When hard-right political leaders and their advisers apply brutal economic shock therapy, do they honestly believe the trickle-down effects will build equitable societies--or are they just deliberately creating the conditions for yet another corporate feeding frenzy? Put bluntly, Has the world been transformed over the past three decades by lofty ideology or by lowly greed? Full Story »
Posted by Julian Friedland
Could have been longer and more elaborated but gives a decent prologue to her new book The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, which argues that the neocon agenda has lied in waiting to exploit crises like 9/11 so it can quickly install radically inegalitarian policies that otherwise would have encountered much more resistance.
Good story as far as it goes. Trickle-down economics has always been ultra conservatives' pretense to justify handing over to the super rich undeserved outrageous monies at the expense of everyone else. In the 80s, when this philosophy was all the rage and ultra conservatives gave it the euphuism, "Reaganomics, a tastelessbut accuratecritic described trickle-down economics as similar to being a urinal cake in the men's room.
A gret story with insights that aretruly revealing. I would have liked more "insider" thoughts. But this surely has me thinking a
This definitely is an opiinion piece. As such it is lously journalism. Inasmuch as I might agree with the premise it is very poorly sourced with only a scant few quotations from Greenspan's book out of context. I would have to read his book to make a judgement as to its accuracy.
This is a nicely written opinion piece but it is so full of assertions that it is convincing only if one is already convinced.
"Trickle down" economics have ((has?) been practiced time and again in history (ours and others) - and the end result is always disaster of one kind or another. So whether it's philosophy or just plain greed, it certainly represents the triumph of hope over experience!
This opinion piece is totally confused. You think perhaps the author is ranting against George Bush, but then the sentences seem to criticize Alan Greenspan for advocating the policies he criticized George Bush for not adopting. And, Ayn Rand as "pulped-up Adam Smith"???? This is a comment that could only be made by someone who knows nothing about Adam Smith. By the way, anyone knowing economics would know that the share of income taxes paid by the top 5% of earners has grown and the share paid by the lower 50% has dropped to near zero under President George Buch. Not clear how the magazine could have accepted a piece that lacks any merit.
Retrieving Comments
