« How free market are economists? | Main | Honestly, it's embarrassing »
Tyler Cowen gets mean and mad
I've now done a full review of Naomi Klein:
Most of the book is a button-pressing, emotionally laden, whirlwind tour of global events over the last 30 years: Katrina, the invasion of Iraq, torture in Chile, the massacre in Tiananmen Square, the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The book offers not so much an argument but rather a Dadaesque juxtaposition of themes and supposedly parallel developments in the global market. Above the excited recitation stands Milton Friedman as the überdemon of the march toward global tyranny and squalor...
Often Ms. Klein's proffered connections are so impressionistic and so reliant on a smarmy wink to the knowing that it is impossible to present them, much less critique them, in the short space of a book review...Ms. Klein also tellingly remarked, "I believe people believe their own bullshit. Ideology can be a great enabler for greed."
When it comes to the best-selling "Shock Doctrine," that is perhaps the bottom line on what Klein herself has been up to.
Here is the full review; just imagine if I hadn't liked the book!
Posted by Tyler Cowen on October 3, 2007 at 08:10 AM in Books | Permalink
Comments
Moral opposition to bad things is heady stuff, and allows a self-evaluated purity of motivation which can be intoxicating.
It is only when making positive recommendations that one is forced into the world of shabby compromize and cost-benefit pragmatism.
Which is why it is necessary to judge people, parties, policy-makers mainly in terms of their positive recommendations.
Posted by: Bruce G Charlton at Oct 3, 2007 9:15:24 AM
Nice review, but this confused me: "The simplest response to Ms. Klein's polemic is to invoke old school *conservatism*. This approach, most prominently represented by classical *liberal* Friedrich Hayek". Classic liberal I get, and the label makes sense for Hayek. Where's conservative come from?
Posted by: David N. Welton at Oct 3, 2007 9:34:37 AM
David-
"Where's conservative come from?"
Knee-jerk reaction?
Posted by: hubris at Oct 3, 2007 11:11:41 AM
I generally liked the review, but the passage about how "Chile abandoned socialistic policies for freer markets because the former weren't working well and induced economic crises" confuses me a bit. I mean, there was a coup there, was there not? On its face, it seems odd to pair Chile and New Zealand as polities that could "abandon" something in equivalent ways. Is there a timing issue I'm not appreciating? Did the Pinochet regime try to preserve as much socialism as possible for as long as possible, only abandoning it years after assuming power?
Posted by: Jim Henley at Oct 3, 2007 11:26:48 AM
It's not a serious book. "Shock" is more of a rallying cry for people already disposed to hating free markets and capitalism. I don't think Klein even cares what critics say, which to me makes her a propagandist, not a thinker. I mean, even the act of criticizing her book gets a 9/11 Truther-style response from her defenders. If you disagree with her, you're a tool, a capitalist crony, etc etc. I absolutely hate this.
PS I haven't read the book but I can't believe she tries to argue that Thatcher launched the Falklands campaign to fight back against the miners. This is insane. That war was a colossal political risk for her. She sent a naval task force halfway around the WORLD, at a time of political uncertainty for her domestic policies, to fight a war that could have been easily lost. Had she failed, Thatcher would have been toast, and the miners would never have been down.
The campaign against the miners was a totally different operation that involved its own planning. She didn't need the Falklands War to carry that out. Instead, she readied legislation, stockpiled coal and invested in police resources ahead of the confrontation.
Thatcher was a politician of principle. She succeeded because she took dramatic risks on behalf of solid ideas. I'm not a fan of Thatcher's friendship with Pinochet, but come on Klein, get serious...
Posted by: Mike at Oct 3, 2007 11:29:07 AM
Five years ago The Economist said Naomi Klein needs to grow up (non-gated). It seems like she still hasn't grown up.
Posted by: happyjuggler0 at Oct 3, 2007 11:30:21 AM
I never understand people who claim that capitalism is evil, and that state controlled economies are not. States that controlled their economy were the largest mass murders in the 20th century. About 100 million
murdered between the Chinese communists and Soviets alone. How many people has Wal Mart killed? Does Exxon Mobile have a Gulag?
See here for statistics on death by government:
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM
Posted by: DM at Oct 3, 2007 12:06:56 PM
You are totally correct.
This is the main way of selling books about social issues - tell the base a story it wants to pay money to hear. The same strategy is at work regardless of left or right.
The other strategies are (1) famous author and (2) fun to read and interesting insights. But the former expect too much money and there aren't enough of the latter.
Posted by: MarkT at Oct 3, 2007 12:10:57 PM
Superb review, Tyler.
