(POLICY) an extreme form of capitalism created in the immediate aftermath of a disaster. In some cases, as in Chile (1973), the disaster is a coup d'etat with the express purpose of imposing disaster capitalism. In other cases, such as the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, it is a genuine natural disaster that literally kills.
After some disasters, the authorities in some countries may well respond by imposing "reforms" that would have been impossible before. These include: (1) privatization of public property, making it unavailable to the indigenous people; (2) arbitrary elimination of laws ("deregulation"); and (3) slashing democratically chosen programs that help ordinary citizens ("austerity programs").
The concept was popularized in Naomi Klein's excellent 2007 book, *The Shock Doctrine*.
After some disasters, the authorities in some countries may well respond by imposing "reforms" that would have been impossible before. These include: (1) privatization of public property, making it unavailable to the indigenous people; (2) arbitrary elimination of laws ("deregulation"); and (3) slashing democratically chosen programs that help ordinary citizens ("austerity programs").
The concept was popularized in Naomi Klein's excellent 2007 book, *The Shock Doctrine*.
"Disaster capitalism" is neoliberalism imposed undemocratically. It exploits natural disasters, civil wars, foreign invasions, coups d'etat, terrorism, or explicit deception. It always seeks to make its changes irreversible.
Naomi Klein mostly blames the International Monetary Fund, but there are other culprits as well.
Naomi Klein mostly blames the International Monetary Fund, but there are other culprits as well.
by Abu Yahya July 10, 2010
taking an investment position that will benefit if the value of the stock goes down. Traditionally, "shorting a stock" means borrowing shares of stock from another broker, selling them, then buying them back (after the price has fallen) in order to return the stocks to the broker from whom they were borrowed.
You can short a stock using a derivative; this can include buying futures in the stock (i.e., a contract to sell someone else the stocks); or buying a put option (also called a put). A third way is to write a call (i.e., a call option, also known as a call) for the stock.
You can short a stock using a derivative; this can include buying futures in the stock (i.e., a contract to sell someone else the stocks); or buying a put option (also called a put). A third way is to write a call (i.e., a call option, also known as a call) for the stock.
Shorting a stock usually requires a great deal of skill and courage; even the most talented short will only make money during rare crises.
by Abu Yahya April 05, 2010
Breathless and/or mendacious "Globalization" pieces from neoliberal commentators. A lot of pop economics insists that increased trade in services, intellectual property, and equities will solve every significant problem.
by Abu Yahya September 28, 2008
(ECONOMICS) survey of 60,000 households in the USA conducted monthly by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. One of two ways in which the BLS gathers statistics on unemployment and hours worked. The other is the establishment survey.
According to an analysis of the 2009 March Current Population Survey, one in five men ages 18-64 - about 21.2 million - are uninsured, compared with 17.2 million women in the same age group. This gap in coverage is consistent across various demographic groups.
by Abu Yahya July 15, 2010
(LOGIC) a logical fallacy in which a person defends against an allegation by accusing an adversary of doing the same thing. It's a classic douchebag move because it implies that the speaker has a RIGHT to be a douchebag, by virtue of the fact that someone ELSE is being a douchebag.
From Latin, for "you, too."
WHY IT'S BAD
Suppose A is accused of terrorism. He reacts by accusing B, his enemy, of terrorism. Now, it's possible (but unlikely) that A actually chose this argument knowing he was totally innocent. More likely he wants to claim that his terrorism is PROVOKED. In effect, he's saying, "I have to do this, or I'm entitled to do this, because B did it first."
First, as logic it's a red herring. But what makes it douchebaggery rather than just another wartime propaganda tactic, is that it's MORALLY irrelevant as well as LOGICALLY irrelevant. The victims of terrorism almost never have any material control over either perpetrator ever.
From Latin, for "you, too."
WHY IT'S BAD
Suppose A is accused of terrorism. He reacts by accusing B, his enemy, of terrorism. Now, it's possible (but unlikely) that A actually chose this argument knowing he was totally innocent. More likely he wants to claim that his terrorism is PROVOKED. In effect, he's saying, "I have to do this, or I'm entitled to do this, because B did it first."
First, as logic it's a red herring. But what makes it douchebaggery rather than just another wartime propaganda tactic, is that it's MORALLY irrelevant as well as LOGICALLY irrelevant. The victims of terrorism almost never have any material control over either perpetrator ever.
ANNA: Abu Yahya, I don't know if your definition of "tu quoque fallacy" belongs in the Urban Dictionary. This isn't Wikipedia, you know.
ABU YAHYA: The reason I did is that I see all the time people using the rationale that, because somebody else did something bad to me, therefore I get to do something similar to anybody. It's sort of like sloppy revenge.
ANNA: Like men punishing random women because their girlfriends allegedly did something shitty to them?
ABU YAHYA: Actually, that's a perfect example of a tu quoque!
ABU YAHYA: The reason I did is that I see all the time people using the rationale that, because somebody else did something bad to me, therefore I get to do something similar to anybody. It's sort of like sloppy revenge.
ANNA: Like men punishing random women because their girlfriends allegedly did something shitty to them?
ABU YAHYA: Actually, that's a perfect example of a tu quoque!
by Abu Yahya June 03, 2010
Organization founded in 1943 by Lewis H. Brown (the asbestos tycoon).
