Naomi Klein Blames Greenspan, Deregulation for Economic Crisis

[eggory]

Can't this imbecile speak for two full minutes without contradicting herself? "It turns out that golden parachutes..." are a multi trillion dollar government intervention in that sector of the economy, and by no measure can that sector therefore be called free-market. Does that make any sense to you? No, to pseudo-socialists everywhere, crony capitalism IS the free market. It doesn't count, if the government is intervening to inject injustice INTO the system, that's just the free market at work!

[isaysee]

-- Regimented spelling is for regimented, cuntroled, eunuchforms like ewe. The object of spelling is to serve in facilitateing communication- hence *ELUCIDATION*. AndSooo, by the way, - *ONCE AGAIN* , - it hasn't taken you long at all to show yourself to be EXACTLY what I've surmised --- or perhaps, - no more then a parrot.

[qwertypoiu4321]

Naomi Klein is an hysterical Marxist idiot with a stylized-blurb understanding of reality.

[isaysee]

@qwertypoiu4321 ----- you're lieing ----- and badly

[qwertypoiu4321]

@isaysee I am not sure how saying the truth is lying...

P.S. You may want to try out spell check some time moron.

[isaysee]

@qwertypoiu4321-Saying the truth isn't lieing..You know that,-so thats another lie. I'm not a moron, AND you know that also- so there's another.Furthermore, your use of "moron" as an insult shows you to be cruel & indicates a VERYHIGH degree of cowardice. Moreover, your resort to insult shows the groundlessness of your assertions. Are you ashamed of how quickly you've exposed your nafarious & cruel tendencies? I think you ARE - & you will soon prove your cowardice too. Your a liar & a bad one

[qwertypoiu4321]

@isaysee You once again have shown you do not know how to spell. Naomi Klein is a hysterical marxist fool, as are you.

[isaysee]

- Atlas didn't shrug , - Atlas SHIRKED. - Our ruling class needs to "heal thyself ". Our working class & peasants & poets & puddinheads are no match for them. Blaming wellfare cheats, dropouts, the blind loyalty of the faithful - etc, for the abysmal developments that plague US is absurd. The ones in charge & in power & in the KNOW are the ones responsible. They know it & they know who they are. The rest just gotta' ride the waves, hope 4 truth & " don't let the bastards get ya down"

[isaysee]

-Greenspan + anyone else who thinks " reputation " matters to people who can get their hands on the kind'a money that puts'em beyond the law is naive to say least. - ***GOVERNMENT IS GOOD***-- And to govern FOR the good,- it must have money enough to DO good... Money is in the hands of those of us who have it . Gov't can Tax&Spend or Print&Spend --BUT SPEND IT MUST ! .

 Printing it hurts EVERYONE. Poor can't afford it..Taxing weath&income makes most sense & helps keep US safe from ALFA AVARICE

[LogicalFlawDetector]

This chick should get acquainted with the Community Reinvestment Act, its rapid application by the Democrat-controlled Congress; the Department of Housing and Urban Development forcing lenders to give mortgages to under qualified borrowers in the name of social justice. By the way, a free market exists: It's called Hong Kong, which Friedman talked about in Free to Choose. And Singapore, neither of which had severe recessions. The UK during the 19th century. The USA during the 19th century.

[DelmarBos]

@LogicalFlawDetector I was about to write a response not nearly as articulated as yours, then saw this, and got lazy so will merely write, "I concur"

[romeoechomike369]

She (and Naomi Wolf) are two of the best investigative journalist around (along with of course Jeremy Scahill). It's too bad that they get very little if any exposure on the mainstream media. The fact that most Americans read very little, and get most of their information from the 6:30 news, and are biased because of the like-minds they associate with in their church, is it any wonder that we are a country lost in the wilderness?

[TimeWarp66]

What a moron this woman is.

[mjswans]

Tell you what Naomi,...I'll control the future of your money by spending your future earnings on basic necessities like welfare, health-care for other nations,...I'll use YOUR money to pay back irresponsible loans toward affirmative action in lending programs, and I'll leave the back door wide open so anyone can come into your house at any time.

