Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Naomi Klein: What Does Obama's 'Love of Markets' Mean for Our Economic Future?

By Naomi Klein, The Nation. Posted June 19, 2008.


The head of Obama's economic policy team is one of Wal-Mart's most prominent defenders.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Naomi Klein

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Barack Obama waited just three days after Hillary Clinton pulled out of the race to declare, on CNBC, "Look. I am a pro-growth, free-market guy. I love the market."

Demonstrating that this is no mere spring fling, he has appointed 37-year-old Jason Furman to head his economic policy team. Furman is one of Wal-Mart's most prominent defenders, anointing the company a "progressive success story." On the campaign trail, Obama blasted Clinton for sitting on the Wal-Mart board and pledged, "I won't shop there." For Furman, however, it's Wal-Mart's critics who are the real threat: the "efforts to get Wal-Mart to raise its wages and benefits" are creating "collateral damage" that is "way too enormous and damaging to working people and the economy more broadly for me to sit by idly and sing 'Kum-Ba-Ya' in the interests of progressive harmony."

Obama's love of markets and his desire for "change" are not inherently incompatible. "The market has gotten out of balance," he says, and it most certainly has. Many trace this profound imbalance back to the ideas of Milton Friedman, who launched a counterrevolution against the New Deal from his perch at the University of Chicago economics department. And here there are more problems, because Obama--who taught law at the University of Chicago for a decade -- is thoroughly embedded in the mind-set known as the Chicago School.

He chose as his chief economic adviser Austan Goolsbee, a University of Chicago economist on the left side of a spectrum that stops at the center-right. Goolsbee, unlike his more Friedmanite colleagues, sees inequality as a problem. His primary solution, however, is more education -- a line you can also get from Alan Greenspan. In their hometown, Goolsbee has been eager to link Obama to the Chicago School. "If you look at his platform, at his advisers, at his temperament, the guy's got a healthy respect for markets," he told Chicago magazine. "It's in the ethos of the [University of Chicago], which is something different from saying he is laissez-faire."

Another of Obama's Chicago fans is 39-year-old billionaire Kenneth Griffin, CEO of the hedge fund Citadel Investment Group. Griffin, who gave the maximum allowable donation to Obama, is something of a poster boy for an unbalanced economy. He got married at Versailles and had the after-party at Marie Antoinette's vacation spot (Cirque du Soleil performed) -- and he is one of the staunchest opponents of closing the hedge-fund tax loophole. While Obama talks about toughening trade rules with China, Griffin has been bending the few barriers that do exist. Despite sanctions prohibiting the sale of police equipment to China, Citadel has been pouring money into controversial China-based security companies that are putting the local population under unprecedented levels of surveillance.

Now is the time to worry about Obama's Chicago Boys and their commitment to fending off serious attempts at regulation. It was in the two and a half months between winning the 1992 election and being sworn into office that Bill Clinton did a U-turn on the economy. He had campaigned promising to revise NAFTA, adding labor and environmental provisions and to invest in social programs. But two weeks before his inauguration, he met with then-Goldman Sachs chief Robert Rubin, who convinced him of the urgency of embracing austerity and more liberalization. Rubin told PBS, "President Clinton actually made the decision before he stepped into the Oval Office, during the transition, on what was a dramatic change in economic policy."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: obama, goolsbee, chicago school

Naomi Klein's latest book is The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
brokebuteven
Posted by: brokebuteven on Jun 19, 2008 12:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Train loads of Geritol could not restore the tired blood of the Robert Rubin/Wall Street insider crowd that Candidate Obama has crowned as his economic team. Whatever campaign debts he is repaying by surrounding himself with such a crowd of Fifth Columnist outsourcers, those debts are minor compared to the bankruptcy ahead of him when the betrayed American workers figure this out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: brokebuteven Posted by: nochicagoboys
The Perfect Storm Cometh ...
Posted by: mmckinl on Jun 19, 2008 12:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Peak Oil, Water, Food, the credit collapse, the $800 Billion trade deficit, the ballooning budget deficit, public and private debt at 350% of GDP, the housing collapse, an economy in free fall and the absence of governance will soon test Obama's economic team.

Obama's team had better have some pretty radical answers, on the order of a "New Deal" in programs and restructuring because "business as usual" will mean absolute financial failure, with no second term for Obama. There will be no time for second guessing so they'd better get it right the first time and given their Chicago bloodlines that looks very 'iffy' indeed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Perfect Storm Cometh ... Posted by: HighburyJD
Concerns
Posted by: igoeja on Jun 19, 2008 3:38 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Although I've read various analyses as to Obama and Hillary's policy proclivities, Obama has always struck me a Republican-lite on economic issues, and when you consider he's always had more hedgefund support, I'm worried that we might wind up with misguided, dogmatically right-wing, economic policy that sounds liberal. Additionally, his recently announced tax policies give even more reason for gloom.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Concerns Posted by: mick3
The "Chicago Boys" will continue to dominate economic policy
Posted by: nochicagoboys on Jun 19, 2008 4:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As I've claimed for over a year on this site, Senator Obama is being heavily funded by the corporate world, most notably the financial, insurance, and real estate sectors. It appears, based upon his selection of people to advise him economically, that we're going to have another neoliberal in the White House next January. It will truly be, "business as usual".

