Leftist Shock Doctrine

[Toro]

Naomi Klein wrote a book (riddled with simple errors) arguing that right-wing politicians not only exploit but some times welcome wars and catastrophes - think Iraq and Katrina - to impose suposedly unpopular policies on an unsuspecting population entitled [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Shock-Doctrine-Rise-Disaster-Capitalism/dp/0676978010/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1237118673&sr=8-1]"The Shock Doctrine."[/ame]


It should be noted that certain American politicians have recently been wanting to exploit the financial crisis to advance an agenda, but they are not on the right.

01:05 - SHOCKS WITH ANOTHER DOCTRINE:

This just keeps getting better and better. I guess you´re familiar with the context by now: Naomi Klein claimed that free marketeers are so vicious that they welcome crises because it gives them the opportunity to do things they couldn´t do before. And since then, we´ve seen this tactic being explicitly embraced - by leftist, big government politicians:

We heard it from Obama´s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel:

"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste."

And from vice president Joe Biden:

"Opportunity presents itself in the middle of a crisis"

And here´s the latest example: on March 6th 2009, Hillary Clinton expressed the same attitude at the European Parliament:

"Never waste a good crisis."

I am still wondering why Klein hasn´t condemned them. Perhaps Klein was just opposed to the doctrine, and not the shocks?

JohanNorberg.Net

Just for the record.

 

[Diuretic]

Come on Toro, no mainstream American politician is going to do anything other than support and defend capitalism. The right wing Democratic Party may whimper about better regulation (pussies) but they are not going to try and do anything other than timidly try to bolster regulation. They will be frightened off from that task and they will pretend to institute reform.

The GOP is irrelevant because they're still trying to work out if they should appeal to the supporters of God or Mammon so they're out of the picture.

The GOP are not in government, they're not capable even of giving a policy position, they're in complete disarray. Bobby Jindal anyone? The Democratic Party is saving capitalism by default.

Capitalism, as you know, has built within it the boom/bust cycle and occasionally the big one (is Kondratiev still acknowledged or has he been pooh-poohed?) will come along as it has now. But the Dems aren't socialists, much to the disappointment of those who froth at the mouth when they hit the keys, so capitalism will be healed this time around.

 

[editec]

I note there were thousands and thousands of earmarked projects going to a whole lot of states run by Republicans.

Who is exploiting this crises, again?

Everybody in a position to do so, obviously.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Naomi Klein wrote a book (riddled with simple errors) arguing that right-wing politicians not only exploit but some times welcome wars and catastrophes - think Iraq and Katrina - to impose suposedly unpopular policies on an unsuspecting population entitled "The Shock Doctrine."


It should be noted that certain American politicians have recently been wanting to exploit the financial crisis to advance an agenda, but they are not on the right.

01:05 - SHOCKS WITH ANOTHER DOCTRINE:

This just keeps getting better and better. I guess you´re familiar with the context by now: Naomi Klein claimed that free marketeers are so vicious that they welcome crises because it gives them the opportunity to do things they couldn´t do before. And since then, we´ve seen this tactic being explicitly embraced - by leftist, big government politicians:

We heard it from Obama´s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel:

"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste."

And from vice president Joe Biden:

"Opportunity presents itself in the middle of a crisis"

And here´s the latest example: on March 6th 2009, Hillary Clinton expressed the same attitude at the European Parliament:

"Never waste a good crisis."

I am still wondering why Klein hasn´t condemned them. Perhaps Klein was just opposed to the doctrine, and not the shocks?

JohanNorberg.Net

Just for the record.

You know, frequently I've considered the thrust of your posts to be an attempt to validate the left. Now I have to reconsider, and perhaps find that you are closer to the center than I am.

BTW, that is meant as a compliment. No bull.

 

[DavidS]

You know, frequently I've considered the thrust of your posts to be an attempt to validate the left. Now I have to reconsider, and perhaps find that you are closer to the center than I am.

BTW, that is meant as a compliment. No bull.

Center?? You're about as big of a centrist as RGS!

 

[PoliticalChic]

You know, frequently I've considered the thrust of your posts to be an attempt to validate the left. Now I have to reconsider, and perhaps find that you are closer to the center than I am.

BTW, that is meant as a compliment. No bull.

Center?? You're about as big of a centrist as RGS!

My poor dribbling friend. I did not say that I was a centrist. When ever a label is necessary I have always claimed to be a proud Conservative.

