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?
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
As with Chomsky and Zinn - challenge your critics on the facts.
It would be refreshing for you to publish the facts of World Bank or IMF directives and ask the simple question of each critic - "did this not happen?"
There surely must be an easily digestible series of key facts to use in this manner - something to stop them in their tracks or make them reply so wide of the mark that readers can see the charade.
Once your contentions are on the table - facts either make the case or bring down the house.
CSE,
You seem to be operating under the mistaken idea that facts mean something to these people. As the past six years has demonstrated time and again, the neo-con mentality has no time for facts. Facts have a liberal bias and only serve to confuse real Americans when they read or watch the "news." Facts are for the "reality based crowd" and have no place in patriotic thinking.
A great example of not letting the truth get in the way was yesterdays SCHIP debate. After the dems rewrote parts of it to insure the exclusion of adults(which were due to be phased out within a year anyway) and to make certain "illegals" and families making 80k a year arent covered, the repubs continued to toss out their red herrings saying that the dems wanted to cover illegals and families making over 80k a year. They dont care what the reality is, they know if they say it enough it will be ingrained in peoples minds as fact. This way they create their own "facts."
In a world of politics based on honest debate of course your idea would be the way to go. However we live in a political Bizzaro world(the alt. universe in which Superman is bad) where the genuine decorated war "hero" is branded a coward and the chicken hawk coward that hid out becomes the picture of rectitude.
It sounds grand to debate them on the facts, only they wont because they know it will mean the end of their "fantasy island" world.
Ms. Klein's book is an amazing piece of work that shines a bright light on the darkest machinations of modern "free market" capitalism.
Naomi, if they're picking on you, then you know you're onto something. If you weren't under their skin and making them squirm as their "secrets" get revealed they wouldn't even acknowledge your existence.
Keep it up!!!!!!!!!!
Exactly! If they are giving you grief you must be on the right track!
In my opinion, the most destructive policy ever articulated by our courts is that the sole duty of corporations is to maximize profits for their shareholders. That single maxim has given corporate leaders carte blanche to exploit us (and when I say "us" I don't know anyone or anything across this planet that would be left out) in every possible way, without consequence, moral judgment or self-examination.
There is nothing wrong with corporations maximising profits. What is wrong is Governments who abrogate their responsibilities to the people in favour of these corporates.
Hi Naomi:
I have your book although I haven't started it yet...I need a week or so and a quart of Jack Daniels to recover from "Blackwater" :)
Anyway...the msm has been doing this for years to the entire "left" - you must have really struck a nerve there woman!
Good for you, can't wait to start your book (this week).
Naomi -
YES! Yes to everything....yes to having you blog now at Huffington! Yes to "more power to you." Yes to the "Shock Doctrine". Yes to rattling Otto, Robert and Tom...blow hards all. YES YES YES to Naomi Klein....MORE PLEASE!! Keep blogging!
I loved your book and am encouraging my husband and son to read it.
Just found this at another blog:
http://www.michiganmessenger.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=320
'A retired general now working for a controversial private security company told an audience last night about the services the company plans to provide.
The government does not have the tax base to provide services to everyone in the event of a major catastrophe, retired Brigadier General Richard W. Mills told an audience in Pellston last night.
Mills said that Sovereign Deed is focused on helping people in urban areas plan to survive a major disaster.
Mills said that Sovereign Deed would offer planning and rescue services to subscribers who pay a "country club type membership fee." Basic service, he said, would involve a one time $50,000 fee and $15,000 per year.'
They attack you because you're right. If you were wrong they wouldn't care.
I recently finished your book and it crystallized many ideas I have intuited over the past 30 years. I've read much of Chomsky's corpus and you take his sociological notions and document their root economic causes as the reason for much the world's inequity. While Chomsky blames economic imperialism, he often fails to document why it occurs; you document this concisely.
Financial critics may lambaste your book but they are intellectually dishonest for not citing a free market bias; obviously, such admissions would invalidate their criticisms: Perhaps they expect their readers to understand this bias. Your critics accuse you of being leftist (socialist???). You indicate a general approval of regulated capitalism; an economic system that places general societal welfare on par with profit-making, which places you left of center politically but hardly characterizes you as leftist.
