Is "The Shock Doctrine" a conspiracy theory?

[stokes234]

I'm most of the way through "The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein, and it seems to be a particularly powerful book.

It basically claims that free market supporters, originating from the chicago school of economics and spreading out to take high positions in IMF, world bank and USA treasury, spread their free market ideology by holding desperate countries to ransom. They wait until some disaster strikes, such as a natural disaster, a war, price drops on the countries' main exports or something similar, and then they move in and say that they will provide aid to stabilise the economy, but only if the country adopts radical, undemocratic free market principles, such as rapid privatisation, removal of minimum wage and price controls, and barriers to free trade. The country is forced to do so, and various rich businessmen make a killing from the sales of public assets, and they then leave the country in ruins with mass unemployment and much heightened inequality, and move on. In some cases the book claims the financial crises were deliberately worsened by the IMF and various other financial bodies and multinational conglomerates to force these countries into a position where they would have to accept the free market policies.

The book also claims that the chicago economists, which it dubs "the chicago boys", exploit military coups to force their economic policies through as well, such as in indonesia and chile.

As case studies, the book cites indonesia under suharto; chile under pinochet; argentina, brazil and uruguay soon after; south africa coming out of apartheid; poland breaking free from the soviet union; the soviet union collapsing; thailand, south korea, indonesia and the philippines in the 97 asian financial crisis; and canadas allegedly artificially created low credit rating in the late 90s.

It makes a particularly compelling case, filling about 50 pages of references at the end, and quoting many top figures among the financial bodies at these times including jeffrey sachs and a bunch of other top economists and political advisors, investigative journalists and so on.

What I want to know is whether or not this qualifies as a conspiracy theory (if a resounding "no", feel free to move or delete the thread), and what other materials there are on the subject, supporting or rejecting the claim that the western economic powers deliberately held countries to ransom in order to lay claim to their financial assets. Official replies, high profile responses, any resulting court cases etc would all be particularly welcome, as well as opinions of anyone who knows much about the subject.

One further thing, that made me do a double take, and which may end up driving the thread off on a tangent - at one point, the book claims that donald rumsfeld made a particularly controversial speech in the pentagon, basically declaring war on the pentagons bureaucracy, stating he would sell off all parts of the military that he thought could be better performed by private companies. Obviously he should have faced some serious opposition by the established bereaucracy, but he never did because he made the speech on september 10, 2001. I've always rejected the 9/11 conspiracy theories and consider myself a rational person; on balance, I have to say it must have been a coincidence. But I was suprised that i'd never heard it as an argument supporting the claim that 9/11 was planned by the american government.

Anyway, discuss, and preferably try to convince me one way or the other and/or point me to where I can learn more. I'm one of the few people on the internet whose opinion can actually be changed.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I'm most of the way through "The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein, and it seems to be a particularly powerful book.

It basically claims that free market supporters, originating from the chicago school of economics and spreading out to take high positions in IMF, world bank and USA treasury, spread their free market ideology by holding desperate countries to ransom. They wait until some disaster strikes, such as a natural disaster, a war, price drops on the countries' main exports or something similar, and then they move in and say that they will provide aid to stabilise the economy, but only if the country adopts radical, undemocratic free market principles, such as rapid privatisation, removal of minimum wage and price controls, and barriers to free trade. The country is forced to do so, and various rich businessmen make a killing from the sales of public assets, and they then leave the country in ruins with mass unemployment and much heightened inequality, and move on. In some cases the book claims the financial crises were deliberately worsened by the IMF and various other financial bodies and multinational conglomerates to force these countries into a position where they would have to accept the free market policies.

When bad things happen, some people inevitably benefit. Sometimes they do so deliberately and maliciously, sometimes they are cynical opportunists, and sometimes it just turns out that way.

Conspiracy theorists often take this as proof that the people who benefited must have made it happen. It's a simple "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" fallacy.

I would dismiss this one as a similar fallacy unless pretty substantial evidence were offered that there is a coordinated effort to profit from the misery of others. As it is, it appears to be just the inevitable result of human nature being what it is.

 

[stokes234]

When bad things happen, some people inevitably benefit. Sometimes they do so deliberately and maliciously, sometimes they are cynical opportunists, and sometimes it just turns out that way.

Conspiracy theorists often take this as proof that the people who benefited must have made it happen. It's a simple "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" fallacy.

I would dismiss this one as a similar fallacy unless pretty substantial evidence were offered that there is a coordinated effort to profit from the misery of others. As it is, it appears to be just the inevitable result of human nature being what it is.