If you don't like this premise, then you should take a vacation and rethink your views.

[SuperGuitarman69]

Why does Naomi Klein speak and who are you idiots that listen and agree with her? Ask yourself, why am I so stupid? Why do I agree with Naomi Klein? Why do I think she is intellegent? Why do I hate the constitution and our founding fathers? Why do I think that people who think communism and European socialism is far better than capitalism are correct? Why do Americans still allow me to live in this country even tho I shouldn't? Ask Yourself

[TimeWarp66]

@SuperGuitarman69

hear hear! Out withe the socialists!

[llothar68]

@SuperGuitarman69

Because people wake up and see that all the american way of life is shit and they realized it was shit for a long long time and never worked for them.

Its called american dream because you must be sleeping to believe it.

SOCIALISM PREVAILS!

[SuperGuitarman69]

@llothar68 Freedom and prosperity are only for those who seek it. Those who do not seek wind up living under a bridge. They put themselves there not America. So you must be one of those people. Might I ask you to renounce your citizenship and leave? If you do not have the ability to at least seek and work, the best thing for you to do is move to Canada or Europe. You are a plight on our society anyway.

[rosihantu1]

The financial crisis illustrates how free market actually work. If you make bad decisions and policy, free market will correct it by bursting the bubble. In this instance Naomi Klein is blaming the symptom (derivatives market) when the actual cause was Federal Reserve's artificially low interest rates which did not reflect the true 'free market' rates.

[CrowdPleeza]

Greenspan is also criticized by free marketers for inflating the money supply and artifically lowering interest rates in 2003-04. This they say caused the housing bubble and doesn't represent free market economics.

[rsobies]

if she only try to read about austrain buisness cycle, she would be able to understand what was the reason of this crisys. but it seems it is too big effort for her. whole bank system is operating in financial socialism with central bank on top, it is far from free market. i hate when ignorants try to talk about economy

[takheads]

if only she knew what she was talking about....

has she ever heard about the CRA?

Or what about her beloved big Federal government creating/ giving away credit out of thin air?

[miron73]

It's even worse. She doesn't have a clue about that *existance* of Greenspan is a mistake. She thinks that FED is OK, but it should do *more* "regulations". She is unable to stand that *existance* of FED is *not* needed regulation. In some (hmm... twisted) way she is right - if we want to have central bank we must have *a lot* of regulations. In (not only) my opinion... well.. we don't need central banks at all.

[oskarshapley]

CRA didn't have any impact.

[Muwt]

Neoliberalism created this crisis.

The individuals who benefitted from irresponsible lending and repackaging toxic debt had already cashed in their bonusues, options, golden parachutes etc before any gov't bailout and would have done so anyway.

Because they could.

[MetaMorphy]

She is right that it is Greenspan's fault; however, I think it is absurd to say that deregulation created the subprime mortgage market---as if banks wanted to loan money to poor and minorities with bad credit ratings. Also, she acts as if trust and reputation don't matter simply because bankers are bankers---forgetting that the moral hazard created by government insurance basically is responsible for that fact. I mean, why care about reputation when the Fed and Congress have your back?

[return135]

Exactly. Naomi is blinded by her own ideology.

[jimjaas]

Greenspan worked against the USA.

[Bacchant33rd]

Why haven't more people seen this ?!?!?!

[snoopyflick]

Lol, the derivatives market was truly a free market, and therefore that destroys free markets :P Never mind all the wrong incentives created by the government in the financial industry. Nevermind that you had the Federal reserve creating this boom. Never mind that the Austrian Business cycle perfectly explains this crises. Never mind Trillions are taxed for war. It the radical free marketers that caused this, just like Canada sucks because of Marxist(Canada is more economically free than the US)

[khallaghi]

Neoliberalism at the basis of the financial crisis

[MetaMorphy]

No, socialism is the basis of this crisis.

[khallaghi]

"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself.

That, in its essence, is Fascism ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power."

