KESKUSTELU

A look at the EFW data shows that Klein has it backwards. Poverty and unemployment are lowest in countries with the most economic freedom. In the freest fifth of countries, poverty according to the United Nations is 15.7 percent, and in the rest of the world it is 29.8 percent. Unemployment in the freest quintile is 5.2 percent, which is less than half of what it is in the rest of the world. In the least economically free quintile, filled with the kinds of restrictions on private property, businesses, and trade that Klein claims are ways of helping the people against the powerful, poverty is 37.4 percent and unemployment is 13 percent.

Klein writes that global capitalism has lapsed into “its most savage form” since 1990. If she is right about the connection between free markets and deprivation, poverty should have increased at a dramatic speed since then. The opposite has happened. Between 1990 and 2004, extreme poverty in developing countries was reduced from 29 to 18 percent, according to the World Bank. This means that extreme poverty has been reduced by 54,000 people every day under “savage” capitalism. And the proportion of people in slums, which is another result of liberalization according to Klein, has been reduced from 47 to 37 percent during the same time. Averages don’t tell the whole story, so it’s important to point out that the biggest improvements took place in the parts of the world that liberalized the most, whereas there have been setbacks in less liberalized countries.

If Klein is right about the connection between free markets and political violence, we should also have seen more war and dictatorships in the era of “savage” capitalism. Klein insists that “the world is becoming less peaceful” without documenting it. She is wrong. According to the Human Security Centre at the University of British Columbia, the number of military conflicts involving at least one state declined from almost 50 in 1990 to 31 in 2005. The number of war deaths in 2005 was the lowest in half a century. In 1990 there were nine ongoing genocides around the world. In 2005, there was only one, in Darfur. Despite a few conspicuous exceptions, the world is becoming more peaceful in the era of “savage” capitalism.

The world has also become more democratic, contrary to the implications of Klein’s thesis. In fact, while markets have been opened, the world has simultaneously undergone a democratic revolution. Between 1990 and 2007 the number of electoral democracies increased from 76 to 121. In 1990 there were more countries defined as “not free” by Freedom House than were ranked as “free.” In 2007 there were twice as many “free” countries as there were “not free” countries.

Noh - Johan Norberg kertoo paperissaan The Klein Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Polemics, että:

Noh - Johan Norberg kertoo paperissaan The Klein Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Polemics, että:

--clip---

Oliskohan nuo niitä "kauhean verenhimoisen kapitalismin" seurauksia?

Klein opetuslapsineen on muuten oikein malliesimerkki siitä, kuinka älyllisesti laiskaa ja epärehellistä nykyinen "uusvasemmisto" on.

Abstract
The Report of the World Commission is a positive but critical message for changing the current path of globalization. It says that the potentials of globalization, in terms of growing connectivity and productive capacity, are immense. However, current systems of governance of globalization at national and international levels have not realized such potentials for most of the world's people-and in many instances have made matters worse. "Seen through the eyes of the vast majority of men and women around the world, globalization has not met their simple aspiration for decent jobs, livelihoods and a better future for their children". In 2003, official figures for global unemployment reached a record high of over 185 million people. Unofficial figures would be much higher, especially if one includes the underemployed and the working poor.

These trends, the Report argues, are largely the result of deep-seated and persistent imbalances in the current workings of the global economy which are both "ethically unacceptable and politically unsustainable." It warns that we have reached a crisis stage in the legitimacy of our political institutions, whether national or international. There is an urgent need to rethink current institutions of global economic governance, whose rules and policies it says are largely shaped by powerful countries and powerful players. The unfairness of key rules of trade and finance reflect a serious "democratic deficit" at the heart of the system. The failure of policies, it argues, is due to the fact that market-opening measures and financial and economic considerations have consistently predominated over social ones, including measures compatible with the prerogatives of international human rights law and the principles of international solidarity.

The vision put forward by the Commission is to bring into being a system of global governance that is genuinely supportive of and conducive to national development strategies ("there can be no successful globalization without a successful localization"), where powerful actors are held accountable, and where efforts to achieve coherence between economic and social objectives would place the needs and aspirations of ordinary people at the centre of rules and policies

---Joitain poimintoja:

s18 Unstable global financial markets, in particular, had had disastrous social
consequences in many countries, due both to inadequate government policies and
to poor understanding of local conditions by the IMF and foreign banks. The mid-
dle classes in Argentina and Uruguay had been hit particularly hard

---

s21
122.Union leaders in industrialized countries maintained that dissatisfaction with
corporate governance had reached a crisis point. It was “time to save corporations
from themselves”. Deregulation and the emphasis on shareholder value had gone
too far. Increased global competition encouraged employers to play “fast and
loose with labour practices”, including the replacement of decent employ-
ment with insecure informal, casual and contract work.

