User talk:FeydHuxtable: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
FeydHuxtable (talk | contribs) reply to OpenFuture |
FeydHuxtable (talk | contribs) Johan Norberg's article on the shock doctrine |
||
| Line 77: | Line 77: | ||
:So anyway if you'd prefer to discuss on a forum let me know where , otherwise I'll write up a full response to Nolan's criticism for you here next week. [[User:FeydHuxtable |FeydHuxtable]] ([[User talk:FeydHuxtable |talk]]) 19:340, 5 September 2008 (UTC) |
:So anyway if you'd prefer to discuss on a forum let me know where , otherwise I'll write up a full response to Nolan's criticism for you here next week. [[User:FeydHuxtable |FeydHuxtable]] ([[User talk:FeydHuxtable |talk]]) 19:340, 5 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
::Okay, maybe we don't need to find a forum to discuss this, there's far less to fault than I was expecting. One has to accept most of your man's criticisms, he's clearly a far sharper analyst than Naomi. I also appreciated his flair for drama, like when he said one of Keynes followers supports dictators as long as they implement approved economic policies, and it turned out the follower he had in mind was Klein herself. For me Norberg especially succeeds in redeeming Milton Friedman. |
|||
::A few points I disagree on. 1) the overgeneralization that Klein's books is hopelessly flawed on virtually every level, sure he succeeds in identifying numerous flaws, but plenty of merit remains in what Klein has to say. 2) he over-emphasises the degree to which Klein implies neoLiberals intentionally create shock doctrines, as we seen one of your critical reviewers accepted she wasn't doing that. 3) Bizarrely, he attempts to make a general case that free markets are widely correlated with a reduction in poverty, relying heavily on figures from the World Bank and Gwartney's Economic Freedom of the World. There's widespread scepticism about the World banks across the academic, political and corporate sectors. Gwarney is another true believer in free markets. Such casual empiricalism is forgivable for someone with Klein' background, but not so easy to make allowances for when it comes from a trained analyst. Perhaps Norberg's a true believer himself! |
|||
::Im going to make a general case showing how the best available data demonstrates how free markets have a clear net negative impact on the poor's wellbeing, and I have a nice new section in mind for one of the economics articles, I'll let you know once its ready. For now, consider that until the well respected Stiglitz had been fired, the word bank was admitting that absolute poverty was rising ( 'the world development report 2000/2001 : Attacking Poverty' admits that between 1987 - 1998 the number of folk living on less than $1 a day rose by 20 million to 1.2 billion in total) Or that the periods of most rapid growth in China and India occurred while they still had relatively closed economies. For reasons why recent figures have been exaggerated see for example [http://www.pitt.edu/~tgrawski/papers2002/measuring.pdf Rawksi study] There's no doubt that China is still growing , but then its economy is still far from a text book example of neo-liberal policy. Smaller countries that have been forced to swallow the whole bitter pill of free market medicine have faired much less well. |
|||
::I still remain a great admirer of Naomi's book, as analyses its less than first rate, but as a polemic motivating folk to agitate for universal fairness that take's into account the interests of all the world's population, not just those who can thrive in free market conditions, the value of her contribution is inestimable.[[User:FeydHuxtable |FeydHuxtable]] ([[User talk:FeydHuxtable |talk]]) 11:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 10:15, 6 September 2008
  A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10... 100... 200
And here are several pages on what to avoid:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~), which are produced by clicking on the
This welcome message was sent by Avi15 at 13:34, August 3, 2008 (UTC) |
Btw, Love the quote from the Irish Times.
As mentioned, Wikipedia talk pages is not a good location to discuss politics. It would still be interesting to know what your response to Johan Norbers critique of The Shock Doctrine is. If you want to indulge me, maybe you can answere here (and I promise not to argue with you) or suggest another location? --OpenFuture (talk) 14:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, Id like to apologise for implying you're insincere, I was just joshing about you being "forced to conclude" and I actually meant it as a compliment when I mentioned you choosing your words carefully. I was rather impressed by how successful you'd been in presenting what IMO is a minority POV.
- Norbers critique seemed solid enough, to be honest I only skim read the criticisms looking for contradictions. Im going offline in a sec but I'll get back to you next week. Id be very happy for you to argue if you wanted to! The only forum I participate in is the one on Richard Dawkins.net . I've only talked on the religion board so far but they have a politics board to.. Or we can talk on any politics forum if you like, even if its a neocon one, I dont know any online ones. Last night I was talking about this sort of stuff to the British Shadow Home Secretary Dominic Grieves and Chami Chakrabait (in case your not British, she's a prominent NGO campaigner). Both of them are obviously highly intelligent and deeply caring individuals but they're both hostile to big government :-( . I was trying to explain how off-putting Cameron's (the UK shadow PM) speech was about poor & obese people being to blame for their conditions and Dominic just replied it was nothing Cameron hadn't said many times before! There is obviously a need for a lot more political debate!
- So anyway if you'd prefer to discuss on a forum let me know where , otherwise I'll write up a full response to Nolan's criticism for you here next week. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:340, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, maybe we don't need to find a forum to discuss this, there's far less to fault than I was expecting. One has to accept most of your man's criticisms, he's clearly a far sharper analyst than Naomi. I also appreciated his flair for drama, like when he said one of Keynes followers supports dictators as long as they implement approved economic policies, and it turned out the follower he had in mind was Klein herself. For me Norberg especially succeeds in redeeming Milton Friedman.
- A few points I disagree on. 1) the overgeneralization that Klein's books is hopelessly flawed on virtually every level, sure he succeeds in identifying numerous flaws, but plenty of merit remains in what Klein has to say. 2) he over-emphasises the degree to which Klein implies neoLiberals intentionally create shock doctrines, as we seen one of your critical reviewers accepted she wasn't doing that. 3) Bizarrely, he attempts to make a general case that free markets are widely correlated with a reduction in poverty, relying heavily on figures from the World Bank and Gwartney's Economic Freedom of the World. There's widespread scepticism about the World banks across the academic, political and corporate sectors. Gwarney is another true believer in free markets. Such casual empiricalism is forgivable for someone with Klein' background, but not so easy to make allowances for when it comes from a trained analyst. Perhaps Norberg's a true believer himself!
- Im going to make a general case showing how the best available data demonstrates how free markets have a clear net negative impact on the poor's wellbeing, and I have a nice new section in mind for one of the economics articles, I'll let you know once its ready. For now, consider that until the well respected Stiglitz had been fired, the word bank was admitting that absolute poverty was rising ( 'the world development report 2000/2001 : Attacking Poverty' admits that between 1987 - 1998 the number of folk living on less than $1 a day rose by 20 million to 1.2 billion in total) Or that the periods of most rapid growth in China and India occurred while they still had relatively closed economies. For reasons why recent figures have been exaggerated see for example Rawksi study There's no doubt that China is still growing , but then its economy is still far from a text book example of neo-liberal policy. Smaller countries that have been forced to swallow the whole bitter pill of free market medicine have faired much less well.
- I still remain a great admirer of Naomi's book, as analyses its less than first rate, but as a polemic motivating folk to agitate for universal fairness that take's into account the interests of all the world's population, not just those who can thrive in free market conditions, the value of her contribution is inestimable.FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)