"The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein

While there is nothing in Naomi Klein’s book, “The Shock Doctrine”, which I did not have some knowledge of. Yet, this author presented in more detail and lucidity the direct correlation between the Chicago School of Economics and the series of gigantic economic disruptions in various nations.

Her work has been positively reviewed by the Dow Jones Business News, the New York Times, and the Guardian. I surely applaud her writing style: straightforward and clear. And, more importantly, I support her thoughtful insight to the need of introducing “shock” into a nation in order for it to bend to the principles of the Chicago School of Economics and its guru, Milton Friedman.

A shock to a nation or state, as in the case of Katrina’s impact on New Orleans and the State of Louisiana, can come from natural disasters, coups, e.g., Chile, major changes in government, e.g., collapse of Russia. In general, the situation becomes economically desperate requiring major infusion of capital from the World Bank or IMF. In each instance, the conditions of the loans require major transfer of assets from state-owned to private ownership (always to the benefit of the few). In each instance, the majority of people suffer: massive unemployment, loss of national assets, and often, death and torture of those resisting change.

The thesis of this work is consistent with my personal bias in favor of some type of “market socialism” (term provided by my economic advisor and guru who happens to be my son-in-law). Consistent with the writings of Kevin Phillips (I have not read his new book, “Bad Money”, but it is consistent with his other works), it is hard to understand how a nation can continue to prosper without mechanisms to ensure employment at all levels of economic strata. Without such a base, it is hard to understand how a nation can preserve its integrity to support its own peoples, and according to Kevin Phillips, when this happens, nations tend to decline in its role as a power.

Capitalism clearly does much that is good, but it does need a counterweight. Sweden and Norway seem to know something that works to the benefit of all. There is private ownership but no one is poor.