For Monday, October 19th, please read:
- Klein, Naomi. No logo. Chapters 7 & 9
Also – October 26th is the last date (before class begins) to get your third blog response in for this half of the semester (and an extra credit blog response, should you decide to do one).
Advertisement
October 18, 2009 at 9:06 pm
It is difficult to argue that the factory conditions Naomi Klein describes are acceptable under any Western standards, but who is to blame for these unacceptable conditions? The factory manager? The corporation? The government? The consumer? Globalization? Those who are blamed for the death, injury, poor welfare, and low wages (just to name a few) of workers always seem to have an excuse and someone else to blame.
It seems that the blame cannot be placed on a single individual or group because this problem has been caused by a vicious cycle of supply and demand. As the world becomes smaller and competition continues to increase consumers continue to demand lower prices. Many consumers are oblivious to what their price demands do to the chain events that allow for the price of certain products to be lowered. Can the consumer be to blame if he/she does not know what is happening to the factory workers that are producing the desired products? Can the consumer be to blame if he/she is looking out for his/her own well-being and/or that of his/her family?
Because of increased competition corporations are forced to provide products at lower prices to appeal to consumers, but these corporations also use the increased competition to their advantage. There are many factories in many countries and regions that corporations can use to produce their products, but they almost always choose the one with the lowest cost per product, thus the lowest wage per factory worker. Klein states, “Since industries are quick to flee escalating wages, environmental regulation, and taxes, factories are made to be mobile” (Klein, 224). This shows that the corporations, too, do not care about the welfare of the factory workers, but can the corporations be blamed for trying to make the most of their money?
The factory manager is also affected by the increased competition. The manager is forced to compete with hundreds, sometimes thousands, of other factories for the orders a corporation will provide. Because of the competition factory managers must constantly find ways to lower their costs, which almost always causes a manager to lower wages. Does this mean the factory manager is at fault or that the manager does not care for its workers? Can the manager be blamed for trying to keep business?
Finally, the government. It is difficult to place the government at a certain point in the cycle. In many of the countries with the worst factory conditions the local and federal governments allow for managers and international corporations to exploit its people. Klein states, “In Sri Lanka, it is illegal to do anything at all that might jeopardize the country’s exports” (Klein, 214). This prevents anyone, workers, managers, owners, from protesting or simply just speaking out against the conditions workers are forced to endure. In many Export Production Zones (EPZs) “minimum wage is regarded more as a loose guideline than as a rigid law” (Klein, 211) allowing the consumer, then corporation, then factory manager to demand a lower price and have it negatively affect no one except the factory worker. The governments of these countries also allow corporations to affect their public policy and some corporations even help draft international trade agreements (Klein, 227). Klein says that many of these governments believe that by allowing these corporations to build factories and exploit its people the result will be a prosperous economy, although it is very clear that the wages will not allow for any economic growth (Klein, 210). If the government does not know the wages that factory workers are receiving or the conditions under which they are working can it be blamed for trying to do what’s best for its country? Can the government be blamed for encouraging foreign investment, if this is the only type of investment it knows of?
It seems impossible to get out of this vicious cycle because of the concept of the brand. The brand is constantly urging consumers to buy more and more products. The lifestyle that brands now promote encourages consumers to buy everything that the brand produces; this sparks the cycle because the price of the products must fit into the consumer’s budget. Then the demands begin, in the end the factory workers are exploited, but the question still remains: who is to blame?
October 18, 2009 at 9:15 pm
Claire Weems
Cult 320
Blog Response
No Logo Chapters 7 & 9
Marketing is all around us, we can’t escape it. That seems like a simple sentence and something everyone knows but marketing goes much deeper than that. It tries to incorporate different aspects of advertising into every nook and cranny of our lives.
Chapter 7 discusses how companies like Disney have created a whole lifestyle through their products. Advertisements are meant for people to buy their company’s products, one major demographic that ads reach are children. Now children can recite commercial jingles, recognize logos, and even know different slogans for companies as opposed to who is the current president. This definitely has something to say about the direction the U.S. is heading. These corporations have filled the minds of the youth which in turn makes parents cave into the demands of their children and ultimately to the companies. An example of this is the power of Mattel and the creation which leads to the obsession with Barbie. Barbie has become a must have for all girls. But one cannot simply just have Barbie; she needs friends, clothes, a car, a dream house and her dream man, Ken. Companies such as Disney have incorporated their films such as Aladin, The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, etc… into creating Barbies as well. This leads into another topic of chapter 7 which is Mergers and Synergy.
