Free Market Capitalism

Milton Friedman Supported the War in Iraq

As I mentioned earlier, Johan Norberg in criticizing Naomi Klein states that Milton Friedman opposed the war in Iraq. The same claim is made in this further criticism of Klein that HP provided. HP has likewise asserted that Friedman was "against it from the beginning."

You just assume when people make claims like this there's a rational basis for it. They must have found a statement from Friedman prior to the war that shows he opposed the war. If they didn't find such a statement they wouldn't make the claim. Right? Why would you make an assertion like this without evidence?

Klein in my view is under no obligation to prove Friedman supported the war. It's not really relevant to the argument, and I don't think she claims he supported the war in her book. But regardless of that she's gone forward and done what her critics won't do. She's checked the facts. Here she provides the text of an interview with Friedman from 2003.  It's an English translation of an article published in a German magazine. An excerpt:

FOCUS: You describe the concentration of power as the greatest threat to freedom – and thus to the economy as well. Many people judge the current war against Iraq very critically for this reason – you as well?

Friedman: A clear no. US President Bush only wanted war because anything else would have threatened the freedom and the prosperity of the USA. Counter-question: Do you recommend that Gerhard Schröder ask the whole world for advice before he engages in foreign policy?

FOCUS: The USA did at least ignore the opinion of the majority of UN members…

Friedman:…Bush is president of the United States and not the world. He didn’t even have to consult the UN at all. The United Nations is an absurd organization anyways. All votes count the same, regardless of whether the country has three or 300 million residents. Furthermore, many nations aren’t democratically legitimized at all.

FOCUS: Many Europeans see that differently. Does this political disagreement threaten a trade war between Europe and America?

Friedman: No, the end justifies the means. As soon as we’re rid of Saddam, the political differences will also disappear again very quickly.

FOCUS: What remains are the immense costs of war. Where is the money supposed to come from?

Friedman: It is a small war – also in comparison to the Gulf War of 1991. Back then we had a troop strength of around 400,000 men, today it’s not even 250,000. America is a big country – in comparison to the state expenditures of three to four trillion dollars a year, the costs for this war are only marginal …

The perception Friedman held that the war would be easy may have faded by Novemeber, 2004. Friedman was interviewed at this time. Here's an excerpt:

DA: In a time of war, how do we maintain our freedom?

MF: We don’t. We invariably reduce our freedom. But that doesn’t mean it’s a permanent reduction. As long as we really keep in mind what we’re doing, that we keep it temporary, we need not destroy our freedom.

DA: Are you concerned that some of the measures we’re taking now to fight the war, like the Patriot Act, may be more than just temporary?

MF: It’s not clear. The Patriot Act is a very complicated issue, and I’m not going to get involved in that. But I think that on the whole, this war is small enough relative to our economy that it is not going to be a serious impediment to our freedom. But the sooner we can get rid of it and out of it, the better.

DA: Do you agree with President Bush that the actions in Iraq were necessary as a part of our war on terrorism?

MF: I think you can argue either side of that. Where I do feel strongly, is that having gone into it, whether we should have or not, we must see it through.

DA: Even if it costs some of our freedoms?

MF: There’s no way to avoid a burden on your freedom. The costs themselves are a burden on your freedom. The restrictions that are necessary in order to get rid of the terrorists are a burden to your freedom. So there’s no way in the short run to avoid a restriction on your freedom. But if we’re going to avoid a permanent reduction in freedom, we have to see this war through.

At this point he thinks you could go either way on the argument of whether the war was necessary. But a short run restriction on your freedom by continuing a war is necessary to prevent a permanent reduction in our freedom that is a consequence of terrorist action. The war is still small enough that the Patriot Act is not a big deal.

But by 2006 things have gone from bad to worse. Friedman tells the Wall St Journal he was against the war in Iraq from the beginning (and starts a squabble with his wife Rose in the process). Four months prior to his death he remembers his own opinions differently.

The Hoover Institute, where Friedman was a fellow at the time of the invasion, was instrumental in the invasion. Prior to the war the highly influential Defense Policy Board met regularly with the President and Secretary of Defense. According to the Chicago Tribune this board was "playing an influential role in pushing the Bush administration toward an invasion of Iraq, generating support for military action as members seek to transform a controversial idea into a central pillar of U.S. foreign policy." It had 31 members, 8 of whom were Hoover Institute fellows. This caused some controversy at Standfard, where the Hoover Institute operates, prompting the University to respond. Thomas Sowell is another Hoover Institute fellow and close associate of Friedman. He supported the war and also provided plenty of Muslim bashing to fuel the fire.