So, not surprisingly, the race/gender dilemma was always a smokescreen, shrewdly contrived to make the electorate believe true change was on the horizon. I always had my doubts. Now, in light of Naomi Klein's article, I'm convinced: If you vote for either major party's candidate this fall, you get to pick your poison.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Intelligent Post Now Do Something Constructive
Posted by: desidid on Jun 19, 2008 4:31 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Obama campaign has a link for you to share your ideas with him. We should be flooding him with our ideas, not just sitting on AlterNet discussing amongst ourselves. We talk about a more responsive political process, it begins with giving our political figures something to respond to. You have to scroll down the page to find the place to send your ideas.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» LINK? Posted by: edgeofnowhere
» RE: LINK? Posted by: desidid
» RE: Not Going Down This Road Posted by: desidid
» RE: Anna Posted by: desidid
» RE: Anna That's the plan Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: Anna That's the plan Posted by: desidid
Why so late, Naomi?
Posted by: hotdog on Jun 19, 2008 4:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Nation and Klein have done a disservice in reserving this criticism until after the primaries ended. Last winter, Paul Krugman, among others, expressed the same concerns Klein now has. At that time, the Nation was acting like Obama was some kind of progressive savior. Anyone paying attention to his track record, platform, and choice in advisors, knew he was not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I think Naomi is ... Posted by: Bobsays
» RE: I think Naomi is ... Posted by: Stellaa
» RE: Why so late, Naomi? Posted by: asilsfable
The devil's lawyer
Posted by: Gregory Kruse on Jun 19, 2008 5:08 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Even in a perfect democracy, elections are about choosing the lesser demon. The policies of an Obama administration will not bring about utopia. My native pessimism only allows me to hope that the next president will at least sound intelligent when he speaks to the nation. I miss being able to listen to the president speak. From now on, only the biggest voices will be heard by the campaign on either side, and I am happy to hear and support the voice of Naomi Klein.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This Is Neoliberalism At Its Worst
Posted by: thebeerdoctor on Jun 19, 2008 5:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Chicago school of economics promotes the agenda of austerity for the poor, opulence for the rich. This is that "magic" of the free market they always harp on about. It was none other than billionaire George Soros who said that anyone who believes in the moral redemption of the free market is an imbecile. So Senator Obama believes in the free market? Draw your own conclusion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What does Naomi's love of...
Posted by: Bobsays on Jun 19, 2008 6:22 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
money and fame have to say about the future of the left? Just wondering...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What does Bob's love of Posted by: antiapathy
» RE: Substantial Work and Credibility Posted by: nochicagoboys
» RE: Substantial Work and Credibility Posted by: nochicagoboys
» RE: Substantial Work and Credibility Posted by: Spaceshipdefender
» RE: Substantial Work and Credibility Posted by: nochicagoboys
» RE: Substantial Work and Credibility Posted by: Spaceshipdefender
» RE: Substantial Work and Credibility Posted by: nochicagoboys
» RE: Substantial Work and Credibility Posted by: Spaceshipdefender
» RE: Substantial Work and Credibility Posted by: nochicagoboys
» RE: Substantial Work and Credibility Posted by: Spaceshipdefender
» RE: Substantial Work and Credibility Posted by: Spaceshipdefender
» RE: Substantial Work and Credibility Posted by: nochicagoboys
as long as white men are voting for McPain, Obama has no chance
Posted by: Ydotheyhateus on Jun 19, 2008 6:38 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Based on the latest NBC/WSJ poll:

No Democrat running for president has won the male vote since 1964. White men, about 40 percent of the electorate, prefer McCain over Obama, 55 percent to 35 percent.

The NBC/WSJ pollsters said, "Pluralities of white male voters say they don't like Senator Obama and don't relate to his background and perceived values. In contrast, by a 2-to-1 ratio, they express positive views of Senator McCain and identify with his background and values."


So there you have it. Klein doesn't have to worry about Obama perpetuating the neoliberal policies that hurt avg Joe/Jane (white or colored). Thanks to white male voters, McPain will continue the elites agenda.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The polls may be wrong Posted by: ReallyBearish
» RE: So What? Posted by: oregoncharles
Finally some TRUTH about the Ugly Step-Child
Posted by: perkywa on Jun 19, 2008 6:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The University of Chicago was funded (and co-founded) by John D. Rockefeller for the express purpose of training managers (lackeys) needed for his burgeoning global empire. Both our screwed up economic system and our dumb them down education system came from the University of Chicago. Indeed this institution has done more then almost any other to advance the globalist One World Government agenda over the last 100 years.