Trying to escape one brand of product leads straight back to that brand. All major corporations seem to be connected through mergers and brand extensions. Companies also were not just satisfied with selling products; they wanted to sell more than products alone, this lead to theme parks, cable networks, radio, consumer products, books, and music (147). Naomi Klein states, “if brands are about ‘meaning’, not product attributes, then the highest feat of branding comes when companies provide their consumers with opportunities not merely to shop but to fully experience the meaning of their brand” (146). Companies are now trying to sell a lifestyle. They try to bring in new ideas to entice people not only to buy their products but to become part of that company’s lifestyle. This seems like brainwashing, making people believe that this is how things should be. It doesn’t quite seem fair that corporations have this power over us. It’s also sad that we realize what is going on but still seem to cave in to fit in. Major corporations have too much power and control over what goes on in our daily lives.
Chapter 9 discusses the factories and how they are seen through corporation’s eyes. Two quotes that really stood out at the beginning of the chapter are “Products are made in the factory…but brands are made in the mind” and “the difference between products and brands if fundamental. A product is something that is made in a factory; a brand is something that is bought by a customer”. This is something I definitely agree with but it is because the product is made that the brand is incorporated into our daily lives. But how important is a brand at the expense of human rights exploitations? Companies deny that human rights violations go on in their factories but many of these factories are located in Asia where labor is cheap and their standards of work treatment are much lower. It should be the company’s job and obligation to make sure that all workers are treated justly but this cannot be accomplished in order for a major corporation to thrive. Everything is about making money for corporations so finding the cheapest place to work and the cheapest labor to hire is a main goal.
This chapter reminded me of the movie we watched in class, China Blue. The movie emphasized and really expressed what working in a factory in China was really like. It is hard to imagine that so much sweat and pain goes into almost everything we use everyday. Everyone seems to know about the harsh factory conditions but the movie really brought it to life. Companies will go to any cost in order to make a few more dollars; this is not the mentality they should have. It is doubtful that companies will change when they are successful and this is a sad truth that we all must face.
October 19, 2009 at 1:23 pm
The continuation of discussion for the topic of branding. The creation of multinational corporations and global commodities chains as well as the rise of outsourcing and contracting replacing the traditional industry.
Chapter 7 mainly focused on the creation of multinational corporations where actual products being sold are the name, the logo, the brand. The merging of large companies such as ABC and Disney was the begining of a new age, where it is more important to market the product and make it seems like the brand is the optimal of living. Naomi Klein covered most regions of mergers and synergy, from books, hotels, to theme parks, everything belongs to the lines of selling an images and apply the newly created image as part of daily life.
Part of me agreed with Naomi Klein about how every single one of us is affected by these types of images and ideas, part of me is on the opposing team. Use restaurant as an example, because the food is good, the consumers are coming back, it is creating a brand for itself, but before it could create a brand, it needed a strong foundation of good food and good reputation, that is how these multinational globalizer came to place. They have a basic foundation of good reputation, what is wrong for boasting about that through synergy and mergers, to make more people know about how good the commodity is.
Chapter 9, the Discarded Factory, retouched on the forever topic of outsourcing and human rights. As we have dicussed about this topic many times in previous reading, it is an on going question, not because of the terrible working condition, but about why does the situation does not decline but actually on the rise.
Naomi Klein especially criticing outsourcing as creating more problem to society than beneficiary. The country that use outsource does not have enough jobs for its citizen, the country that accept to become the outsource believes that by bringing in more jobs, more people will be able to make a living and vice versa, benefit the economy by their purchasing power, the replication of American industrialization. But as the matter of fact, because of the demands for: cheaper products for the consumer, more profit for the corporation, the only answer is to decrease the amount of dollars that will go into the factory workers pockets.
In my own thought, whether or not the factory workers are underpaid nor the working condition is not ideal, the truth is that the country is bringing in more jobs. Without these types of jobs, whatelse will have them occupy? If there is enough job within a country already, there would probably no one to work for these factories. The human rights’ problem is something that we, as human kind, need to address and improve, not to point fingers and criticize or use the corporation as the scapegoat for the answer.
