Re: The Shock Doctrine by Alfonso Cuarón and Naomi Klein

[delsur2009]

Shock was testing many times in Latin America and it's the method to keep the people down. History of Latin America it's history of shock in many matters as economics, politics, society. Friedman was the mind of exploitation of Latin America. People over there are just poor being rich -having oil, gold, silver, lot of resources!- but 190 millions of poor people!!! just sucks!!!

[stevenabuono]

No withholding Free Enterprise is the way to keep people down.

[delsur2009]

freedom for enterprises it's not the problem. The thing it's how far these freedom goes. If you have corporations behind the political power it's a huge problem! But the freedom is not used properly. The thing is that these huge corporations have grown too much politically and are interfering with development! that's the problem!!

[stevenabuono]

I would have to agree with you there

[delsur2009]

Thanks for being honest and understandable!

[godscuttingyoudown]

ask the people of Katrina how well the free market or the illusion of a free market is doing for them.

in answer; where will the alternative come from? From the one place your arrogance blinds you.

a truly free market is like eBay, organic and never planed it grows because smart people or people who think their smart do not run things

nature is at its best when their is an absence of a god.

[sydfynch]

(cont)

Right now, the big problem is that we do not really have a "free market" system. What we have is a system in which a few groups with large wealth use politicians and government to manipulate the markets they want in the ways they want in order to benefit them. The problem comes because often what is in the best interest of the workers, the environment, social health, etc... is not what the people with the purse strings want. That's about as short as I can make it.

[sydfynch]

it's hard to answer that question in such a small space (500 characters), but here's my attempt: the "best system" that truly serves EVERYONE and not just the few in the investor/ownership/oligarcyhy class is a system that uses a combination of government oversight and regulation and some "open market" principals. (cont)

[kulani2323]

Actually, if you listen to more of what Naomi Klein says, she's proposing a type of Social Democracy in which the market is more responsive to the needs of the people it serves. Our founding fathers intended for corporations to serve the public good. Let's not forget that the Boston Tea Party happened at the expense of the British East India Company.

[airbarracuda]

2/2

Ultimately the idea is that people will be far more involved in the market, and will look out for everyone's sake (not just their own).

Germany currently uses this system.

If you couple this with a socialist democracy (like New Zealand), a small population and an ecological outlook you'd have a pretty decent country.

[airbarracuda]

Look up 'stakeholder capitalism'

Basically, it's a market that is run by the government in so far as the gov sets up rules that cannot be crossed (such as worker's rights, minimum standards and so on). The gov is the referee, not a player.

Then, the 'stakeholder' part means that everyone who is affected by the decisions of a certain corporation gets a say in what decisions are made. This is contrasted with 'shareholder capitalism' where only those people with shares get to influence decisions.

[maramp06]

many americans would support a more keynsian approach if they were given the opportunity.

[vforvoltaire]

One alternative to the current neoliberal capitalism of von Hayek and Milton Freidman would be the Keynesian form of capitalism, which was adopted in the US from the New Deal until the early 70s. The Keynesian economic model was responsible for the enormous economic growth of the 50s, and it also produced a great deal of economic equality. The laissez-faire system used before Keynesianism- in the 20s- and after- the 70s to the present- have produced enormous degrees of economic inequality.

[PersephoneSwimming]

it's not brainwashing but sleight of hand that is behind the shock doctrine tactics. when people are taken off guard by a shocking event, then the opportunists swoop in and make the most of it for their own benefit. i think they make a pretty plausible case for this notion.

[d0ubled1amond]

The shock doctrine describes how to change a society to a greater free market capitalism system. It historicly has not been done via debate but via the shock treatment described. The US while more capitalist than most still has many public protections and regulations (ie agriculture). The shock doctrine would predict loosening of these regulations would not be accomplished via debeate and public support but via an economic or man made or terrorist shock.

[Rickdeckard2020]

Hello Steven,

we dont see eye to eye but you questions are valid and you appear to genuinely want to understand other peoples point of view. I will write in the comments section of your channel sice the 500 character cap here is a downer