Rob

Am struggling through the book at the moment. I bought it in paperback on your recommendation. Although it is a brilliant book and extremely scary I find myself curiously unconvinced. I only really know anything about the British bit and I don't really recognise the picture of Thatcherite Britain that Klein paints. It really does seem to me that she shoe-horns the British case to fit her thesis and it doesn't convince me. This leads me to doubt some of the rest of the book about which I know less.

In tone it gives me the impression of campaigning 'journalism' and I don't use the j word as a compliment. I really think I'd have found the case more compelling if I thought there was a bit more objectivity in it.

Still it is a fascinating and scary read and definitely should be read by anyone who fancies a different view of the history of the 2nd half of the last century.

The current context with the failure of extreme free market economics is interesting. Under her thesis, this should mean even more extreme free market economics but it looks as though the opposite is happening. Who'd have thought Bush would nationalise Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac.

I wonder if the current crises will end the shock doctrine. It certainly seems to be quite a serious blow to it.

M

Well, Matthew, there are tons of references included for specific facts if any of them seem dubious. Maybe it slipped down easier for me because it fits with lots of other (rather strident) things I've read.

And as for the shock doctrine being over, I think the $700bn bail-out was a classic example. We have to do *something*. We have to act quickly. Bail out struggling homeowners? No. Lend directly to those who need loans? No. Bail out some rich banks? Yes. It's unpopular pro-corporate action masquerading as a rescue package, which I think is exactly what the shock doctrine predicts.

Anyway, I'm really glad someone is reading it and is prepared to share their thoughts. Thanks, Matthew.

Rob

I agree that there are lots of references to lots of facts and I don't doubt them. It is one of the reasons I am still reading it and one of the reasons I find it so scary.

However I do feel that there is quite a lot of extrapolation, some exaggeration and some reaching between these gaps. All of which may be right but quite a lot of it detracts from what otherwis would be unarguable (IMHO).

Your example of current shock doctrine behavior is I think an example of this. Everything that could be seen as evidence of the theory is cited as such but not examined as such. Any evidence disagreeing with the theory is igored.

Whilst I agree the people with loans they couldn't repay could (and should) have been supported with loans etc, I'm not sure you can put this down as a classic shock doctine bail out. I don't think the shareholders of Northern Rock, HBOS, Lehman Brothers, Stanley Morgan etc feel they've been bailed out. They've all lost fortunes (as have our pension funds).

Yes as usual the poor have been screwed but I'm not convinced the rich are exactly happy or better off and I do believe there will inevitably be more regulation which is hardly Friedmanesque.

Am very glad I am reading the book though. It is certainly intersting and shocking.

M