Yesterday I suggested that the Chocolate Soldier Ray have his attendant read and interpret my posts for him. If he has the time he might do the same for you.

Let's review: I stated that, contrary to my previous opinion re: the big bull, I now see him as more centrist than I usually am. Get it?

You see, usually my posts are rebuttal of those of the left-wing losers on the board, so I am forced into what seems a more right-wing stance.

You're welcome.

 

[Toro]

Come on Toro, no mainstream American politician is going to do anything other than support and defend capitalism. The right wing Democratic Party may whimper about better regulation (pussies) but they are not going to try and do anything other than timidly try to bolster regulation. They will be frightened off from that task and they will pretend to institute reform.

The GOP is irrelevant because they're still trying to work out if they should appeal to the supporters of God or Mammon so they're out of the picture.

The GOP are not in government, they're not capable even of giving a policy position, they're in complete disarray. Bobby Jindal anyone? The Democratic Party is saving capitalism by default.

Capitalism, as you know, has built within it the boom/bust cycle and occasionally the big one (is Kondratiev still acknowledged or has he been pooh-poohed?) will come along as it has now. But the Dems aren't socialists, much to the disappointment of those who froth at the mouth when they hit the keys, so capitalism will be healed this time around.

Generally, the right wants less government interference in the economy whereas the left wants more. Regardless of whether the Democrats are "right" on some global political spectrum - they are "left" on the American political spectrum - the policy responses to the financial crisis of the Democrat party is for more government involvement in the economy, not less.

 

[auditor0007]

I have never bought into the idea that Democrats are Socialists or that they want to be Socialists. However, their belief that government can do more for society than society can do for itself is leading to larger and larger government. At the same time, Republicans of late have been a part of this thinking as evidenced by the expansion of government under Bush. Now we see the Dems pushing for even more government involvement.

What we must now ask ourselves is how much do we want the governement to grow? Since the 1960's, federal government spending has totaled approximately 20% of GDP, give or take a few points up or down. All of a sudden, this spending is jumping to nearly 26% of GDP and may well be headed to 30%. To make matters worse, spending for SS, Medicare, and Medicaid has built in increases that cannot be changed without revamping those programs completely. At the current rate, government spending on these entitlement programs alone will increase government spending to 40% of GDP by around 2075. If we increase current spending from 20% to 30%, that would push government spending to over 50% by 2075, and this is with the assumption that we actually pay for some of this and don't continue borrowing to pay for it all.

Now, to make matters even worse, healthcare spending continues to rise. Currently, we spend nearly 17% of GDP on healthcare. However, there are estimates that at the current rate of growth, healthcare spending will increase to over 45% of GDP itself by 2080. Ezra Klein: Health Economics Archives

The bottom line is that we are faced with a situation where we must make some drastic changes. First of all, healthcare spending must be brought under control. Even if we control the spending, healthcare costs will still increase due to our aging population. The question is by how much do we allow that spending to increase. Secondly, borrowing by the federal government has to stop, as the cost to service that debt will begin growing exponentially if we don't. This means we will be facing higher taxation, whether we like it or not. There is no scenario in which we will be able to continue paying lower taxes over the long term. And the sooner we understand this, the less it will cost us in the long run.

The solution is to revamp SS, Medicare, and Medicaid, and to revamp our entire healthcare system where costs will be somewhat contained. Secondlly, discretionary spending must be cut where possible. Cuts in discretionary spending will be minimal as it's just not that big a part of the budget. Delaying payments for SS and Medicare until age 70 would be a big step in the right direction to help reduce some of the increases being faced for those programs. Last of all, taxes must be increased to the point that this can be paid for as we go, and so that the debt is eventually reduced as a percentage of GDP. That is the absolute most important part of the solution. If the debt continues to grow, the interest on that debt will eventually cost us more than all federal programs combined. In other words, it will bankrupt us.

 

[garyd]

To be sure the American left is only as far left as they can go and still win elections. That doesn't mean they wouldn't prefer to go much further left only that those in power are realists enough to understand that you can steer the ship of state unless you have your hands on the wheel. And if they tried to move as far left as the radicals in thier own party desire they'd soon find they have no power and not near the majority they thought. It remains ionteresting and instructive to note that Obama's Democratic congress is held in far lower public esteem than is currently Obama himself.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I note there were thousands and thousands of earmarked projects going to a whole lot of states run by Republicans.

Who is exploiting this crises, again?

Everybody in a position to do so, obviously.

Right. Because everyone knows that the federal budget is written by state governors.

