Cowen (and Manne) on Klein (and Stiglitz)

Does anyone have any information about Friedman's stance on the "pure and perfect competition" model? The Austrian economists I know well, especially George Reisman, seem to utterly reject it. Klein seems to criticize him for believing in free markets while they require the unrealistic conditions of pure and perfect competition. One of the reviews seems to be defending models of that sort. So what IS Milton Friedman's position on it?

So you're OK with your tax dollars going to fund a war to help an industry get its product to the market. - muirgeo

Yes. Protecting open trade routes and property rights have been part of US national interests since Jefferson.

You're OK with people claiming a "capitalist ideology" helping install and support regimes like Pinochet? I mean who is being logically inconsistent here? - muirgeo

I read Friedman's account of his speech. I don't see how he insatlled Pinochet. It seems to me that free-market policies cause totalitarians to lose power rather than gain it.

Both the idea of using force to install capitalism and the fact that such efforts were miserable failures that did indeed destroy the world for those who's countries were so effected is something you should get. But as you say...you don't. That's what I don't get. - muirgeo

I've been to Japan. EFFECTED by facism, rebuilt by capatalism. Just another miserable failure of more freedom and capitalism.

Capitalism is a good thing but it needs the oversight of an educated democracy.


- muirgeo

Present gov't propaganda in schools will never allow this. Education kills collectivism.

Such can't happen under the deregulated free for all the liberal and neoliberal policies which consistently decay into corporatism and banana republics. THAT is why no such economies or governments based on liberal principals ever existed or ever will exist. - muirgeo

Freedom in Hong Kong brought the present banana republic there, didn't it?

That is why the most successful societies EVER were based on a pluralistic democracy. - muirgeo

I prefer representative democracy like we have here in the USA. It has better built-in checks and balances.

Sorry for feeding. I usually just read and think, but I was a bit bored and wanted to participate more. Not as fun as it looks, and definitely not enlightening.

"Darren,

I agree and explained how I would limit the governments power."

Yes, as I recall, you said one of the ways you'd limit it would be through more things like NPR! So you're going to limit the government's power with additional sources of government-sponsored information and programming? Classic.

As for those other reforms you mentioned, they've all been tried and invariably lead to MORE corruption because layers upon layers of complicated election and lobbying rules do nothing but put up roadblocks for the less powerful in society while the more powerful have the resources to find ways around the rules. That's why campaign finance reform has been such a disaster.

Muirgeo,

You don't seem to adequately comprehend:

1. The tribal nature of humans.

2. The incentives created by political power.

3. The nature of those who are attracted to political power.

4. The incentives given to business when politicians act to 'regulate' business.

5. The incentives politicians have to maintain or gain position in the formalized hierarchical tribal structure we call government.

6. The opportunities available to said politicians to maintain or gain position in that structure.

7. The infeasibility of 'the people' actually acting in concert to control the political structure for general benefit.

8. The inability of collective theories to apply in the real world.

9. The misdirection in thinking of people in a collective sense.

Construction of a model of the real world is full of pitfalls if the diversity of interestes of all the individuals that compose it are not accounted for, that is, referring to 'the people' is useful only in a very limited sense and really breaks down in the manner that you tend to use it. See #7.

You are living in a country with two broadly distinguished groups, 'liberals' and 'conservative' that are often at each others' throats.

Tell us how you plan to unite these opponents to constrain government, to your ends, when their political sentiments are so at odds?

Why are they so attached to their positions?

Until you can resolve these problems, your solution is no solution.

And when you answer that last question, accurately, you'll be unable obtain a resolution to the problem.

Many Liberals (classic) seem not to trust the people

Bingo. I do not trust anyone with arbitrary power, not businessmen, idealogues, CEOs, politicians, lobbyists, philosophers, scientists, or "the people". All are fallible and corruptible, and I do not desire, nor trust, anyone to engineer society.