Look to other conservative think tanks which were closely associated with Friedman, such as the American Enterprise Institute and Heritage Foundation. You can browse AEI archives on the topic of Iraq. Such an amazing compilation of errors and distortions it's hard to believe they haven't done everything they can to hide this. The very first article after 9-11 was a ridiculous piece of fiction that I've discussed before. It's the same story at Heritage. Here's one that talks about how silly the left is for thinking things would go bad in Iraq. Once again it's an endless stream of war propaganda. If Friedman opposed the war from the beginning, why didn't anybody notice and address his objections?

Given his associations his claim that he opposed the war from the beginning is surprising. Why didn't people check the claim rather than mindlessly repeating it as if it were true?

The Pledge of Allegiance

Christian apologetics, for all its flaws, did give me an appreciation for believing things based on evidence and reason, not based on brain washing.  As a Christian after immersing myself in apologetics I found myself disturbed in church watching my kids sing "Jesus Loves Me."  Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so.  I saw them sing that and made clear to my wife I didn't like it and wanted to avoid that song.  Christianity is true and we know it for good reasons.  But a child doesn't know it.  And nobody should be believing it because the Bible says it.  That's not a good reason.  There are other good reasons (or so I thought at the time).

Since then I put my boy in Boy Scouts.  I know.  I'm a bad liberal sometimes.  My kids home school though and I want them plugged in to something.  My wife is still a Christian after all.  So we are in scouts.  But frankly I find the Pledge of Allegiance disturbing when stated by children in the same way I don't like the "Jesus Loves Me" song.  The Whitest Kids U Know has a skit that communicates the same thing.

Things Your Government Does

For those that tend to trust their government, are you aware of what your government has been doing?  Peruse the following events:

Operation Northwoods?
The Informant named "Curveball" who lied about WMDs in Iraq?
Testimony of Nayirah?
Operation Black Eagle
Operation Mockingbird
The Special Collection Service
Project MKULTRA
Operation Paperclip
Downing Street Memo
Room 641A
Gulf of Tonkin Incident
COINTELPRO
Project MKDELTA
Rex 84 Plan
Project Artichoke
Project MKOFTEN
Operation Dormouse
Operation Ajax
The Plot to kill FDR...by BANKERS
CIA Front Companies
Stuxnet
Project Merrimac
Project Resistence
The Rendon Group that exports PR and Propaganda
In-Q-Tel...the CIA's front company Venture Capital arm...that is heavily invested in Google
Operation Chaos
Project SHAMROCK
The FISA Court (secret)
Russell Welch who tried to expose drug ops at Mena, AK...also poisoned with Anthrax
Gerry Droller
The School of the Americas
Journalist/Report Gary Webb
Operation Charly
Operation 40
Operation Midnight Climax
Operation Washtub
Acoustic Kitty
Amalgam Virgo
Project FUBELT
Stargate Project
Tepper Aviation
The Church Committee
Family Jewels
The Pentagon Papers
Operation Gladio

Via Reddit.

More Shock Doctrine Criticism

To rebut Naomi Klein Johan Norberg at Reason.com uses data provided by the Fraser Institute as a source. Klein is claiming that neoliberalism proceeds via a subversion of demcracy. But according to the Fraser Institutes rankings of economic freedom (presumably a measure of neoliberalism) free states are democracies. Klein has it backwards.

I'm reading Klein last night and discover another fascinating section related to this criticism. There was a period in Canada where heads of ratings agencies were being pressured to downgrade the Canadian fiscal situation. When they resisted they met stiff corporate opposition. A full fledged crisis mentality was cooked up in the media, and this was used to ram through some tough neoliberal policies. Mostly slashing services to the poor. Canadians would subsequently discover that the crisis mentality was foisted on the population based on falsehoods perpetuated by non other than the Fraser Institute. I think Klein claimed that they basically cooked the books. They have a long history of fraud, whether pro-tobacco junk science or global warming science denial. Just a straight corporate front group pushing profit over truth wedded tightly to Milton Friedman, the primary object of Klein's criticisms.

I've been writing for a while about how these freedom rankings from these corporate backed organizations are bogus. See here and here for example. If a person wants to disagree with my arguments, fine. But if we were to argue about economic freedom in foreign countries and you were try and rebut me by pulling out the Heritage rankings of economic freedom, would that make sense? Would it make sense to do that without even acknowledging my criticisms of this ranking system? When you argue with someone you have to start from shared premises. I don't argue with a Christian and say "Since we know the Bible is full of errors, let's talk about what that means." They don't accept that the Bible is full of errors, so for me to say that is to waste my own time and demonstrate that I don't even know what I'm doing when it comes to argumentation.