[Jev6000]

Well said!! There are no perfect black and white Economic "ism." Why is so easy and logical to see and complex to understand? Any "ism" in its extreme pure form will lack efficiency or breed corruption. It is perplexing why finding a reasonable balance seems so unreasonable to the unreasonable. Or perhaps I just answered part of the question. Your point is not only well said and obviously true, but scarier to me than some balance in our economy is the direct route ARISTOCRACY it is taking.

[Supergompers]

Maybe the market place needs democratic control, and i don't mean with our purchasing power, but with the democratization of the work place. The share holders should be the higher paid managers and the lowest paid workers, and they should have to negotiate with one another for the companys future; therefore, American companies wont forsake their workers for better returns.

[Supergompers]

The current system seems to reduce sovereign nations in to bidders casting their bids for the most prosperous and prestige companies. The kicker is that the lowest bidder wins. If companies had to negotiate with workers, there would be no off-shoring, management could never make more than 200 times the lowest paid worker, and government wont have to create minimum wages. If managers wish to subvert their lives for a professional career, then for their sacrifice they deserve more money.

[HIHIMIII56]

@khallaghi Did you come up with this wise statement yourself or is it a quote from someone else?

[khallaghi]

@HIHIMIII56 Franklin D. Roosevelt in an April 29, 1938 message to Congress warned that the growth of private power could lead to fascism.

"Liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power

[khallaghi]

@HIHIMIII56 Franklin D. Roosevelt in an April 29, 1938 message to Congress warned that the growth of private power could lead to fascism.

"Liberty of a democracy is not safe if the.....

[khallaghi]

@HIHIMIII56 Franklin D. Roosevelt in an April 29, 1938 message to Congress warned that the growth of private power could lead to fascism.

"Liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power

[HIHIMIII56]

@khallaghi Thank you! It´s already gone that way. Or what do you think about Corporate interests led by Chicage liberal economists building up the Chinese dictature to a leading world power?

[dadrogon]

@khallaghi That is just hilarious, FDR warning anyone about fascism considering he is very responsible for the power and size of the military industrial complex. Oh, and the internment camps, oh and the draft. Fuck the left and its hypocrisy. They only disagree with war and police brutality when it takes money away from their social programs or cracks down on their unions.

[user197a]

It's funny that she blames Mr. Greenspan for the current disaster while at the same time saying the free market doesn't work.

Greenspan was the head of a semi-government controlled agency that is in bed with the national banks. Her example of the free market supposedly failing is in fact not free market at all. Her entire argument is fallacious.

[svengeino]

user197a. Im not with Communists nor am I with the "Capitalists". I think the market doesnt require a "philosophy" nor anything else for that matter. Emphasis on the philosophy.

But I have a question. Cant I argue that the current system is "The free market at work"? I mean since both free marketeers & communists lobbied your government. Isnt that free market competition? Whatever side has won the government's favor I suppose is the outcome of the "free market". isnt it?

[user197a]

At the center of free markets is the human right to private property, free speech, and agreeable exchange. Anything that impedes on these rights is anti-free market.

So no, just because communists gain control doesn't mean it's the free market. Their policies impede on the rights stated above. Communists destroy private property, oppress free speech, and replace freedom of exchange with government mandates.

[TitleofLiberty]

svengeino

You are absolutely right on your last paragraph. That's called the market-place of idea's.

[Supergompers]

you've reduced democracy to a luxery for the rich and an illusion for the poor, if it is only money that wins elections. i believe capitalism subverts democracy like cancer slowly kills its host. after all, if more people are poor than are rich, why does one speak louder than the other?

[croat88]

"golden parachutes"?

What kind of free market is she talking about? That's sounds like reverse socialism. Letting companies fail is a good thing in a free market.

[PerryLogan]

You mean life is NOT an Ayn Rand novel?

[kangalanatolian]

Pure capitalism is freedom. Regulations create a false sense of security, because there will always be new ways around them.

The TIME DELAY of the problem with derivatives let many jump on board, and the government mandates for requiring mortgages where not economically feasible gave the politicians some slim cover to bail them out.

Of course as usual, everything is manipulated to lead to the centralization of world power in the hands of basically 4 banks.