"The government forcefully took money from taxpayers and gave it to Haliburton. That is the very definition of intervention"

Muirgeo

It is so wrong for government to give money to anyone under any circumstance......but wait, muirgeo, did government "give" it, or did Haliburton do something to "earn" it. If you'd just put down the Karl Marx collegiate Dictionary and grab a Webster's, if they have one in your church library, you might be able to use the same language we do.

"This could well involve less nefarious over regulation freeing up the economy while also promoting truer market conditions."


muirgeo

I didn't believe it could be done but you exceeded the absolute incoherence of a paragraph I read on the Robber Baron thread. What in the name of God, ours not yours, could you have possibly been trying to say in that paragraph?

"I'm hear trying to educate myself on classic liberal economics."

muirgeo

No you're not, muirgeo, people have been trying to educate you but you have the most severe case of the "yeah buts" I have seen in a long time. Russ educated you, but there you were....."yeah but", and out come some more nonsense. Others tried, Sam Grove in particular, clear concise explanations......and there you were your fingers on the keyboard just desperate to get your "yeah but" posted.

I know you won't get it but here is another explanation couched in street language.

Analogy:

We have the wonderful mechanism (you do understand, muirgeo by the word mechanism I am referring to something mechanical, you know gears, pulleys, and gizmos) of capitalism, free markets, and free enterprise that, left alone uninterfered with by government, is providing wealth to all those who participate and in direct relation to how effective they are in participating. However, capitalism, free markets, and free enterprise do not provide for those very very few that "will not" do for themselves beyond bare subsistence, so these folks are the small percentage we call lazy, shiftless, drunks, village idiots, or the town fool.

Your church seeing opportunity to seize power converted these lazy, shiftless, drunks, village idiots, and town fools into "needy poor people" who must be helped because they breath air and not for what they contribuite to any good of society.

So we have a wonderful machine humming along and we throw socialism in the works and it begins to grate like rocks and diminish the effeciency of the machine by derailing belts, wearing down gears, grinding pistons and plugging up pipes. The longer we allow that socialism in our machine of prosperity the slower and more laborous it is to produce those things we value. Consequently the numbers of the lazy, the shiftless, the drunks, the village idiots, and the town fools increase dramatically as there is less and less prosperity being produced.

Like good mechanics, we who are capable of understanding that 2 plus 2 equals 4, would be acting in the best interest of everyone to in the most effective and swift way possible clean our machine, replace or fix the damage caused by the socialism, and guard it forever against the luddite intentions and efforts of the Socialist Church and its socialist evangelicals.

This is the very basic something you can't grasp, or choose to ignore, either way it makes you sound foolish.

Simple concept here, muirgeo, try and get it.

In 1983 I became a business owner. I guarantee you that I, like every other business owner, did not think one day....oh my, I need to start a business so I can fulfill my civic duty and employ people. No, muirgeo, what I did was say I want control of my own destiny and income so I will start my own business to "make money" for myself and my family. Do you have that simple concept now, muirgeo?

Businesses are begun because some one wants to make money. The only purpose of a business is to "make" money. If it does not make money, it will grind to a stop.

I am ethical and I do business that way, I know that others do not. It is my job and yours to identify those who do not, file charges against them for criminal acts, and turn the thing over to "our" government who should then indiscriminately dispense justice and compensation from seized assets if any should be forthcoming.

Since you worship State as your God, you are simply incapable of thinking in any context that does not begin and end with State.

I am sorry but I respect neither your intellect or the command of words with which you choose to expose it.

Darren,

I agree and explained how I would limit the governments power. But the idea that you can have a government with NO power is silly. The power of the government just needs to reside with the people and not with corporations. The economy exist for the people not the other way around. Likewise for the government.

Many Liberals (classic) seem not to trust the people because they are themselves the cream of the crop in their Ivory Towers. So why should they abdicate any power to the rabble? Fr them I suggest they drop out of society and go start a new somewhere else because the people will run this country in the end.

See I don't think the government and it's regulatory roll is corrupting the markets. I think the markets see easy money to be made by corrupting the government and becoming one with it.