Klein has forcefully called into question the Fraser Institute's credibility. And yet Norberg just trots out the Fraser Institute in rebuttal. You can reasonably do that on one condition. Address Klein's criticism of the credibility. If you don't do that you demonstrate that you are either incompetent or dishonest.

Klein's argument (that neoliberalism proceeds via crisis, not democratic change) is not just a thesis she invents. She quotes prominent economists that make the identical claim. One such economist is Dani Rodrik. Klein quotes him to the effect that none of the structural changes preferred by the Chicago School ocurred without a crisis. For Rodrik this is a good thing. Norberg's problem is with Rodrik, not Klein.

Dani Rodrik apparently also is unhappy with Klein's book. He says the book is "really bad." What he doesn't do is let anybody know that he's got a vested interest in that conclusion in light of Klein's fully documented and dispassionate criticisms. He can call the book really bad if he likes. But why doesn't he let his readers know about his own personal interest in that conclusion?

These criticisms just leave readers in the dark.

The Shock Doctrine

Naomi Klein wrote an article on global warming that I thought was pretty interesting, so when I was at the library and saw an audio book by her I thought I'd check it out. "The Shock Doctrine." Apparently an assault on Milton Friedman and the world wide effects of his policies. Right up my alley.

It was so interesting that I had to go get the book as well from the library. The audio is abridged. I finished the audio, but I'm still reading the book. There's also a movie that I haven't yet seen (available on Youtube here.) This book must have had a huge impact. Surprising that I hadn't heard of it.

I recommended it to my friend HP and he was helpful enough to provide links to criticisms, which I always like to have. The most detailed one was here from Johan Norberg at reason.com. I read that and his other links because it helps me process claims if I have criticism in the back of my mind.

The book's central claim is this. Extremely wealthy people benefit enormously from neoliberal policies. I don't think that's debatable. Here's what's also not debatable. Implementation of those policies via democracy is very difficult. People don't generally perceive that these policies are in their own best interest. Bryan Caplan would say that this shows that people are irrational (see here). I would say it shows how intelligent the common man is. But in any case this means to implement these policies you have to bypass democracy, and one way to do that is to impose the policies when people are in a state of shock, like after a disaster of some kind. Perhaps war or environmental destruction. Disoriented people often allow these kinds of changes because they just aren't interested in those sorts of subjects at the moment. They are focused more on staying alive or picking up the pieces. Klein argues that this is how the neoliberal agenda has proceeded.

I want to make just a couple of comments in response to the criticism HP provided. Not in detail because I haven't finished the book. But to just note some interesting things I notice so far. First of all Norberg in response says thing like "But Milton Friedman opposed the war in Iraq." This is totally beside the point. Nobody is saying that Friedman wants our government to run around nuking people or causing mayhem. It's just that Fiedman noticed, correctly, that imposition of his preferred policies is possible after disaster and difficult otherwise. He's not advocating disaster. He's just saying look, the tsunami went through. Lots of people died. We all recognize that as a tragedy. But let's also keep in mind that this is an opportunity to correct some (in his view) harmful economic conditions. So Norberg is just missing the point here.

But here's something I thought was quite fascinating. Norberg is writing in October 2008 and he criticizes Klein for focusing on the privatization and deregulation disasters while ignoring the successes. These are the countries Norberg points to as free market successes. Iceland, Ireland, Estonia, and Australia. What do we notice about the first three countries he mentions? Iceland was on the very leading edge of the economic melt down. Their banking system is literally unraveling as Norberg writes. Ireland and Estonia likewise are poster childs for the 2008 debacle. The first three states held up as examples of the success of neoliberalism are in fact about to enter catastrophic economic conditions. Iceland has turned sharply leftward since then and is on a decent path. Ireland pursues right wing solutions and remains in the doldrums. Same with Estonia.

Reality has not been good to right wing economic theory.

Bolivia Shows The Way

Bolivia has taken an aggressive turn away from neoliberalism and economic orthodoxy over the last several years. The results are discussed in this article.

These changes didn't happen over night. Bolivia had been under the thumb of free market madness for years prior. The World Bank had managed to compel them to pursue a large privatization scheme, including water services which were auctioned off to Bechtel. The results were catastrophic, but the poor didn't take it lying down. They protested and resisted. What happened is partly covered in this brief video.