Who better to "close the deal" on Globalism then the slick snake oil salesman ugly globalist step-child O-BOMB-A?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

THIS IS ABOUT US
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jun 19, 2008 6:48 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gas consumption has dropped by almost 5%. Guess what, the price is going down. As long as people flock to Walmart to buy alot of junk made in China it won't matter who's in the White House. Walmart is bigger than EXXON. American people have more control here than any politician or president. Other countries have gotten rid of them or kept them out to begin with, and for good reason. We can't change the way Walmart operates but we can control their operation. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: THIS IS ABOUT US Posted by: Jim V.
» RE: THIS IS ABOUT US Posted by: EncinoM
» Forget short term price action Posted by: ReallyBearish
Obama Oschlama..
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace on Jun 19, 2008 7:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Love of Markets means...


Hurry up and Bend over...( ! )..!


I voting against McCain, not for Obama..

I was for Edwards but the Democrats blew it..!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Obama Oschlama.. Posted by: nochicagoboys
» RE: If you're serious... Posted by: oregoncharles
We have no real choice with respect to economic interest
Posted by: Ydotheyhateus on Jun 19, 2008 7:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm reluctantly voting for Obama in the hopes that he will place one or more socially liberal judges on the bench.

However, with repespect to the economy, we have no hope. Both democrats and repugs worship the same devil i.e. the free market.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The elephant cometh
Posted by: edgeofnowhere on Jun 19, 2008 7:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All this talk of the election and the political stance of the candidates is, for the moment, keeping us from confronting the real issue: total financial collapse of the US dollar. When this happens, all bets will be off. So will the election.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Where Is The Public To Go?
Posted by: Southern Gal on Jun 19, 2008 7:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Did the progressive media hide facts about Obama, his advisors and their positions on issues, did they not do the legwork to find out, or did they choose not to publish articles on their websites because they wanted him to be elected? Where is the public to go for factual information to make up their own minds about candidates?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Free market vs Corporationism
Posted by: Purple Girl on Jun 19, 2008 7:49 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
WE've been pushed from a Free market doctrine to a Capitalist agenda to the enslavement of corporationism.
I am all for the Free market- let people be able to offer their 'wares' and compete for customers by providing a better product.
Capitalism is far different- it is based on Cutthroat tactics to undermine the competition
Corportionism is based on eliminating All competition and holding the Market hostage, by being the Only game in town- esp in essential resources.A tactic which makes US endentured and enslaved by the fact of necessity.
Another area I will be listening for from Sen Obama. I will vote for him in Nov- but I will reserve the right to continue evaluating His performance throughtout his Presidency.No future President Should EVER claim a mandate, it's a confession of their Blind Ambitions and potential for Abuse of Power.
Convicting this Admin on their numerous Crimes would send that message loud and clear!
Another area He has failed to speak Loudly enough about.
But then again when even your Primary Opponent is willing to suggest asssasination - you may want to keep some of your thoughts and intentions close to the vest.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hold on. Let's look at the larger picture
Posted by: droscify on Jun 19, 2008 7:50 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems to me you all are reaching for a paradigm that does not and never has existed. You can shout down Obama for triangulating on issues and ignore the fact that someone his position must walk a tightrope be elected. between differnt segments of the public and business interests one must walk an incredible thin line to be in the position he is in. Some of you who've seen his speeches might have heard him say that he alone would not be able to change things, and that the real impetus for change is meaningful public involvement. From my perspective it seems Barak Obama on many levels does represent a meaningful change in our political landscape, and there is certainly no question that an Obama presidency would be eons away from the bullshit we've been suffering through for the last eight years.