You can't say "markets" corrupt anything, or get corrupted. People do that. People do use government for their own advantage. If government claims power over a certain market, market participants may find it cheaper and easier to lobby government for advantages rather than out-do their competitors. This isn't a result of markets at all, its a function of greedy individuals using government to vie for more money.

All of the phenomenon you mention have no causal relationship with the existence of free markets whatsoever. It so happens that the nations with the freest markets are also the ones with the least corruption. In fact, the things you mention are the exact opposite of what markets are. Its like saying, "peace breeds war, because peace always leads to war, so peace must be bad". Markets are the antithesis of the behaviors you speak of, so when a market is free, any government action in it must necessarily produce corruption. There is just no other reason to intervene into a free market.

There are more ways to corrupt political power than wealth, most prominantly concentrated voter power. The method is different, but the result is similar i.e. one group benefits at the expense of another.

"I think the markets see easy money to be made by corrupting the government and becoming one with it."

Muirgeo, what everyone's patiently trying to explain to you is that government's corruptibility is directly proportional to its power. An infinitely powerful government is infinitely corruptible due to infinite incentive to corrupt. A government with zero power (that is, a truly free society with no government at all) is completely incorruptible. It's government power and intervention that is the root cause of what you apparently see as actions of the free market.

"Tell me what government intervention resulted in the no bid contracts that have made Halliburton stocks sore."

muirgeo

The government forcefully took money from taxpayers and gave it to Haliburton. That is the very definition of intervention.

G

And who was the prior CEO boss of Halliburton? Who convened an energy policy in private with industry leaders allowed in but NOT the American public. Who holds hands with the King of Saudi Arabia? Who has an Oil tanker with her name on it?

See I don't think the government and it's regulatory roll is corrupting the markets. I think the markets see easy money to be made by corrupting the government and becoming one with it.

The answer is electoral reform, lobby reform, open government, strict punishment of conflicts of interest and the democratic process involving a well educated public (that would be more NPR and less conglomerated corporate media). This could well involve less nefarious over regulation freeing up the economy while also promoting truer market conditions.

Those are the solutions most people want and hopefully the ones we WILL get if we can separate the co-joined twins of corporatist and sold out politicians.

Most of the essay just seemed to be a rant about how paying private companies to provide services to the government is going to destroy the world. I don't see the logic in the argument, and I didn't see any in the essay.

Posted by: steep

So you're OK with your tax dollars going to fund a war to help an industry get its product to the market. You're OK with people claiming a "capitalist ideology" helping install and support regimes like Pinochet? I mean who is being logically inconsistent here?

Both the idea of using force to install capitalism and the fact that such efforts were miserable failures that did indeed destroy the world for those who's countries were so effected is something you should get. But as you say...you don't. That's what I don't get.

Capitalism is a good thing but it needs the oversight of an educated democracy. Such can't happen under the deregulated free for all the liberal and neoliberal policies which consistently decay into corporatism and banana republics. THAT is why no such economies or governments based on liberal principals ever existed or ever will exist. That is why the most successful societies EVER were based on a pluralistic democracy.

Here's the score board;

Pluralistic Democracy 31


Liberal Fiefdom 3 (Swaziland, Saudi Arabia. Oman)

That's kind of a blow out!

"Government is the only thing that prevents me from walking outside and going on a shooting spree in order to gather groceries "

Pat, you would soon be dead yourself. Why would you need groceries?

Scott can you say Project for a New American Century. Here are some key signatures on the 1998 letter to President Clinton urging regime change in Iraq.

Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, John Bolton, Richard Armitage, and Elliott Abram

Exactly! Savor the moment. We're almost on the same page.

Were it not for their positions in 'the government', where would these guys be?

Ah, but then you might say something along the lines of: "if only we had the right people in government".

Then we might say something like: "Christ, you're hopeless."

"The government intervention that made Halliburton soar was called Operation Iraqi Freedom. I could check my sources, but I'm pretty sure that the government did that.