---

s22
124
Many denounced a rise in
the political influence of corporations, including through a marked concentration
of private ownership of the media.

Miten kehtaat valehdella ryöjä, jokainen toveri tietää että kapitalismi on saatanasta ja maailman kehityksen huipulla on vain kommunistisia huippumaita ja heidän sosialistisia aateveljiään.

Mikä on kapitalismin seuraus?

Miten kehtaat valehdella ryöjä, jokainen toveri tietää että kapitalismi on saatanasta ja maailman kehityksen huipulla on vain kommunistisia huippumaita ja heidän sosialistisia aateveljiään.

Eikös jenkkien verovaroista annettu 7000 000 000 tukipaketti Wall Streetille kerro kaikesta olennaisen? Eikös viime laman aikaan suomessakin pankit pelastettu aikamoisella veronmaksajien potilla? Voisiko olla iin, ettei kapitalismi kerta kaikkiaan toimi ilman sosialistista turvaverkkoa?

Eikös jenkkien verovaroista annettu 7000 000 000 tukipaketti Wall Streetille kerro kaikesta olennaisen? Eikös viime laman aikaan suomessakin pankit pelastettu aikamoisella veronmaksajien potilla? Voisiko olla iin, ettei kapitalismi kerta kaikkiaan toimi ilman sosialistista turvaverkkoa?

Point taken.

Edit: Valtion tulee tarjota sen arvomaailman mukaiset olosuhteet kansalaisilleen. Jos länsimaiset pikkujutut kuten vapaus, ihmis -ja tasa-arvo merkitsevät yhtään mitään, puhdas kapitalismi ei voi olla vaihtoehto.

Tästä on keskusteltu aiemminkin, mutta menköön kertauksena: Valtiota ei voi olla nykymuodossaan olemassa ilman sosialismia. Julkishallinto perustuu sosialismille, kuten myös koulut, julkinen liikenne, etc. Chicagon koulun jannut toki tiedostavat tämän ja ajavat rapakon takana myös koulujärjestelmän yksityistämistä. Ja arvaahan sen, mitä siitä seuraa.

Yksityistetään poliisi, palokunta, koulut, julkinen liiikenne, terveydenhuolto, tiet, etc. sosialismin saavutukset ja saamme maa-alueen (ei valtiota), jossa kaikki oikeudet voi ostaa ja mitata rahalla.

Eikös jenkkien verovaroista annettu 7000 000 000 tukipaketti Wall Streetille kerro kaikesta olennaisen? Eikös viime laman aikaan suomessakin pankit pelastettu aikamoisella veronmaksajien potilla? Voisiko olla iin, ettei kapitalismi kerta kaikkiaan toimi ilman sosialistista turvaverkkoa?

Vai voisikohan asia olla niin, että nykykapitalismissa vallanpitäjät suosivat kavereiden omistamia suuryrityksiä, vaikkei se olisi mikään suoranainen välttämättömyys?

Viite siihen missä "Chicagon koululaiset" näin sanovat.

Ainakaan Friedman ei kannata nk. luonnollisten monopolien yksityistämistä.

Koko subprime-kriisihän sain alkunsa siitä, kun USAn valtio määräsi valtion ohjauksessa olevat asuntoluottorahastot (mm. Fannie Mae ja Freddie Mac, jotka jo kaksin vastasivat yli puolesta USAn asuntolainakannasta) hankkimaan köyhien - käytännössä maksukyvyttömien - perheiden lainoja. Tämä synnytti epäterveet asuntolainapaperimarkkinat, joilla lainojen riskit piilotettiin sekoittamalla erilaisia lainoja monimutkaiseksi finassi-instrumenteiksi.

Periaatteessa markkinat olisivat vielä voineet hoitaa ongelman korkojen nousun myötä, mutta - ikään kuin varmistaakseen tulevan romahduksen valtavuuden - FED laski ohjauskorkojaan ja syyti markkinoille lisää rahaa aina, kun setelirahoitukselle perustunut talouskasvu uhkasi vähänkin hiipua.

Ei kuulosta oikein markkinoiden synnyttämältä kuplalta? Jos valtio itse luo kuplan, niin kenenkäs se olisi korjattava?