Interview Transcript
Question: Are markets taking on traditional government functions?
Naomi Klein:t:I think it’s more complicated than simply that markets are usurping the role of government. I think what we’re seeing is a merger between big government and big business. And I think that’s part of the reason why it’s a little bit hard for people to understand because they know corporations have a great deal of power. But at the same time states seem more important, right? We’re seeing more active military intervention, more intervention in our lives in the form of surveillance. And so we’re seeing very active states, and we’re seeing big spending states – what used to be called military Keynesianism – and certainly a willingness to spend a huge amount of money, to take very bold policy measures. But I would argue in the interest of multi-nationals, not in the interest of people, and that’s the pattern that recurs. So it isn’t . . . It isn’t that states aren’t important. They’re crucial to this process. But the question is in whose interests are those states working? So it isn’t about the end of the nation state or the end of the government. It’s about this very dangerous merger between big government and big business.
Naomi Klein: Are markets taking on traditional government functions?
Economist; Author
There's been a fusion of big government and big business, says Klein.
January 27, 2008 | In Business & Economics
Discuss
Jacoline Loewen on March 5, 2008, 7:33 PM
Are you talking in North America?
In Canada, big business and the various levels of government should probably work together more in joint projects much like Superbuild in Toronto where government kick started 5 architectural projects by giving 25% of the initial cost. the other 75% was given by donations from Toronto’s business stars who were no longer from the tradiitonal WASP community. That was succesful because it is always the initial putting up of cash that is hardest and government played a targeted role being lead investor with terrific results.
The other role Government can play with business is to use its enormous cash investment resources to shift whole industries. For example – going green with cars. If the Government changed over its fleet of cars and trucks to green alternatives it starts the mass initial uptake needed to move whole markets.
Going back to your original point though, do car multi-nationalists want this green change though and would they pull the strings of government to make things go in their favour? Of course. A Canadian politician invited journalists to photograph him in a pollution spewing car so as to support the car manufacturing industry. He’s thinking votes, right?
The main counter to big business is to make sure SMEs (small and medium companies) also get government to use those two levers – cash & product uptake. Encouraging many players on the competitive field can keep the giants from dominating as you suggest. Entrepreneurship should be encouraged. My observaations of mid sized companies ($20M-$15)M) are that those business leaders are too busy finding and keeping customers to get enough time to be worthy of Hollywood conspiracy movies.
Preston carter on March 15, 2008, 5:10 PM
First of all, I agree, particularly with the idea that campaign finance should be reformed. I particularly would like to see the Chilean system, where each candidate is given 15 minutes of airtime a night on public finances. The ratings of this airtime is off the charts, and 15 minutes a night is enough sustained contact with the candidates to get a feel for them and their policies, and NOT just through whatever the media decides to report.
Worth noting, however, is that a true SYSTEM takes more than 8 years to develop. “during the bush administration” probably is not enough time for such a complex system, as Naomi claims it to be, to develop. Although I am not all that familiar with enough history to get it right, I would imagine that this system formed along with the rapid expansion of governmental responsibilities that occurred during the early 1900s.
Additionally, I’m confused by her usage of the “traditional” governmental roles. The ‘tradition’ role of the government is MUCH less than it was today, unless she is asserting that the ‘traditional’ role is that of the new deal era. Before that, markets played a MUCH stronger role than they did today, although the states (as opposed to national) governments had perhaps as much involvement as the national government does today.
One last comment…the underlying attitude regarding the government seems not to ‘jive’ with my understanding. The government didn’t create the airwaves; it is not theirs to ‘hand out’. That they should have been stronger in negotiating their transfer to private corporations seems strange. The government did not CREATE the radio, or the airwaves; it was created by private parties, and the government took to regulating it. That they should require corporations to reserve airtime for elections could be regulated, but it was not the government’s to negotiate during the ‘handing out’ of the airwaves.
Garrett A on March 21, 2008, 9:09 AM
Government used to be separate from corporations, particularly post-Great Depression.
One of the most devastating effects of the merger has been the adoption of economic neoclassical models of human behavior that has come to replace the concept of ‘duty’ or ‘greater good’ in public service.
William Sellers on September 28, 2008, 12:48 PM
I think you need to mix in corporate ownership of major news outlets as well. Aren’t they complicit?
They can at least affect the journalistic coverage of the moment by bringing cheap thrills like celebrity nonsense to the front while pushing economic analysis to the back (and making it look boring.)
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register