Scott Clark

Scott can you say Project for a New American Century. Here are some key signatures on the 1998 letter to President Clinton urging regime change in Iraq.

Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, John Bolton, Richard Armitage, and Elliott Abrams

And my statement that Klein is unqualified to critique what she criticizes is based upon my perception that her motives have subjugated any possiblity of objectivety, much as Democrats/liberals and Republicans/conservatives are unqualified to critique each other. They do not criticize, they attack.

Markets do not "fail". It is a gross misunderstanding of the market to suppose that it does fail. Market is a coarse term to refer to the economic behavior of humans.

When people make poor choices, the market responds. It's more like "karma".

Markets are not designed mechanisms with a creator's specified purpose which it might fail to achieve.

And if viewed properly, one of the incentives [think market pressure or a market signal] to pursue more knowledge would be a transaction or two where one got burned or suckered.

Beside, the term “imperfect” here is way too subjective! Who gets to decide who is imperfect (or even perfect) and why is that someone choosing the way s/he does?

If what you had written above are really the views of Stiglitz then he ought to renounce his title and not be able to reclaim it until he retakes a course in Micro.

Pat,

I also like the part where you shoot all the humans, but you cooperate with the vending machines. If you;d shoot all the people, why wouldn't you just smash the vending machines?

Markets fail because information and humans are imperfect.

No, this is why markets actually work. The whole point of trading with someone else is to make yourself -- from your own perspective -- better off than before you engaged in the trade. Sometimes this involves poor decision making by one party or the other. But, nonetheless, a poor decision that was made reflects a well-intended effort to maximize one's utility given the constraints [knowledge is, indeed, a constraint if viewed properly]. And if viewed properly, one of the incentives [think market pressure or a market signal] to pursue more knowledge would be a transaction or two where one got burned or suckered.

Beside, the term “imperfect” here is way too subjective! Who gets to decide who is imperfect (or even perfect) and why is that someone choosing the way s/he does? If it means that we -- we meaning everyone -- go into transactions without total knowledge and are guided, at least in some part, by some emotions that may or may not be all that rational, then hell, yes, the imperfection label fits. But hello, without such imperfections, we would not be human and we sure as hell would all have the same opinions as one another. How much economic (market) activity do you think would occur in that kind of setting -- a setting composed of perfectly like-minded people all with the same information and preferences to guide them? If Stiglitz could answer that, he sure would have a monopoly on imagination.

If what you had written above are really the views of Stiglitz then he ought to renounce his title and not be able to reclaim it until he retakes a course in Micro.

For a critique of Klein from the anti-imperialist left, read Alexander Cockburn's essay here, where he makes some good points.

I feel like such an insider to be the first to question why Tyler read the whole book! At any rate, Naomi Klein is best explained away by a one minute snippet in an EconTalk podcast. I was listening to the one with Russ and Don on Law and Legislation while driving from Carson City to South Orange County Monday evening, and Don was channeling Hayek about how capitalism doesn't claim to yield satisfaction by everyone every time. In fact, no system can. But it does yield the most overall satisfaction, and give most of us the best shot at being satisfied.

My feeling about Naomi Klein is that she is the next Tammy Bruce. Young, intelligent, attractive, accomplished (Ms. Bruce was head of NOW LA chapter), leftist. I remember first hearing about Clinton's Lewinski problem on Bruce's early morning radio show. It devastated her to have to report it, but she did because it brought Clinton's feminist credentials into question. And that started a dramatic shift in her thinking and politics. Klein's Canadianess puts her at a disadvantage in undergoing that kind of evolution, but it's still in the realm of possibility. Perhaps that's along the lines of why Stiglitz approaches her with kid gloves.

Pat,

Is government the only thing that prevents your shooting spree? Non-government actors will shoot back as soon as you identify your violent intentions. Do you think that is the best strategy to gather groceries? Even the most violent criminals must rely on cooperation for most of the things they consume. It might not matter if you can concieve of cooperation without government, most of the time you cooperate anyway.