Posted by: anonymous at Oct 3, 2007 12:21:57 PM
David (post 2), unfortunately there seems to be no answer to the question that you bring up. There are no longer and standard definitions for the terms liberal and conservative. All political rhetoric now revolves around continuums that do not really make sense. Democrat vs. Republican. The Left vs. the Right. Liberal vs. Conservative. Now the word "liberal" is supposed to be synonymous with the muddy concept of "leftism" and "conservative" is supposed to be synonymous with all things on the right. Conservative economic policy, however, is traditionally very liberal. What does that make economic policy of the left wing? Some would say, "non-existent." Really it's statist or socialist, but neither term really describes most democrats. Generally, those on the left believe that government economic manipulation maximizes economic outcomes and an equitable distribution of wealth. And since the Democrats are most passionate about liberal social policies, and because the right had cornered the market on conservatism, and because the term "socialist" is undesirable politically, they choose to apply the term "liberal" to all stances that support their agenda.
So now we don't even know what we're talking about half of the time. What is considered a liberal foreign policy (especially now that the neoconservative movement has adopted the very policies championed by Woodrow Wilson and the 20th century Democratic movement)? How is a liberal economic policy different from a "classic liberal" economic policy? What is a liberal environmental policy?
This occurs on the right too, and is one of the problems with Naomi Klein's book. What does capitalism mean anymmore? Now that corporations benefit so greatly from government largesse, capitalism as it is practiced in the US only has a fleeting association with the original concepts of free markets. Now, the word capitalism itself is rarely understood the same way by two different people. Does capitalism represent the current US economic model, which is now sometimes also called corporatism (or corporatocracy, as John Perkins would say), or does capitalism still refer to the classically liberal economic models of Adam Smith?
I suspect that this obfuscation of terms has been a relatively deliberate process. It benefits politicians to be able to use ambiguous terms, especially now that there is little difference between the right and left. The vast majority of politicians believe in the principle of Government manipulation and control as a rule. As a result, all political conversation and rhetoric has been dumbed down. Wedge issues that have little effect on the overall welfare of the nation comprise most of the distinction between the left and right. Even when there is an important divide, it most likely is ephemeral. (There is no evidence that Democrats in general are more adverse to state building and overseas intervention than Republicans.) What is really sad is that now, not even intellectuals like Tyler Cowen can effectively relay thoughts on idealogical difference without stepping into the same linguistic morase.
One last thought, I always find it ironic when anti-capitalists exploit US economic policy failings to sell stuff.
Posted by: Kris at Oct 3, 2007 12:23:11 PM
Protocols of the Elders of Wall Street. Simply disgraceful.
Posted by: at Oct 3, 2007 12:39:37 PM
Not every author has the same goals. Klein is a polemicist. She joins a long list from Tom Paine to Zola.
Polemicists want to bring issues they think are important before a public that hasn't been paying attention. They do this by oversimplifying and using colorful language. What they hope for is that the issues they raise will be more widely discussed. Frequently they are long on the descriptions of injustices and short on suggestions for remedies.
They are not appealing primarily to those who already agree with them, but trying to get new people to sign on to the cause. It is up to those who follow them to provide the factual details and to suggest avenues for change.
The person who calls in the fire alarm is not expected to douse the flames. Stiglitz got this point in his review.
"Klein is not an academic and cannot be judged as one. There are many places in her book where she oversimplifies. But Friedman and the other shock therapists were also guilty of oversimplification, basing their belief in the perfection of market economies on models that assumed perfect information, perfect competition, perfect risk markets. Indeed, the case against these policies is even stronger than the one Klein makes. They were never based on solid empirical and theoretical foundations, and even as many of these policies were being pushed, academic economists were explaining the limitations of markets — for instance, whenever information is imperfect, which is to say always."
I suppose his remarks are ignored since he (also) has harsh things to say about the great god Friedman...
Posted by: robertdfeinman at Oct 3, 2007 12:45:19 PM
I also thought the Hayek bit came out of nowhere.
Henley, in Chile there was a general strike and the Parliament requested that Allende be removed from power. Perhaps it was U.S pressure rather than Allende's policies that caused this, but things were pretty screwed up. Pinochet was not initially committed to socialism or free-markets. The generals didn't really know how to run an economy and came to admit that years after taking power, hence the Chicago Boys.
rdf, no one ever said Stiglitz should be ignored for criticizing Friedman. What Dani Rodrik (in no sense a Friedmanite) is upset about is his looking-the-other-way with regard to the nonsense in Klein's book.
