I think you are looking for a new and improved policy that might not exist. What has worked the most efficiently before and will work the best again (in all likelihood) is to jack up credit and balance the budget than let the market fix itself. The more creative the leadership gets the more disastrous the results often are with the business cycle.
yes, i am looking for a policy that does not yet exist, because what will work “the best again” will “in all likelihood” be in favor of those it has always worked best for. meanwhile the economy is being eroded from the bottom up with segments of “the middle” also acutely feeling it and having to adjust their lifestyles.
it could be argued that the “disastrous results” you mention aren’t fully realized yet not because our leadership hasn’t been creative enough, but because it hasn’t been accountable enough.
Naomi Klein's book includes some of the most atrocious jumps imaginable.
Pinochet tortured and murdered people for his own power. It was not till after he put an iron fist on Chile that he begged the Chicago boys for help because his economic policies were not working. Trying to associate the Chicago boys with Pinochet's violence is totally irresponsible because had they not offered him economic advice the people of Chile would have just been that much poorer. Offering advice to Pinochet was the nicest thing they actually could have done for the people of Chile.
If you look at Friedman's actual work, than compare them to the interpretations Naomi Klein runs with for her book you'll see that she is either intentionally lying or has the reading comprehension of a 9 year old. She literally uses the exact opposite meaning of many of his statements.
In particular she tries to associate Friedman's economic ideas with things he directly and persistently argued against such as corporate welfare and the Iraq war.
Because many republicans pretend to be interested in Milton Friedman's work many liberals like to blame him for everything bad republicans do, independent of what Friedman actually said. Fact is that almost nothing Friedman advocated has been put in play here. This should absolve him from blame.
cmon tiervexx, you’re going to need to substantiate your claims a bit more if you want to convince me that klein’s meticulously researched and referenced thesis (74 pages of endnotes) is little more than the ramblings of a liar who can’t read.
here's what klein had to say about the claim that friedman opposed the invasion of iraq and that she called him a “neo-con:”
“In April 2003, Friedman told the German magazine Focus that “President Bush only wanted war because anything else would have threatened the freedom and the prosperity of the USA.” Asked about increased tensions between the U.S. and Europe, Friedman replied: “the end justifies the means. As soon as we’re rid of Saddam, the political differences will also disappear.” Clearly this was not the voice of anti-intervention. Even in July 2006, when Friedman claimed to have opposed the war from the beginning, he remained hawkish. Now that the U.S. was in Iraq, Friedman told The Wall Street Journal, “it seems to me very important that we make a success of it.”
All of this has nothing to do with my book, however. In The Shock Doctrine, I describe the invasion and occupation of Iraq as the culmination of Friedman’s ideological crusade because he was America’s leading intellectual favoring the privatization of the state – not because he personally supported the war, which is irrelevant. For more than five years Iraq has been the vanguard of this radical privatization project. Private contractors now outnumber U.S. soldiers and corporations have taken on such core state functions as prisoner interrogation."
you might find this to be of interest as well:
"If you are concerned that I am exaggerating Friedman’s support for the brutal regime of Augusto Pinochet, read a letter Friedman wrote to Pinochet.
If you are suspicious that I am making disaster capitalism seem more conspiratorial than it is, read the minutes
from a meeting that took place at the Heritage Foundation just two weeks after the levees broke in New Orleans. It lays out 32 “free market solutions” for Hurricane Katrina and high gas prices, many of which have been championed by the Bush Administration.
The thesis of The Shock Doctrine was not born of whimsy but of four years of research. Debra and I put these documents online because we want educators, students and general readers to move beyond an admittedly subjective version of history – as all histories are -- and go straight to the source. We invite you to explore these documents, send us ones we missed, and come to your own conclusions."