As I sit here in my dorm at the University of Chicago, I am considering whether to walk across the street and listen to Klein give a talk about her new book this week. I went to a lecture by John Mearsheimer and Steven Walt last week, so I think I owe it to her.

Scott Clark, you should read Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan. Government is the only thing that prevents me from walking outside and going on a shooting spree in order to gather groceries and a couple of bucks for the vending machine. You may conceive of market transactions without government, but who says I can?

I have to wonder what interventions muirgeo thinks a market needs from government in order to exist. All that a market needs from government is protection of private property rights and enforcement of contracts. I wouldn't call those interventions, but protections. If a cop arrests a mugger that would have chosen me as his next victim, the cop isn't intervening with MY actions, but helping to leave me free to act. It is the mugger who would have been intervening in MY life if not for the cop.

The government intervention that made Halliburton soar was called Operation Iraqi Freedom. I could check my sources, but I'm pretty sure that the government did that.

The only way to prevent the government from interfering completely is armed revolt. There are peacable ways to scale back government interference. Limiting the amount of tax revenue they collect is a good way to start.

Muriego, are you saying that the only thing that allows you cooperate with your fellow humans is the fact that government exists?

I can concieve of a morality that exists without god, and I can concieve of cooperating and trading with other people without resort to violence.

Tell me what government intervention resulted in the no bid contracts that have made Halliburton stocks sore.

Then tell me your solution to prevent such government intervention.

The fact is there are NO MARKETS without government intervention and thus you have NO solution. I have a solution but unfortunately it's not neat or clean like your ideological dream of a liberal economy with NO government intervention.

Is Stiglitz's review really any more absurd than his other policy positions? As I've read them, they are as follows:

Markets fail because information and humans are imperfect. Therefore, government can fix markets. Government is whatever my imagination can dream up, and does not follow the laws of human action, sociology and politics. My imagination is perfectly suited for fixing the failure, since my imagination came up with the failure. Also, markets never solve problems of information asymmetry themselves. The demand for more information never produces a market for it (the Internet only exists to distribute porn), and its not an important government function to punish fraud which results in asymmetrical information.

And I really don't mean to beat up any straw men here. This is really how I've read his arguments.

Saul,

Tell me what government intervention resulted in the no bid contracts that have made Halliburton stocks sore.

Then tell me your solution to prevent such government intervention.

The fact is there are NO MARKETS without government intervention and thus you have NO solution. I have a solution but unfortunately it's not neat or clean like your ideological dream of a liberal economy with NO government intervention.

Saul,

I doubt he'll answer you. You didn't say anything that he can twist or pick at.

muirgeo: You are surprised that we are critical of someone who criticizes free market economists by pointing out the problems of government intervention in the market, when free markets are defined by the absence of government intervention?

"Some one hear please tell me what direction our country/ the world is going? More liberal or less????"

World economic freedom has risen slightly over the last 10 years, and a bit more dramatically over the last 20 years.

Kingstu wrote: "Why is the de facto position of the anti-capitalist that all problems which are initially caused by the government can best be fixed by the very agency which caused them in the first place?"

It is also their automatic position that problems caused by government intervention are the consequence of free market policies. Like Krugman blaming California's electric utilities problems on a free market. Given that free markets are defined as those without government intervention... Well, you get the picture.

Lee,

Actually Stiglitz did fault the book for "...many places in her book where she oversimplifies.", and a section being "overdramatic and unconvincing", so I wouldn't say he was agreeing wholeheartedly.

The fact that her book is being published by a major publisher, and reviewed by The New York Times, have nothing to do with the content of her argument.

If she had been an unqualified libertarian, who wrote a book of quality on par with the best libertarian economists, would her lack of qualifications matter then, or the content of her argument?

I agree on one point, which is that her lack of qualifications may help explain why her argument is awful, but it does nothing to change how we should evaluate the argument itself.

I would also note, that the review is written by Stigler, a qualified economist, who would seem to agree wholeheatedly with Klien. However, her argument does not strike me as any superior for that fact.

