Thomas Friedman - what the hell?

[Iwillnevergiveup]

Can someone please tell me at what point between "The Lexus and the Olive Tree" and the invasion of Iraq when Friedman lost his mind? Or has he always been this obtuse?

[aquart]

1. He's always been this obtuse. Did you think otherwise?

[Iwillnevergiveup]

3. Well, went to a book signing

for "Lexus" and he seemed MUCH more reasonable then. Maybe 8 years ago?

[aquart]

5. Oh, no.

I was regularly writing a good friend that Friedman was an idiot for at least 15 years.

[GOPNotForMe]

2. He's always been a smug moron. nt

[Mr Rabble]

4. youve changed. :) Have a look-

Go back and look at what he was writing back then. Its absurd, especially when viewed in the light of history.

He has always been stunningly at odds with reality.

[Iwillnevergiveup]

9. You may be right

Maybe it's because he's been so rah rah for the Iraqi invasion that I took a longer look at him. My 88 year old father who's voted straight Democratic all his life and I have had several arguments about him. He sent me the Op Ed Friedman wrote today about the car bailout, and I sent him back the Glen Greenwald Slate one.:evilgrin:

[Mr Rabble]

12. An example- Friedman was the ultimate NAFTA shill.

And now is suddenly a populist? This guy is a stenographer for power and nothing else. He writes whatever the Pentagon or administration tells him with no questions asked.

[Occam Bandage]

16. Shill? Hardly.

He's very up-front in his approval of economic liberalism.

(Please note economic, and not American political, usage of the word "liberalism.")

[Mr Rabble]

18. True- loves neo-liberal policies, yet denies their effects.

He is more than happy to cheerlead for these awful policies while denying that they are the cause of so much misery.

[Occam Bandage]

20. It's not so much "denies" as it is "focuses elsewhere."

He will, point-blank, admit that freer trade policies would result in massive job loss in the American industrial sector. He will then immediately tell you that it would result in massive job creation in the third would, and that the increased profits in America, along with greater competition with foreign corporations, would fuel the creation of better-paying, higher-tech jobs.

The failure, of course, is what we're seeing in Detroit: corporations do not act rationally. They do not invest profits intelligently; they just pocket them or dump them in ridiculous bubble schemes during the good times, and during the bad times they beg for bailouts. The net result is pure damage to the American economy, and as the American market collapses, the developing world finds itself without a market to sell its cheap goods or labor to. Relying on megacorporations to act in their long-term interest is foolhardy; shareholders demand instant profits, and will happily replace a farsighted management with one that promises an immediate bonanza.

[amandabeech]

23. My perspective on Friedman is that he sees no problems whatsoever with "free trade."

Here's my unemployed reality:

He will, point-blank, admit that freer trade policies would result in massive job loss in the American industrial sector. He will then immediately tell you that it would result in massive job creation in the third would, and that the increased profits in America which would go to those who already have plenty of money. That along with greater competition with foreign corporations, would fuel the creation of better-paying, higher-tech jobs here for a little bit before those jobs were moved overseas, resulting in massive job loss here in all sectors.

Rinse. Repeat.

[Occam Bandage]

24. Dupe.

[Occam Bandage]

25. "Sees no problems" is pretty clearly false.

"Believes that it is utterly inevitable, and if done appropriately, the benefits, on the whole, will far outstrip the problems for humanity at large (and to a lesser extent America)." is closer to the truth.

[amandabeech]

36. My view of "Sees no problems" and yours on this point clearly differ.

n/t

[mrreowwr_kittty]

29. Relying on megacorporations to do the right thing was one of the articles of faith of "free trade"

I don't recall Friedman raising the alarm about the problem with that. Then again, I've never been able to get through more than a chapter of any of his books. I can't stomach his writing. So maybe he did.

[Occam Bandage]

30. Nope. That was glossed over as an assumption.

"Well, of course they'll do what's best for themselves and their markets in the long term. Doing otherwise would be stupid and short-sighted. And they're protected from doing stupid short-sighted things because of the...er...competition relying on short-term results? No, that makes no sense. Because of technological innovation...er...which is impossible to predict beyond the short-term, forcing companies to act only in the short...wait...that's wrong too. Because of the shareholders...who...er...who demand short-term dividends? Er...because...because of the invisible hand. That's it. Shut up. We're moving on. Did I mention I saw something really cool in Jakarta one time?"

That is where unchecked capitalism fails, and fails horribly, of course. It's all well and good over one quarter, or maybe even one year, but when businesses can only look three quarters ahead, we're fucked the minute the long-term health of society does not perfectly coincide with the short-term health of corporations.

[wtmusic]

32. Kind of like Paul Krugman

except PK knows what he's talking about.

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

6. He's always been like that.

My rule of thumb is: If it's named Friedman, I don't trust it. That includes economist Milton, and advice columnist Esther.

