My Unrequited Love for the Business Press

On a recent visit to Calgary, Alberta, I was taken aback to see my book on disaster capitalism selling briskly at the airport. Calgary is ground zero of North America's oil and gas boom, where business suits and cowboy hats are the de facto uniform. I had a sudden sinking feeling: did Calgary's business class think The Shock Doctrine was a how-to guide -- a manual for making millions from catastrophe? Were they hoping for tips on landing no-bid contracts if the U.S. bombs Iran?

When I get worried about inadvertently fueling the disaster complex, I take comfort in the response the book has elicited from the world's leading business journalists. That's where I learn that the very notion of disaster capitalism is my delusion -- or, as Otto Reich, former adviser to President George Bush, told BBC Business Daily, it is the work "of a very confused person."

Many publications have seen fit to assign business journalists to review the book. And why not? They are the experts. Unabashed fans of the late free-market evangeliser Milton Friedman, these are our primary purveyors of the idea that ballooning corporate profits are on the verge of trickling down to the citizens of the world in the form of freedom and democracy. So in the Times, for instance, the book was reviewed by Robert Cole, who writes the paper's personal investor column and is author of the volume Getting Started in Unit and Investment Trusts (Chapter 7 -- Taxing Questions: Pepping up Your Prospects). Cole was none too pepped by The Shock Doctrine, which disappointed him as "too easy to dismiss as a leftist rant." In The New York Times, the task of explaining why "it's all a grand capitalist conspiracy" fell to Tom Redburn, author of its Economic View column. "That's a lot to lay on poor Milton," Redburn sniffed.

No one took it quite as hard as Terence Corcoran, the business editor of Canada's National Post. Disaster capitalism is apparently my "fevered creation." And how could I have said those things about Friedman, a man Corcoran has described as "the last great lion of free market economics"? In the Financial Times, the unbiased dissection was carried out by John Willman, the paper's UK business editor (who, on the side, advocates shifting healthcare costs to families in Britain and tuition increases in Scotland). Willman declared the book "a polemic" and warned "impressionable readers" not to be fooled by my 60 pages of endnotes. While Cole claims I rely on "partisan contributions from the cuttings library," Willman accuses me of a far greater crime: relying on cuttings from the FT. "She quotes the Financial Times when it suits her, for example, but not when it would be inconvenient."

It's true. I do, in fact, quote the FT when it suits me. In The Shock Doctrine, I cite the paper 26 times. And this is what hurts most about the attacks from the world's business editors: even as they find new ways to dismiss me, I remain a devoted reader of their pages. Sure, financial editors have to do PR for capitalism. Their reporters, however, have a crucial market role. Investors require reliable information, and it's their job to supply it. Without this honest reporting, I would never have understood how economic shock therapy programmes relied on external disasters -- the very disaster capitalism I now learn, from these same pages, does not exist.

It was from the FT that I learned of the so-called Davos Dilemma. Columnist Martin Wolf describes it as "the contrast between the world's favourable economics and troublesome politics." He explains that, in recent years, the economy has faced "a series of shocks" -- from the dotcom crash to September 11 to chaos in the Middle East. And yet the market is in "a golden period of broadly shared growth."

A great deal of light is shed on the Davos Dilemma by the FT. For instance, it reported that Lockheed Martin -- the biggest single winner from the economy of disaster -- has begun "buying companies in the $1,000bn-a-year healthcare market". It's just one glimpse into the exploding economy of privatised disaster, with Lockheed poised to profit not only from making weapons but also from treating the people injured by them -- a new era of morbid vertical integration.

The FT has long explored how politicians harness disasters to push through unwanted economic policies. In 1998, for instance, the FT published an article by Jeffrey Sachs outlining how the IMF took South Korea's democracy hostage, withholding a desperately needed loan until all presidential candidates committed in writing to a harsh austerity plan. Some months later, Hurricane Mitch swept Central America. I learned from the FT that, with countries still knee-deep in rubble, foreign lenders were demanding privatisations.

In the first months after the U.S. "shock and awe" attack on Iraq, the FT reported on U.S. envoy Paul Bremer's shock therapy programme. The paper stated his decrees "make Iraq one of the most open economies in the developing world and go beyond even legislation in many rich countries." It's a concise summary that I often draw upon.

But now, after all these years of fruitful (if one-way) collaboration, the FT calls my thesis "ultimately dishonest." Stinging as this may be, I stand behind the honesty of the FT's reporting, which has been so very helpful in the evolution of my world view.