"I have never been near an economics classroom in my life, or a university as it happens."

You're also not being reviewed by the New York Times for a book by a major publisher. If you were, your lack of qualifications would justifiably come into play.

She's unqualified to critique what she is criticizing. - Sam Grove

I didn't think qualifications were necessary to criticise capitalism, or socialism for that matter. I sure have none, I have never been near an economics classroom in my life, or a university as it happens.

Though I am , perhaps, conceited enough to think that criticism should not be judged by the person who proposes it, but for the content of the criticism itself. I am old fashioned like that, even at my age.

Regards,

Lee

"I'm hear trying to educate myself on classic liberal economics."

To get anything out of this education, you'll need to begin with the key distinction between government and private institutions. It helps to dispense with the superficial commonalities:

- Governments provide services; private institutions provide services

- Governments collect revenues and incur costs; private institutions collect revenues and incur costs


- Governments employ people of varying capabilities and ethics; private institutions employ people of varying capabilities and ethics


- Government policies are the product of collective decision-making, often driven by a strong executive; policies of private institutions are the product of collective decision-making, often driven by a strong executive


- ...you get the idea

The key distinction is this: Government is unique among institutions in that it has the power to impose its policies on everyone else via the threat of violence. Private institutions don't have that ability, absent a deal with the government.

So, applying that distinction to any random part of your comment, let's say "it's OK to steal money from the government" shows up some contradictory premises. The idea that someone outside of government can steal from the one institution with with a monopoly on violence appears nonsensical. You can say that these private institutions, like Halliburton, are actually using government to steal from the taxpayers, but as Russ points out, that presupposes a government capability of taking the people's money in the first place. You can argue that such behavior perverts democracy, but as Russ pointed out, such behavior is inherent in democracy, because it begins with the existence of government power, and follows that that power will be exercised by someone, and that various people will have the incentive to influence how that power is exercised. The fact that its exercised in a way you or I wouldn't approve of is secondary to the fact that this power exists, and it is inherent in government. Without government, Halliburton would be a meek version of Home Depot, having to compete in the retail and business market without a government sugar daddy or the backing of its guns.

There is no learning from conflating the irrelevant distinctions between private institutions and government institutions. Of course there is a lot of overlap, and sometimes the line between them gets blurred. But it helps a lot to understand the key distinctions as our hosts view them if you are serious about wanting to learn the classical liberal view from them.

But post after post by the writers at Cafe Hayek often seem to be defending the neoliberalism of the modern economy which seems nothing like what I read in Hayek.

Only if that's how you want to hear it.

If we are going to have a constitutional republic, then the government should be restricted to those activities specified in the constitution.

Libertarians oppose all government subsidies or protection on behalf of any party, including business. When the government bids out contracts, they should always be competitive.

What else do you want to know?

Oh yeah, our beef with Ms Klein.

1. She "hates" capitalism.

2. She's apparently unfamiliar with the term "merchantilism" (which libertarians oppose).


3. She's unqualified to critique what she is criticizing.


4. She lacks critical functioning except for putting words together.


5. She is completely lacking in comprehension of the moral nature of political power and how IT is the source of systemic social corruption.


6. She hates corporations per se, and thus is unable to distinguish good from bad behavior on their part.

What else do you want to know?

"The hosts of this cafe are against the concentration of power via the state."

Russ Roberts

Then I guess I don't understand what your beef is with Ms. Klein. Is it that she is grouping true liberal economists with modern neoliberals?


Lets be very specific. Is Halliburtons' success over the last 6-7 years the results of "free markets" or as you say "concentration of power via the state" or what some might call corporatism/ crony capitalism?

I'm hear trying to educate myself on classic liberal economics. Some of it I'm buying and it makes sense. But post after post by the writers at Cafe Hayek often seem to be defending the neoliberalism of the modern economy which seems nothing like what I read in Hayek.

muirgeo,

Okay, I read the whole eesay. It didn't waste much more THAN 10 minutes of my time.

