Norberg’s critique of “The Shock Doctrine” is a waste of time. Friedman never held this doctrine per se as Norberg indicates. But this does not mean Friedmanites, their ilk, and their agendas don’t welcome and exploit natural or unnatural disasters. The point is not to cry over spilled milk or cracked eggs, but to have a good breakfast before deciding who awards the contracts, who gets them and who pays.

Milton Friedman and other Capitalist toolmakers and (even) tools had some nice ideas. Norberg does not entertain ideas. She is just Cato’s contractor when it comes to vindicating all things Capitalist. Her critique sets up straw men and “devastates” them.

It is the smell of burning plastic one notices first when approaching her beachfront property. Follow the sounds and sirens of animated battle around back where matel figurines of neocon greats stare vacantly from sand crafted thrones and behold Norberg’s Scandinavian posterior aloft. Admire, for a moment, the statuesque structure normally sinecured at “The Institute.” There, elbows astride the unlucky barbie she calls “Naomi,” Johan adjusts a glass for “maximum devastation”
she says. “Milton” looks on unquestionably approving, apparently. Would i care to pay she asks?

“Which is you?” and would she autograph it, i request?

I find it weird that a book, which is so obviously dishonest, can be so popular. Anyone who knows history or actually read Milton Friedman would see it in an instant. Naomi Klein takes advantage of peoples ignorance by telling them what they want to hear. It is really sad. I would rather have that people read something by serious left-wing intellectuals than that garbage. Or at least read the critique by Norberg, which is excellent (and contrary to The Shock Doctrine is not full of lies)