 

[DiveCon]

Come on Toro, no mainstream American politician is going to do anything other than support and defend capitalism. The right wing Democratic Party may whimper about better regulation (pussies) but they are not going to try and do anything other than timidly try to bolster regulation. They will be frightened off from that task and they will pretend to institute reform.

The GOP is irrelevant because they're still trying to work out if they should appeal to the supporters of God or Mammon so they're out of the picture.

The GOP are not in government, they're not capable even of giving a policy position, they're in complete disarray. Bobby Jindal anyone? The Democratic Party is saving capitalism by default.

Capitalism, as you know, has built within it the boom/bust cycle and occasionally the big one (is Kondratiev still acknowledged or has he been pooh-poohed?) will come along as it has now. But the Dems aren't socialists, much to the disappointment of those who froth at the mouth when they hit the keys, so capitalism will be healed this time around.

Generally, the right wants less government interference in the economy whereas the left wants more. Regardless of whether the Democrats are "right" on some global political spectrum - they are "left" on the American political spectrum - the policy responses to the financial crisis of the Democrat party is for more government involvement in the economy, not less.

careful, they'll be calling you a "bushie"

 

[xsited1]

Never waste a good crisis, Clinton says on climate | Reuters

“Never let a serious crisis go to waste.” - Rahm Emanuel at WmWms

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Capitalism, as you know, has built within it the boom/bust cycle and occasionally the big one (is Kondratiev still acknowledged or has he been pooh-poohed?) will come along as it has now. But the Dems aren't socialists, much to the disappointment of those who froth at the mouth when they hit the keys, so capitalism will be healed this time around.

Well sure... It can't truly be said that Democrats are "Socialist" because "Socialism" is a an ethereal secret code which can only be defined by the high-holies of social science, whose depth of understanding is well beyond that of the average human to even comprehend...

ROFLMNAO... Yeah...

Socialism isn't just the advocacy of the false rights of the collective over the inalienable rights of the individual... NO NO! It's a complex economic system which seeks to control the innumerable variables which Capitalism leaves to fate...

And sure... Capitalism cycles around a balance in stark contrast to the rest of nature... where perfection is constant everywhere capitalism is rejected.

LOL... Leftists...

While capitalism constantly cycles from boom to bust, Socialism seeks to solve this problem by maintaining a constant state of BUST.

 

[rayboyusmc]

That doesn't mean they wouldn't prefer to go much further left

Nor does it prove they would. A nice sound bite, but not really that informative.

The left majority, not the extremes just like your extremes, aren't that much different from your majority. Both of US cluster around the center two standard deviations. Unfortunately, the screamers and shouters tend to get too much attention. Lefties also love this country and enough have died to prove that.

I guess some people will never understand how someone else can legitimately view the world and our nation differently than they do themself and still have a right to their opinion.

Using a crisis is not evil in itself. It depends on what you use it for. The comparison lacked real substance.

Were there as many small errors in her book as there were in Ann Coulter's?

 

[Cecilie1200]

That doesn't mean they wouldn't prefer to go much further left

Nor does it prove they would. A nice sound bite, but not really that informative.

The left majority, not the extremes just like your extremes, aren't that much different from your majority. Both of US cluster around the center two standard deviations. Unfortunately, the screamers and shouters tend to get too much attention. Lefties also love this country and enough have died to prove that.

I guess some people will never understand how someone else can legitimately view the world and our nation differently than they do themself and still have a right to their opinion.

Using a crisis is not evil in itself. It depends on what you use it for. The comparison lacked real substance.

Were there as many small errors in her book as there were in Ann Coulter's?

Listening to liberals, particularly when they think no one can hear them, tells you that they want to go a lot farther left than they are currently able to.

You're right about some people never understanding how someone can legitimately disagree with them. Unfortunatey for your delusion, I've never personally encountered one who wasn't a liberal. As we keep saying, conservatives just think liberals are stupid and misled. Liberals insist on believing that conservatives are evil.

As for her book, I'd say the really big error of its premise eliminates the need to compare. And I sincerely doubt you've ever read any of Coulter's work, let alone know anything about any errors therein.

 

[Red Dawn]

the difference rightwing ideology is discredited. Deregulation, NAFTA, and privitizing social security isn't popular and never was.

spending on infrastructure, education, and medicaid has a real constituency. Most people like that shit.

