College Media Network

Welcome to the shock

Print this article

Published: Wednesday, October 8, 2008

Updated: Wednesday, October 8, 2008

America is undergoing shock therapy.

It has been a year since Naomi Klein’s book “The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism” made its debut, but it seems even timelier and more relevant today. Through on-the-ground reporting and years of historical research, the journalist and documentary filmmaker rejects the claim that Milton Friedman’s free-market economic policies are as peaceful of a force as he presents them. Using examples such as General Pinochet’s coup in Chile in the 1970s, the Iraq War and post-Katrina New Orleans, Klein argues that the Friedman followers implemented a radical policy of privatization and deregulation to profit in times of violence, shock and vulnerability. What she calls the “Disaster Capitalist Complex” allows for corporations to benefit heavily from destruction, upheaval and economic instability.

In a recent article on the Huffington Post, Klein asserted that the next big series of shocks has begun.

The necessary symptoms are in order. Economic crisis, shock, panic and a subsequent blind-sided opportunistic approach that ultimately ceases to benefit those most in need.

The threatening and panicked rhetoric of our leaders forced lawmakers to rush into legislation deemed deeply flawed and ineffective by bipartisan voices. On the Senate floor, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) said, “under this bill, the CEOs and the Wall Street insiders will still, with a little bit of imagination, continue to make out like bandits.”

Sanders vehemently opposed the bill, arguing that it does not effectively address the very serious problems that caused this crisis and lacks the necessary oversight to remedy the deregulation fervor, not to mention that it does not address foreclosures and executive compensation nor does it address the growing unemployment rate and low wages.

The speed of the bill’s passage and gaping holes in logic eerily mimics the post-9-11 Bush administration sweep to pass both the Patriot Act and a vote to fund the “war on terror”. Perhaps shock and legislate is the administration’s mantra. When the public is disorientated, as they are amid a disaster or economic crisis, the shock doctrine comes into play. We regress to a state of vulnerability akin to that experienced after electroshock therapy used on subjects in covert CIA experiments, clinging to the first means of comfort available (in this case the ‘bailout’ bill and our leaders). The first shock has emanated, robbing us financially; time will soon reveal if new leadership will choose to profit from the shock, using it as an excuse to push partisan policy or call for stringent regulation.

To examine the current crisis in the Shock Doctrine lens is both revealing and frightening. Whatever approach of reform we adopt, given the  state of our economic and political system, it must come loudly, boldly and from the grassroots. Unfortunately, Tresury Secretary Henry Paulson, the former CEO of Goldman Sachs who earned $38 million in bonuses in 2005, will not be our white knight, nor will we see E. Stanley O’Neill, the executive officer of Merrill Lynch, shovel some of his $161 million severance package our way. And I doubt the Richard Fuld of Lehman Brothers is going to help bail us out with the $354 million he made in total compensation over five years.

It has been painfully clear the Bush administration has not held up the public interest; it is now time for us to be the opportunists. Klein reminds us that if our government is able to ask for an inordinate amount from us without question, we should surely be allowed to ask for some things back, starting with caps on executive pay and help on foreclosures.

It is easy to get lost amid the shock waves of panic and feel compelled to act now, and act fast. But if we don’t stop and question the crisis in terms of serious reform and long-term solutions, in terms of who this legislation is really benefiting most, in terms of how we can push for equality and resist the shock treatment, we will be left financially and politically bankrupt for years to come.

And, thanks to Klein, this outcome won’t come as a shock.

Naomi Klein will be speaking in Austin on Oct. 12 at 6 p.m. at St. Andrews Presbyterian Church. Tickets can be purchased in person or by phone from MonkeyWrench Books, 110 E. North Loop, 512-407-6925. 

Tuma is a journalism senior.

Comments

5 comments
Jack
Sun Oct 12 2008 22:10
As Noam Chomsky put it this week:

"The United States effectively has a one-party system, the business party, with two factions, Republicans and Democrats."

Republicans and Democrats are both to be blamed for this disaster!

Andrew Glass
Wed Oct 8 2008 23:03
This writer and Naomi Klein are mistaken when it comes to what Capitalism is. Both seem to equate Capitalism with corporatism and war. But this is wrong. Capitalism is the peaceful process where individuals voluntarily trade with one another on terms they agree upon. In capitalism the government has little or no role. Therefore, saying the recent bailout bill is an example of "disaster capitalism" is boneheaded. Confiscating money from innocent taxpayers to lavish upon Wall Street bankers is corporatism. There is nothing about free market economics that would lead any thinking person to believe this is what Friedman would have espoused.

If anything, this is an example of the much more serious "disaster socialism" that Klein ignores. That is: there is a crisis, so government ups the ante and imposes itself on more industries and private people than it had before. Economist Robert Higgs has called this phenomenon the "ratchet effect." A capitalist response to the Wall Street bank failures would be simple and require no government action. The capitalist response would be to let the firms fail.

Miss Tuma should look up the terms she uses in this piece and consider resubmitting it with a different enemy: the state.

whowhathuh?
Wed Oct 8 2008 12:55
"under this bill" That pretty much screams regulation. I also hate to inform you that the trouble with Fannie and Freddie came about through government policies expanding their mandates to provide homes for everyone (at least buying up the financing of those subprime borrowers). Instead of letting the free market put people in homes they could afford the gov't turned a blind eye (Barney Frank) to the lax lending practices that were going on. Poor people don't necessarily belong in a home (I include myself in this list).
Not Matt
Wed Oct 8 2008 12:10
wow, pathetic republican racsists in action. parroting the words of one of your talking heads like rush limbaugh. here's the deal, moron, even if some loans were given to a small percentage of people who weree not qualified that was not enough in itself to cause this kind of widespread financial crisis. the problem was the totally unregulated use of a "gimmick" called swap and buyback options. the big banking firms new these assets (the bad loans they were selling to investors) were risky so to sweeten the deal and make it more palatable they offered "insurance" on the loans except they didn't dare call it "insurance" because then it would have been regulated. you see if you sell insurance that evil satanic demon called your government, you treasonous swine, makes insurance companies keep a substantial amount of cash on hand to prove that they can meet their commitments, however, a bunch of cleverly stupid MBA's came up with the idea of calling this bad loan insurance a "swap" or "buyback" so that they wouldn't fall under the same regulations as insurance does. so investors bought these bad loans thinking they would be insured even if they did prove to be bad. unfortunately none of the banks and financial firms selling this "swap or buyback" insurance actually had enough cash reserves on hand to meet their commitments if these loans proved to be as bad on such a massive scale as they have. hence the problem we are now in - it's not people defaulting on their mortgages, dumbass, that's the problem it's all of the investors who sold the bad debt trying to get their money back via the "swap or buyback" gimmick.
Matt
Wed Oct 8 2008 10:44
I know it's easy for Marxists to blame Bush and Wallstreet for everything that's wrong with the economy and to tell privately owned companies how they can and can't run their business, but free market capitalism didn't cause this problem - the government did. By forcing banks to give loans to sub-prime borrowers, the government overstepped its constitutional boundaries and now we are all paying for it. True, the Bush administration could have pressed harder for the Senate to change these practices, but last time I checked the Constitution, the President does not write law. The Democrats have been in power for two years, have sat at the head of Fanny/Freddie for over a decade, and have done nothing but watch our economy crash and burn. If Wallstreet had been allowed to follow free market capitalism practices, banks never would have allowed the lax lending practices that have created the crisis we're in now.