Klein's Shock Doctrine

[Dayuhan]

Ken, I see you're point on the balance between government and intervention. The thing is, though, that capitalism needs to do more than continue to meet the needs of the middle classes in the advanced industrial world. we have all the crap we need! instead manufacturing needs and pursuing a cynical model of globalization, which all to often is a race to the bottom, business needs to take a risk, invest some money and try to meet the very real needs the developing world.

I think this misses the point entirely. If you look around the world you will see very quickly that the incidence and severity of poverty is harshest in countries and regions within countries that are isolated from the capitalist global economy. The fastest improvements in economic and social conditions (observe east Asia for examples) have been in areas that have embraced economic integration. Maybe "we have all the crap we need", but if we stop buying that "crap" then the people who make that "crap" lose their jobs. The argument that living simply allows others to simply live is based on a false assumption: that whatever one has must be taken from another. In reality, consumption leads production, and production generates employment. The best way to help poor countries is to allow and encourage them to produce and sell goods and services.

people need to incorporate a critique of authoritarian forms. You can't have true democracy when the economy is run by authoritarian structures like TNCs.

Who says "the economy" is run by TNCs? Which economy?

TNCs actually play an important and largely beneficial role in many developing economies, one which the Naomi Kleins of the world don't generally acknowledge. Many developing economies are totally dominated by rapacious local elites that are more far more authoritarian and more exploitive than TNCs could ever dream of being. These elites generally have the political and legal clout to suppress local competition. TNCs provide a balance to their power and an alternative source of supply and employment.

In the Philippines, where I live, jobs with TNCs are highly sought after because they offer better pay, better working conditions, and better opportunity for advancement than local employment. Widespread hiring of English-speaking graduates by foreign investors has pushed wage scales up and forced other employers to pay more (competition for employees raises wages far faster than strikes). These employees spend a large percentage of their incomes locally, unlike the previously dominant elites, and generate follow-on jobs.

I still think, instead of dumping endless money into a needless invasion in Iraq, we should have put diplomatic pressure on regimes like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and done "civic action" or peace corp type programs to make life less desperate for the people in the margins, whom, i feel, are legitimately attracted to extremist ideologies becuase they have few other options. For a fraction of the cost of the invading Iraq we could have provided clean drinking water, medical treatment and other humanitarian efforts which, beyond the shadow of a doubt, would have done more to win "the war on terror" than unilaterally invading a secular, quasi-socialist authoritarian state, which had no love for Islamic radicalism nor any connection to 9-11.

I'm a former Peace Corps Volunteer, and I can tell you that the Corps is about 99% show and 1% go, and the volunteers receive far more benefit (in experience and training) than the host communities. It's not a bad thing, but if your solution to poverty is the Peace Corps, God help the poor.

Humanitarian aid is important and necessary. It can alleviate the worst effects of poverty, but it does not eliminate or even reduce poverty. If you give a poor community a water system, they will have water and be healthier, but they will still be poor, and they will probably depend on you to come back and maintain that water system.

If you want a poor community to stop being poor, you have to create sustainable employment. That means somebody has to invest money in producing and/or distributing goods and services that can be profitably sold in a free market - if the production is not profitable or requires external subsidy, it's not sustainable. Once a community has jobs and income, they can build their own water system, buy their own mosquito nets, etc, etc...

I guess that's a rant, and maybe it makes me a "neo-liberal". I've never encountered that term outside the academic cloister, and I'm not convinced that anyone who uses it really knows what it means, except that it covers all the stuff they don't like. But what the hell, if this be neo-liberalism, let us make the most of it. It still works. It doesn't work perfectly (not much in this world does), but there's a good deal to be said for it.