 

[Alpha1]

Naomi Klein wrote a book (riddled with simple errors) arguing that right-wing politicians not only exploit but some times welcome wars and catastrophes - think Iraq and Katrina - to impose suposedly unpopular policies on an unsuspecting population entitled "The Shock Doctrine."


It should be noted that certain American politicians have recently been wanting to exploit the financial crisis to advance an agenda, but they are not on the right.

01:05 - SHOCKS WITH ANOTHER DOCTRINE:

This just keeps getting better and better. I guess you´re familiar with the context by now: Naomi Klein claimed that free marketeers are so vicious that they welcome crises because it gives them the opportunity to do things they couldn´t do before. And since then, we´ve seen this tactic being explicitly embraced - by leftist, big government politicians:

We heard it from Obama´s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel:

"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste."

And from vice president Joe Biden:

"Opportunity presents itself in the middle of a crisis"

And here´s the latest example: on March 6th 2009, Hillary Clinton expressed the same attitude at the European Parliament:

"Never waste a good crisis."

I am still wondering why Klein hasn´t condemned them. Perhaps Klein was just opposed to the doctrine, and not the shocks?

JohanNorberg.Net

Just for the record.

You're wondering....? really ? Naomi Klein is a leftwing Democratic bootlicker...its as simple as that...you'll get no "fairness" or "journalistic integrity" from her...

 

[DiveCon]

the difference rightwing ideology is discredited. Deregulation, NAFTA, and privitizing social security isn't popular and never was.

spending on infrastructure, education, and medicaid has a real constituency. Most people like that shit.

ROFLMAO
thanks for the laugh

keep showing how totally partisan and moronic you can be

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

That doesn't mean they wouldn't prefer to go much further left

Nor does it prove they would. A nice sound bite, but not really that informative.

The left majority, not the extremes just like your extremes, aren't that much different from your majority. Both of US cluster around the center two standard deviations. Unfortunately, the screamers and shouters tend to get too much attention. Lefties also love this country and enough have died to prove that.

I guess some people will never understand how someone else can legitimately view the world and our nation differently than they do themself and still have a right to their opinion.

Using a crisis is not evil in itself. It depends on what you use it for. The comparison lacked real substance.

Were there as many small errors in her book as there were in Ann Coulter's?

First, there is no leftist majority... there is only a small pocket of leftists who through any number of fallacious appeals, drag along a fair volume of addle-minded apoliticals, AKA: The coveted CENTRISTS, that couldn't defend a DAMNED THING they parrot, if their very lives depended upon it. Their and YOUR ENTIRE IDEOLOGICAL FOUNDATION AMOUNTS TO LITTLE MORE THAN A LITANY OF PLATITUDES AND CLICHES... and when you find yourself at a depth which requires the slightest means to understand what it is that you're talking about, You're absolutely HELPLESS...

Let's just use YOU as an example Pogue...

Now you claim that 'leftists also love this country'... Explain to me what 'this country' is and the basis of the love you idiots are therein proclaiming...

What's SPECIFIC FOUNDING PRINCIPLE do you, as a screaching leftist, LOVE?

Now when you vomit some absurdity, which will in NO WAY be A- a founding principle of this country and/or B- a principle which IN ANY WAY adheres to or otherwise jibes with Leftism... you can consider that your DEFAULT CONCESSION THAT YOU CANNOT, IN FACT, SUPPORT A DAMNED THING YA SAY.

Now feel free to prove me wrong Pogue... show me a SINGLE FOUNDING PRINCIPLE WHICH YOU AND THE LEFT WOULD BE CONSISTENT TO PROCLAIM YOUR LOYALTY AND DEVOTION.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

the difference rightwing ideology is discredited. Deregulation, NAFTA, and privitizing social security isn't popular and never was.

spending on infrastructure, education, and medicaid has a real constituency. Most people like that shit.

Man you can't make this crap UP!

ROFLMNAO.... The Americans are discredited because deregulation, a principle on which America was founded... NAFTA which was passed by a MASSIVE Bi-PARTISAN VOTE OF THE LEGISLATURE and of course, the advocacy for Americans to own their own SS accounts... another decidedly American position... but ALL of this rests upon the POPULARITY of bed-rock principle...

Understand what the genius is saying here... VALID PRINCIPLE IS DISCREDITED WHEN IT FAILS TO FIND A POPULAR MAJORITY.

You couldn't PAY these idiots to say this kind of stupid crap... if you tried, they'd screw it up; but on their OWN, they absolutely HUMILIATE THEMSELVES TO UTTER PERFECTION.