[paduaprs]

i think the ideal is a society with planned economy or not. then all citizens can vote for the best project. as in a free market. the vote is the profit of the politician (those ideas i think are ideal for a modern world and we do not have ideological discussions. thats my idea of democracy. (first, capitalism is a marxist concept. antonio

[moikl]

amen to that. i love naomi klein :)

[truindep]

naomi klein is a blithering idiot. the collective iq of the people of this country drops a notch each time she is encouraged to run her mouth.

canada, kindly take your twit back. we have had enough. it is your turn.

[poop121]

why do you say that? i'm not sure if I agree or not, as I have a mixed view of her, but I'm wondering what you're thinking.

[truindep]

she is a "journalist," not a scholar. her book was complete drivel and full of inaccuracies. she has no understanding of markets, capitalism, or milton friedman.

[upabittoolate]

just because she's a journalist doesn't mean she lacks understanding something. your job & what you know aren't always reciprocal. that's like saying a biologist can't understand auto mechanics. or a chef can't do math. your reasoning is poor in that respect. nonetheless, instead of arguing, i'll ask you to provide evidence (data & empirical proof) to support your claims

[truindep]

obviously you cannot read, because that is not what i said. she is a "journalist," not a scholar. read her book, then try some history and friedman. it will become quite obvious that what i say is true. hers was filled with historical inaccuracies as well as manipulated data. she has a poor grasp of economics or does not care that she has misrepresented capitalism, free market philosophy, and the ideas of milton friedman.

[upabittoolate]

i can read just fine. an ad hominem attack against me is inappropriate. a systems analyst can "get" astronomy. a garbage man can "savvy" graphic art. so why can't a journalist understand economics? hannity is a bartender/construction worker with no degree but he's accepted as a journalist/analyst. i digress, i asked you a simple question: what makes you say that? where are YOUR examples? it seems that you favor brevity but i'm asking for specificity. i've read friedman, so what. i'm asking YOU

[truindep]

i did not say that she cannot "get" it. i simply said that she does not.

if you have read friedman, then i should not have to explain her errors.

she began her book with a quote of his which she did not even take the time to understand the meaning of. it was all downhill from there, from a poor knowledge of the chilean crisis to near outright lies about tiananmen square and why the tragedy occurred.

[upabittoolate]

so you need to be a scholar in a discipline to do a journalistic examination of a figure within it? i guess MDs should stop writing books because they aren't writers. or lawyers shouldn't cook their own meals & leave it up to "the experts". yeah, that'll work. or maybe, she can publish her point of view as a journalist & the aggregate IQ of the country won't drop because they'll take what they read & hear with a grain of salt...like we already do

[truindep]

no, but one must have a scholarly knowledge of an event, idea, or person before attempting to write about it. that is common sense, and it is something that ms klein lacks.

i wish that people would take her book with a grain of salt (or perhaps less. i am unsure if it is worth even that). unfortunately, she has been hyped on the telly as having some knowledge when in fact all she has is hot air.

[upabittoolate]

the notion "common sense" is dumb. the last time i looked, being common, mediocre, mundane or garden variety aren't good things. but i'll say this much, i haven't read her piece. i will & i'll take your comments under advisement. ciao

[eirefrance]

Again, her book is about effect and the reality of implementing ideas, not economic philosophy. Sorry if you discovered that an admittedly brilliant man was still unable to account for human behavior in his ideas. Did you imagine Marx foresaw Pol Pot and Stalin? Its an ideology, not a reality. Get over it.

[eirefrance]

I'm only 150 pages in, but the book doesn't seem to be an economics textbook. It's investigative journalism. She includes 1000s of footnotes and many, many quotes. She, and most of her readers, I gather, care about effect not ideology. Its no less true that violence and torture were used to implement free markets than that it was also used to implement communism. Sorry if the truth offends your beliefs.

[truindep]

it is not investigative journalism when it is incorrect. it is simply nonsense.

if one does not understand ideologies, one cannot understand their effects. if one does not understand an economic system, one should not write about it.

further, capitalism is not force, but freedom.