Employing their verbatim words as weapons against them irks your critics but the authors you cite and people interviewed unabashedly believe in monetarism. They are incapable of understanding how their belief in profits above all appears to the majority of humanity not privy to their wealth acquisition plans. As you point out, disaster capitalism is about making profits and everyone on the inside knows where this money will end up. To their way of thinking however, trickle down economics is sound economic theory.
It is only when Friedman's Darwinian social and economic views, and, their cost in human misery, are examined in light of callous matter of fact comments about profits do monetarists grow nervous. The widespread acceptance of disaster capitalism would for them be a public relations nightmare and I'm surprised you haven't received even more vigorous attacks. Perhaps by ignoring your book they hope it will fade away. I hope your well documented notion of disaster capitalism doesn't go away because there will be no economic and social justice in the world until people understand the menial rolls most of us will play in the New World Order.
the so-called "financial experts" serve as nothing more than self-serving carnival barkers... who continue to profit from perpetuating the ruse.
whether it occurs under a socialist, capitalist or dictatorship, CORRUPTION is still corruption - and as for all the "let the free market solve any problem" hypocrites, good luck getting them to admit the facts or see the truth.
Naomi,
First, thanks for your insightful and inspired work. It is not surprising that the Financial Times is a source for valid information as deal makers and traders depend on it to know how to invest. The POV that comes along with that is short sighted at best, living as it does on the ever-present transactional action on which deal makers and traders depend. For them to step back and take a long view is problematic to their getting their jobs done, so it is not surprising that the only validation your book got was from someone wanting to make a quick buck from trading on its perspective.
For the rest of us who live with the consequences of the deal maker's and traders activities, the book is a true revelation.
Thanks again.
I'm reading your book now. You are getting good reviews I see. Keep up the good work and never start pulling the punches. I have read some of your groundbreaking articles in The Nation over the years and am extremely impressed with your work on Iraq and putting yourself in great danger to get at the details. You are one of my heroes.
As by now many of us know that the purpose of the corporate media, and other institutions that are generously funded by the elite, is to mold and control public opinion to ensure that ideology of the elite will be the prevailing ideology. Therefore, whenever someone like you who seeks to challenge this system of control and reveals its characteristics in ways that do not serve the interests of the elite, it sets in motion a response team consisting of journalists, media pundits, think tanks, and the like, whose job is to discredit those ideas and those who propounds such ideas. This is nothing new, it is standard operating procedure. If this doesn't work, an attempt is made to co-opt those individuals by rewarding them in number ways. Also, it limits their access to the air waves to minimize exposure to dissenting and heretical views.
Orwell said similar things about 1984 - that he had written an instruction manual on fascism and population control. He was sadly right. Leaders in communist countries DID use it as a guide.
However, though many may also use Shock Doctrine is a guide many more will be enlightened by it. Of course, I'm not saying it will become a cultural icon like 1984 because there is just no way to know. More people read for entertainment/information back in 1950 when it was published - a much different time and culture.
Shock Doctrine in my opinion is just another method of population control. After all hundreds of years ago in much smaller, different economies, it wouldn't have worked. That's why in the distant past they relied on religion and force to control populations.
Hello Naomi, Thank you for writing ,"The Shock Doctrine," it's brilliant, and thank you for your fearlessness. Your comment, wondering whether you have written a how-to-guide for making millions from catastrophe, ( you did not! ) reminded me of a mutual fund that I had read about in the Wall Street Journal, called, " The Vice Fund." Which is a sort of Disaster Capitalism investment tool for the average investor without a conscience. The Vice Fund invests in the following sectors: Gaming, Tobacco, Alcohol, Aerospace and Defense. Some of the press coverage listed on the Vice Fund website include the following articles: " Vice is Nice," "Sometimes it's Good to be Bad," "Profiting from War and Indulgence," Booze, Bets, Bombs and Butts Boom," "Fund of the Devil, Friend of Mine," "Three Stocks with Military Might," etc. etc. Follow the link to visit The Vice Fund: http://www.vicefund.com
Milton Friedman was a genius. Unfortunately Mr. Friedman cannnot be held responsible for the failure of his genius. Business journalism has this uncanny ability to quickly label someone or something the person or event of the century but when failure rears its ugly head suddenly responsiblity escapes them.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