October 19, 2009 at 2:08 pm
One of the main points of Naomi Klein is that corporations have discovered that profits lay not only in making products but also in creating branded identities that become people’s lifestyles. Corporations’ main focus is to make profit, which had driven them (especially branded corporations) to find more ways to expand their empires and to lower their manufacturing expenditures in order to intensify the expansion of their so glorified “brand.”
Chapter seven focuses on the concept that since a corporation’s goal is to expand its brand empire, it starts to develop and to implement different strategies such as cross-promotion, liaisons and synergy and the establishment of Brand superstores. All these strategies to gain more and more the minds and hearts of costumers, put these Super Brands such as Nike, Gap and Disney as the only options. These corporate tactics are the beginning of the destruction of choices in costumers’ lives. On this chapter Klein portrays examples of corporations that had fallen into the Media Mania, which is branding corporations buying media corporations to expand the advertising on the market. Another point is that corporations expand their markets; brand based companies…are pushing the boundaries to include even more complete lifestyle packages: if music, why not food, asks Puff Daddy (149). Some other strategies that corporations have used to become more market controlling are the establishment of superstores where they create the perfect ambiance to sell a fully branded experience or even a wider experience such as branded vacation destinations or even branded towns. All these actions allow corporations to gain greater control over their images and meaning, and to impose their power and influence consumers’ minds which limit options available to the public. For me it is hard to understand how people can let themselves be vulnerable and let these Brands brainwash them. But, in reality it happens; consumers are influenced by what is very attractive to them. I consider that Kids and teenagers are at the top of this chain, they love eye-catching items and what is cool; that is why more corporations such as Disney and Mantel had expanded their markets by branding almost everything, from toys, to movies, to clothes, to hotels, to food and such on. This branding expansion makes these famous and powerful brands ubiquitous in the market and in consumers’ minds making people buy and consume products of these Brand corporations that sell to the world more than products, lifestyles.
As learnt so far, corporations are more focus in creating images and lifestyles than products; their interest is in what consumers will buy the most in order for the companies to be more profitable. Mr. J. Walter Thompson states that “The difference between products and brands is fundamental. A product is something that is made in a factory; a brand is something that is bought by a customer” (195). According to Klein, this idea is what has driven corporations to lower their investment in manufacturing and production and to increase spending in advertising and the glorification of their brands. This search for minimization of costs in the manufacturing of products and the maximization of wealth, has led corporations to outsource their factories to places where labor is cheaper and there are no regulations. Indeed, these actions of the corporate sector have caused several negative effects to the welfare and wellbeing of workers in developed countries as well as in less develop countries. Some effects are the increase of unemployment in countries where the factories were based, such as USA and Germany, labor abuses in foreign countries where there are Export processing zones (EPZ), and disregard of the environment and local communities in the foreign countries. When reading this chapter I remembered scenes from the film Blue China, which I think showed us more about the reality of the cost of corporate ambition.
Before, I didn’t realize how harmful for developing countries it was to have foreign factories. I used to think that multinationals corporations were creating jobs and improving local development. However, Klein shows with some good arguments that these corporations do more harm than good to poor countries, especially because they are supported by governments (most of then corrupt governments) that offer free-tax zones and don’t enforce minimum wage or benefits regulations. At the end these countries are just puppets of the big capitalistic corporations which are the only ones that benefit. The local communities are the biggest losers since their population becomes slaves of production and no sustainable development arrives to those lands. Nevertheless, I think it is hard to judge just one person or only to the corporate sector for all these problems. This is a vicious cycle where demand is the biggest player; if there is demand, there is such production and such exploitation of unfortunate people. These scenarios will keep going on the rise because even though these jobs don’t offer the best conditions and salaries; they are opportunities for rural people to have a job. I consider that it will take a long run to find a balance between corporation wealth and social welfare and hopefully, in a near future, we will start to see the rise of corporate social responsibility.
October 19, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Branding and outsourcing are directly related. Because Americans are so obsessed with the idea of a brand, the orders placed to the EPZ’s in Central American and Asian countries are overwhelming. It appears that our wants and desires for brand-name-everything are what is directly responsible for the conditions in the factories around the globe. I am not saying that every American who likes fashion or entertainment is evil, but it is easier to turn a blind eye to hurting someone when it’s not personal. It’s the same way that Save the Children commercials use a specific child with a name and a hobby to lure you into donating $5 a month. It is incredible that $5 a month would supply that child with an education, water, and shelter for 30 whole days. The same way it’s amazing that .87 cents is minimum wage in some of these countries, and employers complain of having to pay even such a miniscule amount. This greed-driven system seems to only be working for two people: the consumer and the ‘brander’. Even the contractors are at the mercy of the branders who place the orders, the same people who read the sales reports that we contribute to.
