicated to the genocide of the left in a predominantly leftist nation? Pinochet reigns from 1973 to 1990. 8) She's saying that Friedman intended his theories to cause harm. No, she doesn't. Just that there are clearly big ethical problems involved in the implementation ofhis theories.

[@rajasmasala]

6) She claims Friedman was an advisor to Pinochet. No, she doesn't. There was a whole bunch of Friedman's students, whose education had been funded by American grants, who created and governed Pinochet's gov and that's what she says. And also that at one point Friedman even visits the nation Straw man.

[@deldia]

@August1977 Rather than claim this interview contains fallacies how about you actually quote one you claim is?

[@EmilyGloeggler7984]

I would dearly love to hear Mr. Norberg's thoughts on Noam Chomsky and other anarchist writers and supporters. As he is a former anarchist and supporter, he has the experience to go into detail on why the ideology, ultimately, does not help society overall for always.

[@dewjameskatz]

Further more, on most of the things Norberg says, I don't have to rely on his words. I read enough of Milton Friedman's to know for a fact that Klein misquotes him and misrepresent his views, and doing that in a rather shameful way.

[@Megabyxos]

@rickbar123 I can't find a World Bank statistic on overall economic freedom, could you provide a link please? Also, I know a shitload of countries that aren't open or severely limit outside investment and trading. Chile's government has certainly been left of center since 1990, but they also kept most of their free market principles in place. They have very low tariffs, low corporate tax rates, strong property rights, high labor freedom, and are EXTREMELY accommodating to foreign investment.

[@JOALIDE]

"Its not the total elimination of property rights that will only lead to a totalitarian regime its the weakening of individual rights by the state that leads to a loss of individual liberties". This somewhat contradicts what you wrote below: "the Locke Hayekian thesis that property rights are the foundation of individual liberties". There is contradiction in that the abolition of property rights should therefore be the main responsible for the loss of individual liberties.

[@renebarendse2864]

The odd thing about this whole discussion and the comments is that neither Norberg nor Klein appear to grasp what Friedman actually wanted: Friedman was then the chief proponent of monetarism: that is that the government can steer the economy by the amount of money it prints. That policy was tried during Thatcher's first period in office and had to abandoned in 1984 since nobody knew exactly what money was and montarism was then completely forgotten again.

[@JOALIDE]

But a collectively or socialistically owned and ruled organization of whatever form does not systematically reject democracy, individual rights and liberties. This is even absolutely the reverse as far the cooperative companies are concerned. The workers who owned those companies, elect their own managers and are allowed to express themselves freely and to leave their company whenever they wish. This just means that socialism and libertarianism are no contradictory principles.

[@556deltawolf]

The man who saved the Chilean economy was a guy called Hernan Buchi who served as Pinochet's minister of finance in the 1980s How did he do it? By introducing Friedman free market reforms! And many of those free market reforms came from Friedman.

[@JOALIDE]

"There is a big difference between the state being the guarantor of rights and anarchists who think that they state should be abolished and collective action should guarantee rights. There is a big difference between protecting individual rights through the collective, which is an anarchist point of view. Versus protecting individual rights from the collective, and from others through the state, which is a liberal libertarian point of view." there is a difference indeed but not a major one.

[@HerrDrAlex]

Naomi using 9/11 for herself -- shame Naomi.

[@danthemango]

I do like that there is at least something against Klein, because I always felt there was a bit of a slant in the book (I'm only halfway). I still am very suspicious of the IMF and I do believe that rapid privatization never occurs in a democracy.

[@JOALIDE]

(second part) First because self-managed and cooperative companies do not restrict individual rights and liberties which are actually (whether you like it or not) even greater than in traditional capitalist and plutocratic companies - at least for the salaried employees. Second, because the post ww II nationalized industries and services have never turned western democracies such as Britain and France into totalitarian countries.

[@mrvendetta123]

It is true that economists are influenced by politics, but, in my opinion, pure politics does not get the support of empirical evidence and concrete analysis as does economics. Great economists try to be open minded, cold, and unbiased. I see it as the profession of judges; yes many times they are possessed by emotions, but good judges have to try to remain unbiased. Old economics is heavily influenced by ideology because there was not the same amount of research there is now.

