I think that the Chicago school offered up alternate scenarios of the economy: privatizing water for example. These scenarios fell on a political situation that was receptive. Reagan/Thatcher. In past times such ideas would be expressed but falling on an unresponsive polity they gained no traction. So it is true that the Chicago school caused changes and problems but only because, I propose, that the political system accepted it and championed as an instrument for change and competitiveness. And there were lots of cheerleaders who stood to gain from such conservative moves. And, finally, lots of passive voters who went along with things.
As to why Reagan/Thatcher dogma and notions took hold at that time is best left to the historians. Perhaps society goes through political fads and fashions as in clothing. Wide ties one year, narrow the next. Short skirts one year, longer the next. With each cycle there are cheerleaders who benefit from the change and passive consumers/voters who go along with things usually by saying or thinking "that's what they are showing this year....." arthur -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mike Spencer Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2011 12:13 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [Futurework] Re: Why Americans won't do dirty jobs - Business - US business - Bloomberg Businessweek - msnbc.com Ed wrote: > I read Shock Doctrine some years ago and wasn't impressed. It > argued essentially, if I recall, that every bad thing that had > happened in the economic world could be attributed to the teachings > of the Chicago School. It seemed more than a little far fetched. I think it would be more accurate to say that it argued that there has been a widespread deliberate strategy of exploiting social disasters, shocks and confusion to seize control of a society's assets and finances, to entrain anything that might operate in the public interest for private gain. And that evangelists for the Chicago School have been the salient troops in promulgating and implementing this strategy again and again. The underlying concept is nothing new. Someone who would otherwise be a more or less law-abiding citizen may loot the neighborhood liquor store once it's been trashed in a riot or a disaster; others less law-abiding may try to start a riot or a forest fire just so they can get in on the subsequent looting. What may seem new (because it's one of those not to be talked about things) is that (putatively) highly responsible, respectable people may do that to whole national economic and public service infrastructures, even to the point of fomenting a financial or political collapse in order to make it possible. It is not necessary that *all* such people be high-profile polemicists for the Chicago School. If a number of the more prominent of these miscreants are Friedman colleagues or acolytes and use CS dogmata to subvert and co-opt public water supplies, public services, public education or the public good in general, the Chicago School is, if you're paying attention to what's on the end of your fork, justifiably going to take a lot of the blame, the moreso to the extent that such piratical practices are overt doctrine of the School. FWIW, - Mike -- Michael Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada .~. /V\ [email protected] /( )\ http://home.tallships.ca/mspencer/ ^^-^^ _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