If the essay reflects your impression of the world, THEN I better understand your posts here.

Most of the essay just seemed to be a rant about how paying private companies to provide services to the government is going to destroy the world. I don't see the logic in the argument, and I didn't see any in the essay.

This funny statement did catch my interest though:

"Between September 11 2001 and 2006, the Department of Homeland Security handed out $130bn to contractors - money that was not in the private sector before and that is more than the GDP of Chile or the Czech Republic."


I guess the US Treasury has figured out how to fund the DHS without tax revenues from private industry. pecunia ex nihilo?

I'd bet Tyler Cowen has never and will never be beaten up (intellectually) by anyone.

After all, his tatoo is on his mind.

Russ,

Also note Muirgeo's implicit assumption that it is worse to have been bested by a woman than to have been bested by a man in an intellectual endeavor.

I also wonder RE:Stiglitz, that if the work shouldn't be judged by the standards of economists, why did they get a world class economist to judge it.

Muirgeo,

Fascism? Corporatism?

The hosts of this cafe are against the concentration of power via the state. What are you talking about? If you mean the cozy relationship between some corporations and the state, we oppose corporate favors, subsidies, tariffs and other restrictions and redistributions. Milton Friedman opposed them as well. The success of the US economy or the world economy is in spite of those poliicies. We favor reducing the power of government because we believe that government usually (always?) favors the politically powerful who are usually few rather than numerous.

"Fourth, it is the New Deal — the greatest restriction on capitalism in 20th century America and presumably beloved by Ms. Klein — that was imposed in a time of crisis."

You gotta love this!!! What kind of economy preceded "THE CRISIS"? And who had the world leading economy in the 50's, 60's and 70's?


Umm? The facts just smack this reviewer up side the head. He and his "liberal" economics have beaten up by a girl and her pluralistic economics.

"First, the reach of government has been growing in virtually every developed nation in the world, including in America, and it hardly seems that a far-reaching free market conspiracy controls much of anything in the wealthy nations."

This the classical bait and switch of the modern neoliberal.

Some one hear please tell me what direction our country/ the world is going? More liberal or less????

According to this critic of Ms Klien we are going away from liberal economics.

So next tell is the world economy a success? Is it on the right track?

I mean the message from these "scholars" is nothing short of schizophrenic.

My suggestion is that the modern economy and the worlds is following a neoliberal trend which is closer to fascism or corporatism then I believe Hayek or Friedman would be comfortable with. The people who like to point to the current economy as a success are those that I think would be called the neoliberals. And likewise IMO the world economy is not a success but but a train steaming towards disater under the guidance of the modern neoliberal who's idoelogical base seems to have no consistent grounding in any principal other then it's every man for himself. The only rule to be followed is that it's OK to steal money from the government as long as you are doing it in the name of "free markert capitalism" but not if you're trying to redirect it towards improving the lives of tax paying everyday citizens via the democratic process. That we would call transfers of wealth done at the end of a gun.

UNREAL!

Please read Ms Kliens eesay on her book here.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/10/3726/

Don't tell me, this anti-capitalist is planning on selling this book at a market price using non-union printing shops?

Tyler calls the book the best "brand" of emotional nonfiction.

Given Kline's other work, this is a stroke of genius from a true wordmaster.

Great work, Tyler.

Why is the de facto position of the anti-capitalist that all problems which are initially caused by the government can best be fixed by the very agency which caused them in the first place? My personal theory is that this is a self perpetuating cycle which allows the government to create the reason for its own existence.

Bravo Tyler---that is an excellent smackdown of a truly stupid book. C-

Span's BookTV is going to have Naomi Klein on this weekend to tout her book---I have gone to the inevitable website and read excerpts of it---mostly an emotional tirade against capitalism, buttressed by zero facts or logic. Apparently Milton Friedman is responsible for any and all of the excesses of the Pinochet regime in Chile---which she goes on and on about.The Hard Left will love this book, but the rest of us will wonder what its all about.