Posted by: TGGP at Oct 3, 2007 1:20:00 PM
I am so sorry, Tyler, that you had to wade through an entire Naomi Klein book. I do hope they paid you well.
Posted by: David Wright at Oct 3, 2007 1:21:16 PM
Does Exxon Mobile have a Gulag?
Pinochet had a Gulag.
jenny
Posted by: jenny at Oct 3, 2007 1:36:03 PM
Naomi Klein as Thomas Pain, I think I have heard it all now. What tortured logic does one have to employ to come up with that association? I think she is a polemicist who is writing way way over her head and is spared of the flames by a nobel prize winning economist. Having Stiglitz come out and say those things speaks volumes about the ineptitude of her work. It's as if he is saying "Do not be mean to her because she is a "special"." WOW, I can not believe he did that, how embarrassing for Klein.
Posted by: John Pertz at Oct 3, 2007 1:48:32 PM
I wonder if Klein is a millionaire? Does she live in a big house? Does she have a nice car?
I wonder...
Posted by: Dan at Oct 3, 2007 1:51:04 PM
Prof.Cowen,
You say that:
"Third, the reach of government has been shrinking in India and China, to the indisputable benefit of billions".
Absolutely a wrong statement.Indian people know that the shrinking of the state has made things worser.
It has led to the growth of a neo-rich powerful group,a greedy accumulative middle class who do not even care about their home country and a proliferation of numerous political,religious-minority and powerful private sector pressure groups.
It has led to the breakdown of social security system throwing out the poor and the lower middle class who constitute the majority from the mainstream.
It has encouraged destructive consumption mania, especially conspicuous consumption.
It is slowly destroying oriental culture and in its place, western exhibitionism is gathering momentum.
Posted by: GVV at Oct 3, 2007 1:53:33 PM
Wow, GVV, I know many many Indians who would disagree with you! India has been held back for decades by stupid bureaucracy and state intervention; now, at last, the country is growing and getting rich. People have opportunities they never had before, they are healthier, they have choices, and this will improve as the nation grows. Sure, they have a long way to go still. All I can say is to hell with Marxists.
Posted by: Fran at Oct 3, 2007 2:05:45 PM
I can that GVV speaks only from himself.
The vast majority of Indians are better off. GVV makes a crucial mistake by assuming more goverment would have led to better outcomes for more people when it is same govt that is responsible for most of India's problems.
If Mr GVV is somehow of jealous of the conspicuous consumption of growing middle-class then I suggest he emigrate.
Posted by: sa at Oct 3, 2007 2:23:31 PM
Fran,
Who are those Indians? May be some of the neo-rich offsprings of liberalisation who are living abroad as non-resident Indians (the superheroes of liberalisation,the modern NRI maharajas) who least bother about the common people.Come to India and live in Mumbai or some other cities or in a village to see the structure of every day life of the layman in India.Then you will realise.
The trickle down hypothesis does not work.
The Nehruvian strategy of development has to be brought back to rescue the poor and the downtrodden.
Posted by: GVV at Oct 3, 2007 2:29:36 PM
Professor Cowen,
Fantastic review, and one I'm very glad to see someone write, given that we can't rely on Mr. Stiglitz (or many others for that matter) to provide an accurate account for what the book really is: a polemic with no basis in fact or reason. What puzzles me is how you can say you liked the book? I won't even go near a book like this because it would make me so angry to think about all the people who actually think Ms. Klein is onto something.
Can you explain how you can like a book and yet disagree with the book's thesis, which is poorly supported?
Posted by: CT at Oct 3, 2007 2:43:19 PM
Did anyone catch Klein in "The Possibility of Hope", a vignette added to the bonus features of the Children of Men DVD? She makes some absurd and blatantly false claims there, then goes on to tell the viewer that her strategy is to stockpile resources and SUVs in Alaska so she and her friends can survive once capitalism has destroyed the rest of the world.
I guess there are markets for the warped view of reality she is selling.
Posted by: Jim Outen at Oct 3, 2007 3:57:40 PM
Whatever her intellectual faults, Ms. Klein is really cute.
Posted by: A. Guy at Oct 3, 2007 5:02:09 PM
...the passage about how "Chile abandoned socialistic policies for freer markets because the former weren't working well and induced economic crises" confuses me a bit. I mean, there was a coup there, was there not?
Yes, there was a coup because Allende's 'socialistic policies' had produced near chaos. 1,000% inflation, housewives parading in the streets banging pots and pans because they couldn't feed their families, communist thugs beating and killing small landowners in the south....
Georgy Anne Geyer tells the story well in, 'Buying the Night Flight'.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan at Oct 3, 2007 6:02:23 PM