[@556deltawolf]

And I find that an oxymoron because first of all, fascists hated liberalism and free market capitalism. As much as radical leftists love to deny it, fascism at it's core, is and has always been, a radical centrist ideology leaning towards the left. And i find your using of Argentina humorous because Argentina has been run by Peronists (an Argentinean center left philosophy) since the late 1940's.

[@C_R_O_M________]

Fascism is actually a radical left ideology. Mussolini and Gentile were Marxists to the core before adhering to nationalistic collective ideas for their own political reasons.

[@Shemywinks]

...and when he's featured in another video where he presents tangible evidence to back up his claims as opposed to the sheer conjecture and intellectual dishonesty exhibited in this one, I might take him more seriously.

[@Shemywinks]

So let's talk about fairness; would you say that say, AT&T's CEO is in anyway deserving of his colossal pay cheque based on what his work actually means to the company?

[@JOALIDE]

An organization which is collectively owned and in which everything is collectively decided on, is just a democratic organization. Contrary to your assertion, this kind of democratic organization increases the individual rights and liberties of the workers if compared to their counterparts working in traditional capitalist and plutocratic companies.

[@Shemywinks]

How to instigate wage regulations? Why the same way the 8 hour work day,minimum wage, and laws safeguarding workers health in their places of work were implemented. Laissez faire has worked well enough for Somalia that we should obviously adopt the model and do away with regulation. The 8 hour work day? Regulation. The fact that you trust not to find toxic sludge in your tap water? Regulation.I've further discussed the topic with another person here,I urge you to read that exchange.

[@befr33]

The problem with the book is that it is 500 pages long... WAIT FOR IT -- without proving her points...

[@vulvatronic]

Third, economic growth is not only due to econnomics, but also science. And there was no acute poverty in USSR after Stalins regime. Fourth, not everybody in china are these "slaves". Don´t you understand how much people there are in this country? There´s already a great number uf rich, upper middleclass and middelclass people, and the number is growing. The workers are not the ones who buy; they produce.

[@soapbxprod]

Allende stood with Castro on the balcony sporting his gift of an AK-47. Come on. 17 horrific years? LOL. Compared with 50 years of Castro in Cuba? Look at Chile now. Most prosperous nation in South America. And Pinochet stepped down, didn't he?

[@ahabthewhaler]

the concept of free markets was brought up by adam smith, and based on the idea of a utopian society where people would naturally look after the poor and feeble (and that the market would be guided by an invisible hand). and this dream about putting my money in "prudent banks" i dont know if you follow anything at all but even a prudent bank is affected by the economy crashing, not just the institutions involved in shoddy loans and credit

[@rohanberrywriter]

@abbadabbadolittle (1 of 3) First of all Naomi Klein lack of affiliation does not mean that she is above the flaws of agenda-led research. Every work of research contains a bias and I'd say Klein's is as pronounced, if not more so, than Norberg's. Secondly Norberg is a commentator on Friedman's work and has a strong knowledge base in Friedman's libertarian writing, something that places him in a strong position to scrutinise Klein's knowledge deficiencies regarding Friedman.

[@jasraboin]

You got it. That's what's going on in the US right now.

[@Shemywinks]

Firstly,I'd like to avoid creating a false dichotomy between agriculture and industry as if they were mutually exclusive, Having said that,one of the coercive tactics corporations use is to set up factories in impoverished countries, pay meager salaries and use the threat of picking up and leaving if and when the workers decide to organize or demand better conditions. It would be great if tilling the land were still an option what with the inhibiting start up cost that would entail. Are they...

[@samm1809]

@Mickmars90 klein= left wing sarah palin.