Point is, at some point those who truly want to change these circumstances need to take some fucking responsibility and maybe act accordingly. None of this would of happened had our collective society not allowed it to happen, and I personally don't know a solitary soul who has not in some way benefited from our corpoarate funded infrastructure. If this is something that we truly want to see a shift in, perhaps we should stop cast stones from our own glass houses. Truth be told, most of us shop at corporate outlets, purchase gas, and food, and clothes from this infrastructure. It is not impossible to be independent of such devices, but we as a society have forgotten this. At the same time we bemoan politicians who operate within its framework to change things for the better. So if you disagree with how our infrastructure is operating, I suggest revolution as an alternative. Otherwise, I believe you benefit from exactly what you decry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Right on! Posted by: Bobsays
» Re-Read the article! Posted by: perkywa
what are our options?
Posted by: using on Jun 19, 2008 8:28 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is quite true -- whichever party you pick you are picking your poison -- HOWEVER, recent history has shown tha whenever:
the Republicans win... it is two steps backwards from a balanced economy.
the Democrats win -- we have (with Clinton as proof) had a 2 steps forward in the form of a strong, short-term economy and two steps backward in the long term by nailing down programs like NAFTA that helped break the back of our hard working middle class.
It seems to me:
if we elect a Republican this time around -- they will most probably accept it as a mandate and move in for the kill.
if we elect a Democrat this time around --
at the very least, they will have to work with us a little.
So folks, as far as I can see, the answer appears to be: it is in our own best interest to elect a democrat -- and not allow ourselves to be lulled into a sense of security - but watch him like a hawk, while creating a strong union of citizenry that support decisions which move us towards the kind of change that does not allow one class to strip the others of the opportunity to work for "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness".
I greatly respect Ms. Klein, her insight and her writings. However, I am wondering what she thinks, under the circumstances, our options are? And how we can work together towards forcing the rebalancing of our governmental structure?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: what are our options? Posted by: perkywa
» RE: what are our options? Posted by: using
what do you propose instead
Posted by: pete1029 on Jun 19, 2008 9:02 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whilst there is many thinks about the American economy that need changing, I wonder in all this free market bashing what it is that the left propose should be put in its place. The general arguments by many people on the left seem to be that government’s should exercise greater control and power over the economy. However the left also attack governments and rightfully so when they exercise their power and control of the personal lives of their citizens, just look at the disastrous government policies such as the war on drugs and the blatant disregard of civil liberties within the PATRIOT act. If as I believe that the government cant be trusted interfering into my personal life and society as a whole, why should we trust it and think that only good will follow if it is given greater control of the economy.

I have just always seen it as a blatant hypocrisy by many on the left to think that society and the personal lives of individuals work best when the government does not intervene, however on the other hand they believe that the market and economy work best when the government does control it. And conservatives also suffer for the inverse hypocrisy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Exactly Posted by: Timba
» RE: xactly Posted by: bluepilgrim
» RE: xactly Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: xactly Posted by: IggyReed
» RE: xactly Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: xactly Posted by: IggyReed
» RE: xactly Posted by: Krotos
» RE: xactly Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: xactly Posted by: bluepilgrim
» RE: xactly Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: what do you propose instead Posted by: brokebuteven
Thank you ,Ms. Klein
Posted by: placid on Jun 19, 2008 9:10 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is important we have this information & then,as informed progressives,do futher investigation to be fully armed with info.You most definitely gave us a real start. That said , I do keep a running list of pros & cons on both Obama & McCain. So far the Arizona senator's negatives greatly outweigh Senator Obama.As we slide further into the campaign more will be revealed regarding both including Obama & we may disagree greatly with them. The markets,are a reality.Obama's comment as far as I am concerned are part of 21st Century reality.The question is to what degree will this truly interfere with other items on Obama's agenda. Wal-Mart? I never shop there.I would like to have ALL types of folks on my team. Remember "Dubya" was surrounded soley by clones with no differing perspectives & if one begged to differ, a resignation appeared. Mary Basombrio

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WHY DO YOU THINK
Posted by: BlueBerry PickN on Jun 19, 2008 9:50 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...that CORPORATIONS **permitted** Obama to become a party leader...

BUT TOOK THE GLOVES OFF FOR KUCINICH??

wake up.


Obama is not your Great Hope.

...your RIGHTS TO PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY & FREE SPEECH are your BEATING HEART OF DEMOCRACY...

but Americans are so starry-eyed over OBAMA, they're letting their RIGHTS swirl down the drain while they chant, "YES, WE CAN!"


...until a corporation is inconvenienced & you WILL be silenced.

on your knees, Citizen!

Taking Liberties - watch it WHILE YOU CAN.



┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄
BlueBerry Pick'n
can be found @
ThisCanadian
┄┄
" ...tolerance of intolerance is cowardice... ~ Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
We, two, form a Multitude" ~ Ovid.
┄┄
"Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced"
┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

pete1029
Posted by: IggyReed on Jun 19, 2008 10:43 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is a difference, a HUGE difference, between correcting the giant and growing imperfections of market economics and the government trying to force a view of morality on the populace. The government is not intruding on the rights of individuals if, for instance, it creates a tax for pollution. Individuals create costs, that are socialized in years off our life, worsening health and the destruction of the commons. These costs exist, and are not captured within the economic system. The government is simply making the people who created the costs pay for it. When the government tries to do something like correct large and growing wealth concentration, it is not taking wealth from someone who “earned” it and giving it to another. The financial markets have grown far faster than the underlying economy, they’ve basically lost all relationship with the real economy. How does this happen? How does a group within society, investors, create wealth far and above the real economy? Simply by creating debt instruments that can never be paid back because job creation and the wages don’t keep up with the growing debt.

Investors also increase their wealth by monopolizing the work of others