Klein puts a big emphasis on relating everything back to Disney in Chapter 7. I agree with her philosophy that Disney paved the way for this mayhem, but I also believe that there are many other companies that took it to the next level. The idea of “if you weren’t everywhere, you were nowhere” is spreading way beyond toys and children’s movies. In regards to film, she is right in stating that the stars are no longer ‘pigeonholed’. Stars like Zach Braff and Drew Barrymore are now writing, producing, and starring in their own films; they are creating their own brand empires. I can easily forsee the new movie “Whip It” becoming a model for young girls and creating a desire for dolls, lunchboxes, etc. Not only are feature films being manipulated, but also movies that are on DVD. With a little research, I discovered that the giant controversial investor Goldman Sachs owns the biggest share in Netflix (http://www.hackingnetflix.com). This insinuates that Goldman Sachs has the same power over what we watch that Barnes and Noble does over what we read. They’re attacking us in our own living rooms while we think that we are choosing what’s in our queue. Is there any way to escape this branding empire? The current movie “Paranormal Activity” is a great example of how easy it is to trick the general population. By releasing the film on only 13 screens on September 25, 2009, director Oren Peli gave the impression that the movie was somewhat ‘secret’. By releasing it in college towns, he made it cool. By October 10, 2009, the movie had received one MILLION ‘demands’ on its website and is now in major theaters all over the country. The idea behind this is that people are enticed by the terrifying trailer and are eager to support a low-budget film. Yes, the film is low budget at $11,000 total spending and 6 days of shooting. But no, this film is in no way what is known as ‘indie’ as the mega-giant Paramount is behind all of it.
Because No Logo was published in 2002, there are many new developments in the subjects that Klein is concerned with. For one, “creating a destination” can now be done in any average US household with 4 televisions. Instead of ‘making ritualistic pilgrimages’ to Disneyland and outlet malls, we can do the same thing from the comfort of our desk chair with online shopping. Another is the effect that 9/11 has had on branding. The idea of “Made in America” is now popular because many think we are keeping money from the ‘terrorists’. It’s ironic that the publications of horrific working conditions that plagues millions in factories around the world was not the motivation to ‘go green’ and buy local/American; it was watching the murder of thousands of our own. Why is American life so much more precious than anyone else’s? Our readiness to show patriotism and unite to help and defend one another is truly admirable, but it also gives companies another ‘in’ to our wallets. Everything from cereal boxes to cars is now stamped with an American flag. One other statistic that has greatly changed since No Logo’s publication is the number of maquiladoras along the US/Mexican border. At the height of its popularity in 2001, there were 3730 maquiladoras that employed about 1.3 million workers. By March 2002, one out of 5 of the factories was closed and left 288,000 Mexicans out of work(http://www.memagazine.org/backissues/membersonly/jan08/features/mexicore/mexicore.html). The same way that these brands swooped in and took what they wanted, they left a mess behind just as quickly. Not only did the recession hurt the Mexican-factory-based Auto industry, but with China’s WTO membership came better cooperation with major companies and Mexico was no longer in ‘the market’. Are the same Mexicans that were laid off the ones that I see every morning on the side of Little River Turnpike in Annandale waiting for day-labor? There has to be some connection between this massive layoff and the growing number of illegal immigrants in our country.
Michael J. Wolf’s comment that, “the next step in the evolution is to put housing next to the stores and megaplexes and call it a small town” has become a reality. I allude to the local Reston Town Center, Arlington, Fairfax Town Center, and soon to be Merrifield Town Center. This ‘live-in mall of the future’ is very real and very close to home.
October 19, 2009 at 6:30 pm
It becomes pretty clear in chapter seven how important a company’s brand is. The name/brand of a company has become a commodity of its own; companies such as Disney have more than a product to sell, they have a lifestyle to sell. At a recent meeting at my workplace, we were told to “Disney” our clients; mind you, my line of work has nothing to do with Disney and the products it tries to sell. What our meeting was referring to is Disney’s focus on customer service, but it’s quite funny how even in the mundane world of insurance, Disney is somehow incorporated. Disney has been extremely successful in marketing themselves; they have partnered up with McDonald’s (another big name) to promote movies (toys in Happy Meals), they are keeping up with today’s image by updating their product/brand (Tinkerbell has a new look and talks now), Disney has been able to remain relevant to its ever growing consumers. I think for American consumers, it’s all about the feeling and emotion that the brand represent, whether it is happiness or status, I do strongly believe that American consumers tend to buy based on emotions rather than rationale.