[@0zoneTherapyCures]

"To allow the market mechanism to be the sole director of the fate of human beings and their natural environment…would result in the demolition of society.” ~ Karl Polanyi, 1944 “In 1945 or 1950 if you had seriously proposed any of the ideas and policies in today’s standard neoliberal toolkit, you would have been laughed off the stage or sent off to the insane asylum.” ~ Susan George, political scientist Do not confuse the economic - oikos nomia - the norms of running home and community with chrematistics - krema atos - the accumulation of money. ~ Aristotle

[@Shemywinks]

Yup, and the endless cycle of CEO reshuffles where they transition from company to company, leeching undeserved multi-million dollar bonuses from each stop is a show of the shareholder's handling of the situation. If that was your point, you're welcome, I suppose. The reason the shareholders don't care is because even after the ludicrous pay offs, they're still making absurd amounts of money not in spite of their companies attempts to circumnavigate regulations and labor laws but because of it.

[@symbian7]

Wrong, we've seen the collusion of business and state... Corporatism. Milton Friedman was also speaking out against Fractional reserve banking, which is the root of the problem.

[@Shemywinks]

Obviously since I made the distinction in my posts,I'm well aware of the difference between Laissez Faire and crony capitalism as implemented economic policy. Glass-Stegall had specific regulatory provisions over speculation. It was structured regulation. It was the intention of government policies to house people. The private sector benefited through tax incentives speculators benefited through driving prices up and "flipping" real estate and the lenders benefited by...

[@culturaypasion]

Oh dear... hardly a Johan Norberg vs. Naomi Klein debate. This was a Norberg's Monologue Against Naomi Klein. Do do do call it for what it is. Most of his points are not of much substance and easily disprovable... but then, people tune into channels just for gratification... "oh look... I think the right things!!" Dear dear.

[@kpss4681]

She is making the case for why you shouldn't reform to neoliberal policies. And why austerity doesn't work. Neoliberalism doesn't work.

[@Godzilla52]

It actualyl works very well. That's the problem with Kleins book, she ignores facts an attacks a viable system by misrepresenting it.

[@matrixman8582]

Keynesianism dosen't work

[@ssoko]

Hopefully, an economist who lives in the so-called "free market" is against the idea that capitalism grows, "eating up" all around ... But suffering is a reality that we are outside Europe and USA. Interesting that the translation of the letters USA In Spanish, can be interpreted as: using ...

[@rajasmasala]

my no. 6 pt. should read "who created and governed Piochet's economy" which enriched him greatly and caused great inequality, leading to a 30% unemployment rate at one point. The notion of free market economists profiting from the rapes she talks about is also false.

[@AtlasFullsun]

Neomi Klein is just a wannabe pseudo-intellectual making money off sensational fads. Friedman debated with countless fierce opponents and did so in a very open honest fashion. He even had the courage to invite them to debate him on his own show.

[@JOALIDE]

Sorry I meant "salaried employees" not "salaried employers"

[@vulvatronic]

And what if the corruption is an inherent charasteristic of an neoliberal economy just as low prosuction and lack of quality of products was inherent to socialist/communist economies?

[@JOALIDE]

Both liberal libertarians and libertarian socialists share one major view: the state is or can be a major hindrance to individual rights and liberties.

[@vulvatronic]

But it is not impossible to see the chinese model being implemented in the future in places where you wouldn´t expect. It is hard to compete with just salaries against products made by slavelabour. One should think, what this equation implies and has already implied: China is the most efficient and largest economy in the world. And that implies political power.

[@JOALIDE]

Allende nationalized certain large-scale industries and led a policy of land distribution. So he didn't really abolish private property. Pinochet's economic policy means that private property and economic liberalism can be adapted to a dictorial political regime. In other words, your libertarian utopia could be well implemented in a dictatorial political regime or could lead to a political dictatorship in the name of the protection individual liberties.

[@vulvatronic]

If there was freedom for each hunter to hunt as much as one wants to, there would be soon no game animals left. It´s the same with international law: if international economical community allows dictatorship that prohibits for instance labor unions, that implies, that a portion of people become a kinds of "GAME ANIMALs"; they will loose their rights one by one,eventually finding themselves in slavery. Evev In the west we can see these dynamics already at work...