I wish disaster capitalism were a product of my fevered imagination. I have recently, however, come across more evidence to support its existence. It comes from Paul B Farrell, author of publishing sensations such as The Millionaire Code and The Lazy Person's Guide to Investing. "Hot tip: Invest in 'disaster capitalism'," begins his review in Dow Jones Business News. Farrell acknowledges that an economy built on disaster "is a hot-button political issue. But for the moment, let's put aside partisan politics ... Let's look at this strictly as investors and briefly consider what may also be a guide for aggressive investors." Many unmentionable stock tips follow.

It is just as I had feared -- The Shock Doctrine as a how-to-guide. At the end, however, Farrell shows some misgivings. "Is 'Disaster Capitalism' merely a hot short-term investment opportunity for you? Or is it a national 'crisis,' a warning bell, a 'shocking' call to ... rein in the 'military-industrial complex' mindset that's pushing America into a disastrous, self-destructive future?"

Moral confusion in the business pages? Where am I supposed to get my news now?

Comments

[dontvote]

Hooray! After reading your book and Norman Solomon's War Made Easy I was struck by what a sham the US is. It does no good to vote. The US will always be at war. The media, owned by the same corporatists, will always support it at first and after two or more years "discover" the lies--too late for us confused stooges who provide the money. We have only one power in this corporatist dictatorship since votes will not stop war. If no one votes the US will disappear. The states are certainly big enough. Without the US the world might have a chance for peace. Voting means nothing except a sign that the myth of democracy lives.

[rijomi]

When are people going to figure out that all the tensions in the Middle East is a geopolitical ploy to keep the price of oil up and uncountable profits? Kasparov speculates that this is Putin's ploy for Russia so what makes you think it isn't the ploy of oilman Bush and Cheney and their neocons?

[spicegal]

Naomi,

I just received my copy of your book from Amazon, and am looking forward to reading it. I have, however, seen a number of your inteviews, and found them incredibly enlightening. Ever since Bush came to power, it feels like my country (USA) has literally been turned upside down and totally off course. I truly felt like wasliving in a parallel universe where nothing this administration did made much sense, unless their goal was to pretty much destroy the country (or its govt). You basically connected the dots and supplied the framework, which truly makes sense of what's been going on, and it's not pretty. We're building one huge global corporatocracy in which the average human being matters little. I only hope people will make up in time to stop this avalanche. I fear it may be too late already.

[mpgarr]

What else would you expect from a class of "journalists" who make a very good living defending the "system."
I am not surprised that they are conducting a form of "swiftboating" against you Ms. Klein. They have to discredit the message and the messenger.
I do think you have most certainly developed a new and clear manner of looking at the modus operandi of the business cabal.

[Uselessboy]

Sorry to bring you bad news Naomi but all the serious prophets of the dark side of capitalism are turned into cook books.

We're certainly living F451, 1984 and Animal Farm in many disturbing ways. Your book is probably a good bet to be the future nightmare of today's teen generation.

Ultimately I think these guys are steering us for "Ozymandias."

[DouginCT]

Naomi,

You've been a clear and urgent communicator on the moral line we have been crossing with our push for unbridled, ammoral capitalsim, and I appreciate every hour of research and dedication. Your work is so clearly on point to anyone not burdoned by fantasy or iron-clad ideology. Thank you so much.

[casin]

Naomi,
Obviously, your appreciation for the business press is well understood to be their place in research and reporting. Without that, where would we be? Keeping the cash under the mattresses, probably... On the other hand opinion is the same in all media: everyone has one. The problems arises when opinion is taken as fact and there is where they can't touch you. Your opinions make more sense than theirs at every turn. Your logic is clearer. Your diction and easy expression easier to understand by even the ones with the shortest attention span, like me. They might become defensive when they realize that their convoluted crap is impossible to digest even in their clearest day.... I say: keep it up Naomi! They'll go nuts for a while and then they'll just go back to their place in the dark corners of their masters's basements..... By the way, you would do great opposite to Cusack in a movie depicting your thesis!

[elion10]

MS Klein,

Your description of disaster capitalism, and the reaction of your critics reminds me of the story of the female author of "Silent Spring."

Her observations of the dangers to our environment and our world by unregulated chemical companies only became a threat when it was paired with her expression of love for nature- and her chilling description of what the world would be like if we didn't do something..