I think that in chapter nine, Naomi Klein is trying to wake American consumers from their emotional consumption, to inform us that the end does not justify the mean.
To be educated consumers, people need to understand how and where products come from. We have seen numerous call backs on products manufactured in China (Mattel), and yet nothing has changed. I remember during the last presentation, how it was stated that it should not be the company’s responsibility to make sure workers have proper care or a good working environment, and that it should be the government’s responsibility to do so. I understand where the statement came from, however I do believe that each company has the responsibility to requirement and demand better working conditions for its workers. Yes, labor in China and India is very (extremely) cheap, but to pay someone a few cents a day is slavery! Would it really make a difference if wages went from let’s say two cents to twenty-five cents?! As we have seen in “China Blue”, workers were being paid next to nothing in their wages, companies were paying a ridiculous low price to have their jeans manufactured and get over a two hundred percent in profit returns! It does kind of anger me to know how much it really cost to manufacture a pair of $100 jeans! As consumers, we do hold the power to make a change, but it’s simply a matter of wanting to actually make the change. None of us want the workers to be abused, but most of us have not changed their purchasing habits (apart from financial restraints)…
October 19, 2009 at 6:37 pm
“No Logo” Chapters 7 and 9
When Naomi Klein writes I believe that she wants to scare the public. In Chapter 7 about corporate censorship, it shows what big companies due to get us to buy their product. In stead of promoting an actual item, corporations are now selling a way of life. She stated that Disney was the original creator of this sort of style of selling. I feel as though she blames them for starting globalization on a mega-scale. Disney may have started it but if it was not them, then it would have been someone else. The start of globalization was the creation of faster forms of transportation. The faster the transportation, the more quickly people and things could move and once that started, we shared ideas. I do not think Disney should be bashed for what it has done, but rather rewarded. It has been able to make children and even adults smile and bring families together. If you want to blame someone for the start of mass globalization, then I suggest blame Christopher Columbus. His idea of the world is “round” got us were we are today. Also, another factor that was somewhat surprising was the fact that Disney has created its own village where people can live permanently. Klein shudders at the idea of this, but we all have the right to choose where we want to live and how we want to do it. If everyone lived how she wanted we would not be able to share ideas and communicate, which means that we will not be able to grow as human beings and progress as a society.
In Chapter 9 titled “The Discarded Factory” Klein discusses how factories impact a society. Hector Liang said, “Machines wear out. Cars rust. People die. But what lives on are the brands” (Page 196). This quote shows the impact that brands have on the world around us. A memorable brand will sell a lot and be around much longer after we are all gone. Our children’s children will know what McDonald’s is and probably hundreds of generations to come. This symbol alone will not only have and impact on future generations, but spread all over the world. Therefore not only one country will recognize the brand, but the entire world. Many factories in the U.S. have moved locations and found cheaper ways of production abroad in mostly third world countries. An explanation for the loss of jobs in the U.S. and Europe was explained by Robert Haas,”…that the jobs that were eliminated were not ‘leaving,’ they were just sort of evaporating” (Page 201). From my understanding, when something like water evaporates, it is gone. Thus, to say the jobs were not leaving is a nicer way to say that they are going away. It is a way of not saying it in such a direct and harsh way. But the jobs are leaving and headed for cheaper production methods, such as in China. Some companies even say that they are making sure that workers are being treated humanly, and when not one company pulled out of China. Obviously they suffered so they wanted to go back to China, which they did (example on the second to last paragraph Page 201). Finally, another quote that I found interesting was on Page 206 that stated, “These are factories built no on land but on air”. This statement is true in regards to countries like the U.S. and Europe who invest in India and China as a source of cheap labor. These countries (U.S. and Europe) will only continue to invest if the labor is cheap. If not they will move on to another country where the labor is cheaper. It is a cycle and China and India will only benefit as long as their workers do not demand higher wages and better working conditions.