(Brown's company, Johns-Manville, was the largest asbestos manufacturer in the US during the 1930s, and was involved in a massive, 40-year cover-up of the severe health risks posed by asbestos.)
The American Enterprise Association (AEA) was created to design and promote policies that strengthen the political power of large corporations. In 1970, William Baroody, Sr. became its head and changed the name from "Association" to "Institute" (AEI); he had earlier learned how to (a) launder oversized campaign contributions from corporate boards, and (b) how to present the AEI as an earnest, high-minded, non-partisan research group (or "thinktank"). Baroody's sons, William Jr. and Michael, both became important Conservative Movement figures.
The AEI was, until the 1990's, mainly a very well-heeled devil's advocate against any progressive cause: it opposed regulating cigarettes, municipal water systems, environmental protections of all kinds, and the Endangered Species Act. Its budget grew enormously and it spawned subsidiary organizations such as NGOWatch, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), and many more besides.
During the period 1997-present, the AEI became much more intensively focused on armed confrontation. In the name of "security," especially "energy security," the AEI appears to have spent an increased share of its already-burgeoning budget on promoting war or sanctions against many countries with a majority Muslim population. It argued against democratic review of US foreign policy, and in favor of criminalizing dissent. Position papers ceased to have any research content at all, and became pure polemics.
After the 2008 elections, which provided a clear repudiation of AEI policies *en masse*, the AEI focused on promoting itself as the guardian of national security; it did this by arguing that torture and extraordinary renditions were vital to keeping the USA safe from foreign terrorists. This made the organization valuable to former administration officials subject to prosecution for violations of Hague Conventions & Geneva Conventions
(Brown's company, Johns-Manville, was the largest asbestos manufacturer in the US during the 1930s, and was involved in a massive, 40-year cover-up of the severe health risks posed by asbestos.)
The American Enterprise Association (AEA) was created to design and promote policies that strengthen the political power of large corporations. In 1970, William Baroody, Sr. became its head and changed the name from "Association" to "Institute" (AEI); he had earlier learned how to (a) launder oversized campaign contributions from corporate boards, and (b) how to present the AEI as an earnest, high-minded, non-partisan research group (or "thinktank"). Baroody's sons, William Jr. and Michael, both became important Conservative Movement figures.
The AEI was, until the 1990's, mainly a very well-heeled devil's advocate against any progressive cause: it opposed regulating cigarettes, municipal water systems, environmental protections of all kinds, and the Endangered Species Act. Its budget grew enormously and it spawned subsidiary organizations such as NGOWatch, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), and many more besides.
During the period 1997-present, the AEI became much more intensively focused on armed confrontation. In the name of "security," especially "energy security," the AEI appears to have spent an increased share of its already-burgeoning budget on promoting war or sanctions against many countries with a majority Muslim population. It argued against democratic review of US foreign policy, and in favor of criminalizing dissent. Position papers ceased to have any research content at all, and became pure polemics.
After the 2008 elections, which provided a clear repudiation of AEI policies *en masse*, the AEI focused on promoting itself as the guardian of national security; it did this by arguing that torture and extraordinary renditions were vital to keeping the USA safe from foreign terrorists. This made the organization valuable to former administration officials subject to prosecution for violations of Hague Conventions & Geneva Conventions
In February 2007, *The Guardian* (UK) reported that the American Enterprise Institute was offering scientists and economists $10,000 each, "to undermine a major climate change report" from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). AEI asked for "articles that emphasise the shortcomings" of the IPCC report, which "is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science."
by Abu Yahya May 29, 2009
(BUSINESS & MEDIA) 3rd largest media holding company in the world; US holdings include Fox News, Wall Street Journal, New York Post, and Dow Jones; in the UK, News of the World, *The Sun*, *The Sunday Times*, & The Times (London); and a couple dozen papers in Australia, plus Sky Broadcasting. News Corp also owns HarperCollins & 20th Century Fox.
News Corp is fairly aggressive for a holding company in actually imposing a unified strategy and brand identity on its holdings. It was created by Rupert Murdoch from News, LTD. (a firm created by Murdoch's father, Sir Keith) in 1979, a few years after he went on a media buying spree in the USA. Murdoch became a US citizen so he could legally own US TV stations. The Murdoch family owns 29% of News Corp; Saudi Prince Al-Walid bin Talal owns 7%.
News Corp launched Fox News in 1996 to compete with CNN; shortly before this, News Corp also launched the neoconservative magazine *The Weekly Standard* with William Kristol as its editor.
News Corp is fairly aggressive for a holding company in actually imposing a unified strategy and brand identity on its holdings. It was created by Rupert Murdoch from News, LTD. (a firm created by Murdoch's father, Sir Keith) in 1979, a few years after he went on a media buying spree in the USA. Murdoch became a US citizen so he could legally own US TV stations. The Murdoch family owns 29% of News Corp; Saudi Prince Al-Walid bin Talal owns 7%.
News Corp launched Fox News in 1996 to compete with CNN; shortly before this, News Corp also launched the neoconservative magazine *The Weekly Standard* with William Kristol as its editor.
News Corp is not as large as Walt Disney or Time Warner, but it has been far more successful as a business model than its larger competitors. That's mainly because Murdoch focused on finances and political strategy, whereas the other media conglomerates remain unwieldy, random agglomerations. It's like a battle between a remorseless bulldozer and a large heap of sand.
by Abu Yahya September 01, 2010