Well, what about evidence that people who helped write the manifesto for economic shock doctrines personally benefitting to the tune of millions from their application? The cases are far enough detached that it isn't the same people in every case, rather a recurring theme with the odd recurring profiteer and many recurring economists. For example, some of the "chicago boys" in chile made millions speculating on the resultant economy, ford motor cars made alot of money from the indonesian regime after helping to fund the economic shock doctrine put in by suharto, some of the russian economists who helped push the economic manifesto through under yeltsin ended up profiting, etc.

I can cite sources from the book or find them online for each specific case if you request them, but would these types of benefitting prove the free market shock doctrine tactic to be a type of conspiracy theory? Or perhaps a bunch of smaller ones? Or is the term "conspiracy theory" only applied to mostly implausible yet still supported theories?

 

[jakesteele]

I haven't read the book you're talking about, but I'm going to because it sounds a lot like this one, which I have read.

Confessions of an Economic Hitman
http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Economic-Hit-John-Perkins/dp/1576753018

I haven't read the book you're talking about, but I'm going to because it sounds a lot like this one, which I have read.

Perkins writes that his economic projections cooked the books Enron-style to convince foreign governments to accept billions of dollars of loans from the World Bank and other institutions to build dams, airports, electric grids, and other infrastructure he knew they couldn't afford. The loans were given on condition that construction and engineering contracts went to U.S. companies. Often, the money would simply be transferred from one bank account in Washington, D.C., to another one in New York or San Francisco. The deals were smoothed over with bribes for foreign officials, but it was the taxpayers in the foreign countries who had to pay back the loans. When their governments couldn't do so, as was often the case, the U.S. or its henchmen at the World Bank or International Monetary Fund would step in and essentially place the country in trusteeship, dictating everything from its spending budget to security agreements and even its United Nations votes. It was, Perkins writes, a clever way for the U.S. to expand its "empire" at the expense of Third World citizens. While at times he seems a little overly focused on conspiracies, perhaps that's not surprising considering the life he's led. --Alex Roslin

 

[BobHaulk]

no it's not, it is in fact a mirror in the face of all you right wing conservatives who love money more than humanity.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I can cite sources from the book or find them online for each specific case if you request them, but would these types of benefitting prove the free market shock doctrine tactic to be a type of conspiracy theory? Or perhaps a bunch of smaller ones? Or is the term "conspiracy theory" only applied to mostly implausible yet still supported theories?

Usually, the term "conspiracy theory" refers to a paranoid belief that dark forces operating in secret are somehow manipulating events to their own devious ends. They are used to explain any event the conspiracy theorist cannot make sense of, which is practically all of them.

They are usually both implausible and unsupported. They are based on the mistaken belief that behind any significant event is equally significant intent.

Whenever I hear "bad things are happening, and there is a shadowy cabal that is making them happen", I think "conspiracy theory".

 

[aggle-rithm]

no it's not, it is in fact a mirror in the face of all you right wing conservatives who love money more than humanity.

Who?

 

[stokes234]

I haven't read the book you're talking about, but I'm going to because it sounds a lot like this one, which I have read.

Confessions of an Economic Hitman
http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Economic-Hit-John-Perkins/dp/1576753018

I haven't read the book you're talking about, but I'm going to because it sounds a lot like this one, which I have read.

Perkins writes that his economic projections cooked the books Enron-style to convince foreign governments to accept billions of dollars of loans from the World Bank and other institutions to build dams, airports, electric grids, and other infrastructure he knew they couldn't afford. The loans were given on condition that construction and engineering contracts went to U.S. companies. Often, the money would simply be transferred from one bank account in Washington, D.C., to another one in New York or San Francisco. The deals were smoothed over with bribes for foreign officials, but it was the taxpayers in the foreign countries who had to pay back the loans. When their governments couldn't do so, as was often the case, the U.S. or its henchmen at the World Bank or International Monetary Fund would step in and essentially place the country in trusteeship, dictating everything from its spending budget to security agreements and even its United Nations votes. It was, Perkins writes, a clever way for the U.S. to expand its "empire" at the expense of Third World citizens. While at times he seems a little overly focused on conspiracies, perhaps that's not surprising considering the life he's led. --Alex Roslin

Nice thanks, that is the kind of thing i'm looking for.

Anyone have any arguements from the other side of the equation? Maybe I should have posted this in the economics forum.

 

[jargon buster]

Confessions of an Economic Hitman
http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Ec.../dp/1576753018

I wouldnt get too exited about that book as being an authourity in reality, John Perkins wrote a book on how to shapeshift
http://www.amazon.com/Shapeshifting...l-Transformation/dp/0892816635/ref=pd_sim_b_3

 

[stokes234]

I wouldnt get too exited about that book as being an authourity in reality, John Perkins wrote a book on how to shapeshift
http://www.amazon.com/Shapeshifting...l-Transformation/dp/0892816635/ref=pd_sim_b_3

Argh.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Nice thanks, that is the kind of thing i'm looking for.

Anyone have any arguements from the other side of the equation? Maybe I should have posted this in the economics forum.

Economics (as well as psychology) tells us that many people are going to tend to be selfish opportunists when there is a profit to be made. There is no need to organize these people; they just do what comes naturally to them.

 

[stokes234]

Economics (as well as psychology) tells us that many people are going to tend to be selfish opportunists when there is a profit to be made. There is no need to organize these people; they just do what comes naturally to them.

I'm confused as to your point.

 

[Kid Eager]

I think he means that they are sociopaths and they will do what feels good.

 

[Travis]

Confessions of an Economic Hitman has been exposed as a huge lie in other threads. I would not doubt that The Shock Doctrine is also nothing but BS. I haven't read it though so I won't make that declaration unilaterally.

 

[Infoexcavator]

I wouldnt get too exited about that book as being an authourity in reality, John Perkins wrote a book on how to shapeshift
http://www.amazon.com/Shapeshifting...l-Transformation/dp/0892816635/ref=pd_sim_b_3

I was under the impression that it is about a philosophical and mental transformation, not actually turning into something else. Kinda like a self-help book or a history lesson about shamanism.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I'm confused as to your point.

Well, you originally said this:

It basically claims that free market supporters, originating from the chicago school of economics and spreading out to take high positions in IMF, world bank and USA treasury, spread their free market ideology by holding desperate countries to ransom. They wait until some disaster strikes, such as a natural disaster, a war, price drops on the countries' main exports or something similar, and then they move in and say that they will provide aid to stabilise the economy, but only if the country adopts radical, undemocratic free market principles, such as rapid privatisation, removal of minimum wage and price controls, and barriers to free trade.

What you're describing here is something that is planned and organized by some person or group of people.

Then you said:

Maybe I should have posted this in the economics forum.

And I pointed out that according to economic theory, people do what they do not out of elaborate plotting and scheming, but in response to economic pressures.

It may SEEM like plotting and scheming, just as it may SEEM like a plant "wants" to turn its leaves to the sun. In fact, both are mindless mechanisms.

This is why at least some government regulation is essential. Left to their own devices, people controlling large amounts of wealth will tend to make decisions that lead to short-term benefit even if they KNOW it will have long-term negative consequences. The system demands that they do nothing less.

 

[stokes234]

And I pointed out that according to economic theory, people do what they do not out of elaborate plotting and scheming, but in response to economic pressures.

It may SEEM like plotting and scheming, just as it may SEEM like a plant "wants" to turn its leaves to the sun. In fact, both are mindless mechanisms.

This is why at least some government regulation is essential. Left to their own devices, people controlling large amounts of wealth will tend to make decisions that lead to short-term benefit even if they KNOW it will have long-term negative consequences. The system demands that they do nothing less.

This sounds like reasoning applicable on the smaller scale economics of business ventures and investments, but I can see no reason why the IMF would be forced to demand that other countries adopt a particular set of economic policies. The US treasury, the IMF and the world bank are surely high enough up to not be forced to force set ideological rules on other countries, especially in the context of previous applications of the same rules having led the country concerned into worse poverty.

 

[stokes234]

Confessions of an Economic Hitman has been exposed as a huge lie in other threads. I would not doubt that The Shock Doctrine is also nothing but BS. I haven't read it though so I won't make that declaration unilaterally.

Is there anything more helpful you could add? I'm sure you can understand that i'm unlikely to dismiss arguements in a book backed up by reasonable-looking sources, based on the fact that somebody who has never read the book has read that other books on similar subjects contain errors.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Freemen on the Land' use 'reasonable-looking sources' to support their delusions as do Creationists intheir use of science sources to prove their points. It's not the source it's the way you present it.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Is there anything more helpful you could add? I'm sure you can understand that i'm unlikely to dismiss arguements in a book backed up by reasonable-looking sources, based on the fact that somebody who has never read the book has read that other books on similar subjects contain errors.

Ah! THERE's your problem.

Check out these "reasonable-looking" sources. When investigating conspiracy theories in the past, I've found that sources are often cherry-picked, and, if studied in their entirety, sometimes are found to directly contradict the ideas they are supposed to support.