October 19, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Chapter 9 of No Logo explains what corporations are all about. People now a days pay for the brand, not for the product. According to Schwitzer, president of the advertising giant J. Walter Thompson, products are made in the factory but brands are made in the mind. Corporations invest in promoting, advertising the brand and do not care as much about the quality of the product. Brand builders are the new primary producers in our so-called knowledge economy. Since they have to invest more money in “brands” they have opted to manufacture their products overseas. Most factories have closed in the United States and products are being manufactured in Asia, Latin America and other continents. This has generated many problems not only for people but for economies as well.
Most of the things that we buy are made in China. I have seen many people that refuse to buy products that are made in China but it is impossible because most of the things we buy are made there. You can hardly find anything that is made in the United States. Companies are so focus in advertising a product and making profits that they do not care how the product or where the product is manufactured. One of the reasons why corporations have shifted their manufacturing to other countries is because building a super brand is extraordinarily costly. In order for a business to be successful, they have to be cost-effective; it is a matter of priorities. A former chairman of United Biscuits said: “Machines wear out, cars rust; people die, but what lives on are the brands.” Most corporations use their resources in advertising their brands and synergies.
Another way that this shift has affected our economy is because of all the factories closing. In 1997, 45,000 U.S. apparel workers lost their jobs. Plant closures continue to take place. In the past, layoffs were due to lack of performance and they were an unfortunate necessity. Today, they are simply shifts in corporate strategies. These layoffs are necessary for companies to increase revenues for advertising. Companies focus on the needs of their brands as opposed to their workers. There are many people affected in our country due to these corporations’ strategies.
Companies bypass production and instead of making their products in their own factories, they “source” them. They close existing factories, shifting to contractors offshore. Their only concern is that the product must be made at really cheap prices so they will have money left over for branding. The actual manufacturing process is so devalued, that corporations do not pay any attention to it anymore. The people that are doing the labor are only expected to get the orders done. These people are being paid below the minimum wages in their countries and they are being exploited. Many workers work fourteen or more hours a day. The vast majority of workers are women from the ages of 15-30. Workers are predominantly migrants and they don’t have any connection to cities where they work. Many multinationals keep the location of their production as a “trade secret”. Factory workers can not complain otherwise, they lose their jobs.
In order for corporations to be successful, they must invest in branding but this leads to a series of problems. Most corporations do not care much about how their products are made therefore; they are not going to care about “sweatshops”. The poor conditions that these workers are dealing with are inhumane but they can not complain. Their governments do not do anything about it because they if they do so, corporations will take their businesses to another country. Corporations do not care about the people that are suffering because of this but for them it is only business.
October 26, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Scott Johnson
A Brief History of Neoliberalism
Chapter 1: The title of the chapter is “Freedom is Just Another Word” and Harvey begins by going straight into this concept. He admits that the word freedom is a very powerful force and is the basis of Liberalist thought, but challenges that right off the bat by talking about bush administration and doctrine. He challenges the opening of Iraq by calling it a sell-off rather then it being the beginning of free trade in liberalist tradition. This helps to establish his point about Liberalism and where it is and where it is being used today. He then goes more into a history of neoliberalism talking about the coup in Chile. The main take away point was this was somewhat considered a project or experiment at how a state could run under a neoliberalist idea. This was the predating to the US and Great Britain accepting these neoliberalist thoughts in their own doctrines, under Reagan and Thatcher. Next he addresses the quest of why? The answer he ultimately gives it seems is that it was to improve the economy. Through these changes, it gave more power of the economy to the pretty much the rich, and allowed to the government to profit from it through taxes. In this method, corporations had easier ability to grow and expand without as much government interference; however the state assumes more control over the economy as whole, with less work. Neoliberalism was the answer according to Harvey, for the problems that governments were having in the 1970’s and that were how to control the rise of the upper-class and big business which seemed in Argentina and Chile to have the power to rise and rule economically. He discusses more about the role of neoliberalism in the aforementioned countries and their impact on the US by assisting with many facts and graphs, what the graphs show mostly is that when the US switched to a neoliberalist policy was Unemployment rose, inflation lowered, more percentage of the US’s wealth was located in the upper class, and the rise in pay of CEO’s. What he seems to be saying here, is that CEO’s were becoming economic rulers, and the wealthy, were becoming even wealthier, maybe not because of pure profit, but rather a change in where the money in the US was located. I guess the best analogy I can provide is “trickle down economy” where the economic elites have the money, and it trickles down to the middle and lower class through business. What Harvey ultimately argues is that Neoliberalism in all its assumed glory, has not helped the revitalization of global capital accumulation, but rather has helped create the economic elite. Harvey then drops back into historical discussion about the rise of the idea of Neoliberalism, clashing with Keynesian thought and sticking with Adam Smith’s ideas. This continues on further into where Reagan was elected. Ultimately Harvey claims Reagan helped deregulate everything and the increase of the global market, production abroad, and the assistance toward corporate domination. What Reagan continued to do was pave the way for Neoliberal thought to influence other countries. One way he did this was by incorporating the US Treasury and the IMF to help influence countries that needed to borrow money to restructure their policies in order to borrow money. Afterwards he talks more about Class Power and the roles of the economic elites and CEO’s then ends the chapter with a counter point to all things neoliberal by discussing Polanyi. He relates Polanyi’s interpretation of a liberal America flips around saying the only way it would work is not through some unachievable form of Utopia, but rather force and violence, ending the chapter with what it seems is Harvey’s thoughts on what he thinks neoliberalism is and what it has done.