At first the chemical companies laughed her off.. but her single voice, and the truth she spoke struck a cord somewhere deep in the American soul.

First her critics called her crazy- then they called her dangerous..

Looks like you are on your way to dangerous.

[Kimberlie]

I'm amazed, elion10, by your remarks. Here's why;
I was reading Klein's brilliant book before bed last night and dreamed about it in the most chilling way.

Before bed my husband and I had been discussing Pelosi taking impeachment 'off the table'. Without consequences for breaking the law, why should anyone obey? We should be governed by laws, not an individual’s decision to uphold one law here but not there.

Failure to uphold the constitution and the law could be interpreted as treason, and punishable in and of itself.

Taking it a step further, you could argue that any elected official who fails to uphold the constitution, who has gone along with blatant violations of the law and constitution, like the so-called “patriot act” should face criminal charges. We speculated about the effect of imprisoning any elected official who has failed to uphold the constitution as a deterrent. It certainly would clean house.

So I dreamed about this and in the dream was working to organize just such a ‘house-cleaning’, and ‘senate-cleaning’. In the dream I was careful not to write anything down, and to organize cautiously, meeting in crowded noisy public places. But America was turning into Argentina. In the dream I ended up on a beach where activists had been tortured, murdered and dumped in the water. In the dream I found bones in the sand. Here’s the weird part; in the water I found the skull of Rachael Carlson.

Crazy? Dangerous? Remember these sage words;
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
Mohandas Gandhi

[SeekTruth]

Until I started your book, I thought you were just overworking an analogy. To the contrary, you are lighting the way to a new worldview. The business press, most firmly ensconced in the present dominant worldview, will, quite sincerely, be least able to see the new. Their obtuseness is an index of your success.

[factanonverba]

Dear Ms. Klein,

I am a former neo-liberal, having the benefit of Stephen Haggard's lectures at grad school counterbalanced by Chalmers Johnson. I am midway through your book (Let It Burn, pg 264) and as I was reading I have been thinking well yup the neo-liberals will see this as a primer on how to usurp the public wealth for private good. In looking at how to counter-balance the onslaught on neo-liberal economic programmes I think that there is a nascent model out there: a new "consenso de Caracas" to supplant "the Washington Consensus." Where neo-liberalism has had its longest exposure in Latin America, it is meeting fierce and growing resistance. There is no doubt in my mind that a new economic setting will emerge from the region. Chavez, Morales, Kitchner, da Silva whatever their faults and limitations put people before profits.

[MmeFlutterbye]

Hi, Naoomi. I cannot read your book because I need large print. But my husband has read it and he says that now the questions that he has been asking most of his life have been answered. He has read part of "Shock Doctrine" to me. Any illusion that was inculcated into my brain as a child that we were the "good guys" is gone. To tell the truth, I began to think it was all a con job around 1854, but you were not on this earth to enlighten me as to the specifics.

[MmeFlutterbye]

Oh hell! i meant 1954...My touch-typing is crappy.

[riona]

Why 1954?

[yourstruly]

Agree with you about the type, MmeFlutterbye. I'm fascinated your book, Naomi, but I have to read it in short takes because the print is so small, the typeface is sort of whispy, and the paper's shiny. Maybe you could talk to your publisher about upping the print size the next time, even if it means dropping a few of those footnotes.

[JNV]

Naomi, have you thought of teaming up with Ariana and do the mumbo jumbo on Dancing with the Stars? Yes, America, the ladies are making fun of us.

[JustifiablyParanoid]

Echoing most of the responses here, I would like to thank you for writing such an important piece of work Ms. Klein.

May it reach millions of eyeballs and ears - hopefully, the minds can wake up after that.

[leftLibertarian]

Ms Klein:

Congratulations on your fine book. It is making the War Profiteers who love their big mommy government very unhappy. Boo hoo hoo to them.

[TomR]

Hi Naomi Klein,

I'm sorry to hear of the personal attacks you've received about your book "Disaster Capitalism."

I wonder how many of these reviewers would like to also take on John Perkins, author of "Confessions of an Economic Hitman."

Just remember that just because we have normalized the dysfunction of our capitalistic system, it doesn't mean that the system is normal or mentally healthy. Those reviewers should also check out the video "The Corporation," which draws the conclusion that the ethical limits of a corporation are similar to those of a psychopath.

There's nothing wrong with examining the ethical implications of capitalism and trying to improve it for the human race.

- Tom