[eirefrance]

Simply nonsense? capitalism is not force, but freedom? At least when she makes a claim, there is a footnote. To use an example from her book: Pinochet's tortures occured simultaneously to the opening up of Chile's markets. Had violence and repression not been used to force a free market, a pseudo-socialist govt would undoubtedly have come into being. Whatever effect that would have had, it didn't happen only because of violent repression.

[truindep]

torture and repression had long been a way of life for chileans (unfortunately). however, mr friedman was not an advisor to pinochet as klein claimed. he met him once at the behest of a charitable organization for less than an hour. some of the most important aspects of his plan were not implemented. i also must stress that capitalism is freedom to choose, socialism and communism are not. the more capitalistic a society, the more free it is and chileans had been fighting for that for some time.

[eirefrance]

One thing she does get right is in breaking down the common myth the right spreads about themselves, one that you are continuing here. The economic 'right' followed an ideology, one that allowed them to ally themselves with repressive violent regimes. Perhaps more capitalist societies are more free, but Allende was democratically elected and only violence could replace his economic system with another one.

[vivalabag]

Democracy does not equal freedom. In fact, I would argue (as would almost every United States Founding Father) that Democracy is another form of tyranny.

[eirefrance]

Oh, you would argue that, would you? Those crazy founding fathers, thinking a monarchy with King Washington is the best form of government. Because nothing says freedom like absolute control in the hands of a few.

[vivalabag]

Monarchy is indeed a tyrannical system. Nowhere have I endorsed it. However, it is undeniable that democracy is a gruesome form of tyranny. Democracy has wrought confiscatory tax rates that a monarch could never get away with. Worst of all, it has brought murder and warfare that no monarch could even fathom. We can thank 20th century democracy for concentration camps, indiscriminate total warfare (war on civilians), mass conscription, police states, corporatism, and economic ruin.

[Supergompers]

in the book, she says it was graduates from the chicago school of economics that were in penochet's administration, a school where friedman taught. market fundamentalism, which friedman adhered to, is as dangerous as any other fundamentalism. If you visit any of those nations she used as case studies, you will see, once you leave the tourist traps, there is destitute, degeneration and death.

[Supergompers]

I will tell you what utopian pontification is: its believing you can have a free market system without regulation, accountability, or the rule of law, which is where laissez-faire has led us, and is what her case studies show.

[Hooya2]

I'm a little uneducated to come weighing in on this debate, so could you elaborate on one of her factually inaccurate statements? I mean, you've made a lot of vague claims but you haven't really backed any of them up with anything solid.

[truindep]

her theory is that during times of public crisis, free marketeers introduce "shocks" to the market. the data does not uphold that theory because the "shocks" that the markets feel after an event are the result of an investors perceptions of said event. for instance, after 9/11 investors changed portfolios because of fear of "terror" and its repercussions, not to introduce calamity. the calamity already existed and people reacted to it, not vice versa.

[truindep]

also, she began her book with a famous quote of mr friedmans, which she misrepresented the meaning of. he felt that the soviets and communists created misery for their people, then would change their minds simply meaning that bad ideas can lead to bad consequences, then leaders may change their minds. this is not a "shock" nor is as much controversial as it is logical.

[eirefrance]

How can I not understand the effects of something just because I don't know the details of it's belief? I don't how to throw a curveball, but I know what one is. I don't understand the theory of gravity, but I know what will happen if I jump from a 10 story building.

[truindep]

if you do not understand a system, you cannot criticize it.

if you do not understand the philosophy of someone, you cannot correctly remark upon it.

[Redfingers]

Yeah, we're not even close to complete deregulation as I understand it.

[pchannell]

The experiment was tried, and it failed. I hope we learn.

[LeGioNoFZioN]

Naomi has some points but despite Greenspans folly, the market was not devoid of regulations. Thats called intellectual dishonesty. I agree that Greenspan's move was the stupidest move he had made, but deregulation was not the shedding of all rules, and a true free market application. Just be straight Naomi we can handle it.