Chapter 2:
Harvey next looks at a question how and by whom? The chapter titled “The Construction of Consent” talks about just that, how did people consent to a neoliberal take over? To start he argues it started in the university’s, schools, and corporate thought, and had been building. Traditions and cultural values were a large part of this. He continues by saying that neoliberalism turn started with force with the coup in Chile. To Harvey, “Neoliberalism [does] not create distinctions, but can easily exploit them”. By this he means the distinctions and dissentions between other countries whose citizens were actively seeking individual freedom and social justice. Neoliberalism proved to be a powerful force in influencing other countries, and Harvey discussing how. Harvey then talks about US policy and the rise of it and compares it to Britain. By establishing think tanks and university being targeted for neoliberal ideas with individual freedom as the fuel to help get students and thinkers to focus on neoliberal ideas and how they could work and be incorporated in America. This proves successful as seen by what he says was a coup of the city of New York City. Essentially, in the face of a financial crisis, wealth was diverted to the wealthy upper class. He then talks about how the wealthy elite, transformed New York City, and rebuilt it’s imagine and infrastructure, infrastructure was of course based on business. The upper and middle class thrived, but the lower working class was to Harvey thrown back into chaos. Next he talks about the role of the wealthy and the corporation in influencing government parties, talking about Supreme Court rulings giving corporations the ability to fund parties in elections. This raised the idea that the wealthy elite and corporations needed a base in the government. The Republican Party became the basis for this. To do this, the Republican Party used the wealthy, and the Christians to gather support, for the Christians dominated all classes of America to establish a common culture and nationalism, while taking a rather negative outlook upon others like racism and such. What happened was the Republican Party had mass wealth and popular support to dominate the Democratic Party when it came time to create a policy or something else political. Next he talks about the Labor market and how it was shifted out of unions and into areas even outside of America so that there were stricter laws and lower costs. Because of this unemployment rose as was shown earlier in the graphs in chapter 1. Next was the comparison of the Great Britain and America, where it’s seemingly put that America was taken over by the Corporation while Great Britain strengthened into a great welfare state with no real dominating religious group or economic idea. He then ends the chapter in talking about what happened in Britain. What he states is that Britain while being a strong financial center due to London was also built to be a welfare state after World War II which was rather unpopular. The Neoliberal turn he says was fueled by a sharp increase in inflation in the 70’s. Under mounting pressure from the IMF, the government fell in to decline as labor unions and laborers went on sever strikes causing mass disruption. When Thatcher came into power, what she did was strike out at the Labor Unions and sap the power and effectiveness of them cutting strikes down to a 10th of what they used to be. Next she set out to privatize those sectors of the economy, thus extending corporate responsibility and taking away less from government responsibility. In ending the chapter he recaps all this, and basically says, Reagan and Thatcher were the creators of this new class power.
In talking briefly about these chapters, I must admit that much of it was far more advanced in discussion and thought then I was prepared for. The book is complicated but does well in giving many facts, names, and events to back up the point that he is making. Chapter 1 essential set up preface and Chapter 2 started the first take into the history of the Neoliberal turn, I suspect he will lead into post 1980, but while is argument sometimes is a little hazy, as it doesn’t seem if he is simply stating opinion, or giving a true historical brief. To be honest I am unsure what to think of the book and where to form an opinion on it.