[Crunchy Frog]

7. This cartoon kind of sums him up for me, and yes, he's always been like that.

[RainDog]

8. this is great! n/t

[Stardust]

13. Hahahahahahahaha...snort!

:rofl:

[Occam Bandage]

17. The "Sushi-Bengali-cell phone" riff is absolutely dead-on.

I'm certain that 30% of everything he writes is "so I was talking to this guy in this country, and we saw this other guy, and he told me that he knew this guy who blah blah blah blah blah who told me (point he could have made without the build-up story)."

[Kitty Herder]

33. LOL

:rofl:

[Occam Bandage]

10. He has some very good ideas. He has some very poor ones.

He's absolutely correct on energy policy, and I think he's more right than wrong when it comes to the inevitability and often-beneficial nature of globalization. He's very right that poor third-world people welcome any economic expansion opportunities presented to them, and that advancing technology and industry have been greeted with widespread optimism in the undeveloped and developing world. Unfortunately, he ignores the fact that the backlashes are often just as fierce as the enthusiasm, if not more so. He can be blind at times; his near-fanatical belief in the pro-globalization tendencies of the downtrodden peoples of the Earth led to his insane (and widely-shared belief) that the Iraqis would welcome the American army.

[camera obscura]

11. Yes, he's written some brilliant columns about energy, especially the drill-baby-drill BS

I wish the NY Times would make him an energy/economy columnist instead of a foreign affairs one.

[Occam Bandage]

14. He takes a very holistic view of those three topics.

I have a feeling that if his column were filed under "foreign affairs," "economy," or "energy," he'd write the exact same thing he currently does.

[Mr Rabble]

19. Not exactly-

He is totally wrong on energy policy since he refuses to concede that our ME involvement is solely due to energy.

Further, "poor 3rd world people" in fact do not welcome any economic opportunity presented to them, because "them" is almost always 1% of the population who is controlling the people by force. The "people" are usually totally opposed to these policies.

Also, this belief that Iraqi's would welcome the american was shared by a tiny fraction of the population. Here @ DU, this claim was met with laughter and disgust.

[Occam Bandage]

22. I get the feeling that you do not regularly read him.

He has declared repeatedly that our involvement in the greater Middle East is largely driven by energy needs, and that the only way to secure a sustainable economy and foreign policy is to heavily tax gasoline consumption and invest aggressively in renewable domestic energy.

As for your beliefs of "the people" in the world? Try actually traveling and living in a developing country. You may be surprised by what people want and what they don't. Or if that's an unreasonable request, at least consider reading some economic journals (and no, leftist blogs do not count). It is certainly true that developing nations often develop a backlash opposition to foreign influence. However, such backlashes are driven by either the flagrantly inequitable misrule or cultural erosion that accompany unchecked globalization. In nations in which government maintains some degree of transparency or even-handedness, the increased economic opportunity itself is well-received, even if the cultural impacts are not.

[Mr Rabble]

34. Yeah the "flagrantly inequitable misrule or cultural erosion "...

Is what almost always happens. I tend to not look at the economic opportunities in isolation from their inevitable consequences.

But then, that was kind of my whole point. :)

[Iwillnevergiveup]

15. Crunchy frog

that cartoon made posting my bewilderment over this pundit all worthwhile. Thanks!:toast:

[Crunchy Frog]

21. I love that cartoon.

Always glad when I can find an appropriate place to post it.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

26. He's been trying to make plutocracy and greed look progressive for years. nt

[stevedeshazer]

27. Just wait six months (one Friedman unit) and he'll tell you.

Wait another six months.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_(unit)

It helps to understand if you understand that he married the daughter of a billionaire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Friedman

<snip>

Friedman's wife, Ann, is a graduate of Stanford University and the London School of Economics.<2> Her father, Matthew Bucksbaum, is the chairman of the board of General Growth Properties, the real estate development group that he co-founded with his brother in 1954. The Bucksbaums helped pioneer the development of shopping centers in the United States.<3> As of 2007, Forbes estimated the Bucksbaum family's assets at $4.1 billion, including about 18.6 million square meters of mall space.

Ann and Thomas Friedman live in Bethesda, Maryland, a suburb of Washington, D.C. The July 2006 issue of Washingtonian reported that they own "a palatial 11,400-square-foot (1,060 m2) house, currently valued at $9.3 million, on a 7½-acre parcel just blocks from I-495 and Bethesda Country Club.

[izquierdista]

28. Not any more!

:rofl:

The economy has been SO great for the Friedmans, that Ann & Tom's fortune is now estimated at $25 million.

Yes, that's million with an M. :rofl:

[Iwillnevergiveup]

31. Well, I now realize it's been a full decade

since I heard him speak. He described himself as "a travel agent with attitude." 'Nuff said there.

[KG]

35. the kind of world veiw you develope when you marry into one of the richest families in the world.

[RiverStone]

37. Yes, easy to pontificate when you have enough $$$ to live 1000 lives over...

His writings do make some sense, but he also does not walk his talk.

[Iwillnevergiveup]

38. Would love to see an hour-long, commercial-free

sitdown between Tom and Naomi Klein. Considering that we in the U.S. are living through what she has so painstakingly documented in many different countries with regard to the despicable free trade and globalization ripoffs, a debate between the two of them would be most illuminating.

I'm lovin' the discourse on this thread!:think: