Talk:Confessions of an Economic Hit Man/Archive 1

Archive 1

The concluding paragraph

This section seems to me to be indulging in a bit of editorializing, inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. If there are criticisms of Perkins that can be attributed to a source, the inclusion of those criticisms would be a more appropriate way to balance the article. If no such criticism can be found, this paragraph should be considered POV and dropped. --HK 00:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

"there is no smoke without a fire"

Criticism

Wikipedia policy is that criticism to balance the article is encouraged, but it must be criticism from published sources. The edits that I reverted were from an editor who had read the book and wanted to add a personal book review of sorts, but that is not in accord with Wikipedia policy. Please find published critics. --HK 15:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry but the article comes across as strongly biased. The point made that "claims" about Perkins character in relation to "alternative" lifestyle views or choices are relevant in establishing his character and therefore discredit his work are preposterous. Firstly this is not a court of law so the analogy used below as justification is not relevant. If the editor thinks it is somehow relevant to him as a person then include it in his personal entry. This is not a forum for somehow thinly vieled and weak character assasination because it is believed it justify's criticisms and a certain viewpoint. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which in tern aims to be as unbiased and objective as possible hence the inclusion of "relevant" facts and direct criticisms or refutations of merit. Something is wrong when the criticisms section of a bestselling and also widely critically acclaimed book, is 3 times the length of the rest of the article. Volume of criticisms by credible and non credible sources can definately be distilled down to what is necessary irelavent of the editors personal view. For this reason I am removing the last couple of sentences based on the conjecture about Perkins lifestyle becasue it comes across merely as smere tactics and degrades the overall quality of a potential criticisms section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.215.157.160 (talk) 10:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

What can be done to balance the State Department statement ?

The included document by the state department, although an official source, clearly rises to the level of attempted character defamation. Personal attacks are classic ways of distracting from dissent. I really wonder why the state department found it necessary to write such a big note, and tries to defame Perkins' character here. Yes, its an official source, but what can be done to balance this in the article ? After all, did they give any evidence that he did NOT do the things he writes about ? They get a pretty big section in the article plus the link to their website and I am worried that they are successful here in distracting from the real red flags the book raises. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talon05 (talk • contribs)

The person who originally inserted this material attributed it to unidentified "critics," a violation of WP:AWT. I put in the attribution to the State Dept., and I think that the reader will now draw the appropriate conclusions from the source of the criticism. --HK 16:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's another critic: [1] (from the Washington Post, requires registration). -- Eb.hoop 19:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

If you read the State Department's statement very carefully, the main thrust of it is directed at something John Perkins acknowledges: the difficulty of providing concrete evidence (or much of it) for his link to the NSA or any other intelligence agency. There are some problems with this: firstly, the NSA's two missions were outlined by Executive Order 12333, dated December 4th, *1981* [2]. The alleged events (not to mention MAIN's alleged involvement) date from before that time. Secondly, the NSA's 1st mission: "information assurance for information infrastructures critical to U.S. national security interests", could conceivably justify activities like the alleged screening of EHM applicants.

It's 2nd point is that the US supports debt relief, in contrast to supporting policies that create huge debt to enslave other countries. Of course their support of that claim is a program proposed in 2004. The first, most obvious problem with this is that it does not address policies that were possibly implemented from the 60's until now. Secondly, I don't see many (if any) countries listed on the debt relief list that were allegedly victimized by the "EHMs".

It's 3rd point amounts to a ad hominem argument, which some of you have pointed out.

So how to balance it? State the rebuttals clearly and precisely. Make sure none of them are vaguely presented and that conclusions which are not presented without being clearly connected to the supports of those conclusions. If a criticism is clearly a personal attack, be clear that it does not actually address the issue, but is commentary on the person presenting the issue.

Make the criticism stand on it's own legs, not vaguely inflated ones.  :)

(Antelope In Search Of Truth 02:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC))

I think that what Antelope In Search Of Truth identifies as an ad hominem argument is a perfectly legitimate line to take in questioning Perkins's credibility, in the same way that one might question the credibility of a witness for the other side in a court of law. At issue is whether one finds it probable that Perkins is telling the truth. Surely it is relevant if he has publicly made questionable claims in other areas. Furthermore, what I personally find most implausible about Perkins's story is that the NSA would have tapped him in particular for such a sensitive secret mission, since nothing in his background or resume would seem to justify it.

I would also like to see the section on "criticism" move beyond the State Dept. release (which, incidentally, was issued because Hugo Chávez and others cited the book as evidence of the US's nefarious intentions towards Latin America). Plenty of people have questioned Perkins's credibility. We already have a link to a Washington Post column by Sebastian Mallaby that claims Perkins is peddling a popular but completely inaccurate view of global finance. -- Eb.hoop 16:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add to that by saying that Perkins is making some pretty damning claims against the NSA with no evidence other than his say so.Based on that,I don't see why anybody can complain that the NSA is being unfair with their methods.To quote a 7 year old being caught harrassing his brother by his parents,"He started it!"

"Surely it is relevant if he has publicly made questionable claims in other areas. " I do not consider it sure.  ;) But I do stand corrected; The main 3rd point I refer to in the State Dept release is not precisely ad hominem, but Faulty generalization. You can follow the link, but the basic form of this fallacy is:

• A makes claim B;
• there is something objectionable or invalid about claim C (also made by A),
• therefore claim B is false.

So I think we are actually in agreement that all these claims should be examined. I object only to inferences that shortcuts to truth can be taken based on the record of a person who is raising an issue. Just because you think there is something wrong with "claim C", it seems that you would dismiss "claim B" automatically, without examination.

The issue should be whether the statements are true and/or valid, NOT whether it's probable that they are. To know that, they must be examined. To dismiss most of Perkins' statements or issues without examining them, because other issues statements he has made are inadaquately supported (or we disagree with them), is potentially sloppy and biased. Please, beware Disconfirmation bias.

I urge anyone to take a closer look at the statement issued by the State Dept. They only state that, "his claim that he was acting as an “economic hit man” AT THE BEHEST of the NSA appears to be a total fantasy".

I find it funny that at least a few people take this to mean they are charging the whole thing as "fantasy". There is NO language in the release that does so. Besides which, they come rather close to agreement on Perkin's main points when they state that, "Perkins raises legitimate questions about the impacts of economic growth and modernization on developing countries and indigenous peoples". Just take a close look at it. The US government appears to have examined Perkins' main points.

As long as the Criticism section is clear in what and how it challenges the stances Perkins is taking on issues, great. "Plenty of people" sounds intriguing. I hope their arguments are valid & sound. Furthermore, I hope that contributors clearly understand any criticisms before they try to paraphrase.  ;)

As for "nothing in his background or resume would seem to justify it", the book plainly states that his personal connections led to the job with MAIN. Whether those connections were related to the NSA or not, the role of his personal connections in landing him the job is supported by documentation cited in the book. Are you going to tell me you've never heard of or experienced favoritism?  ;)

(Antelope In Search Of Truth 20:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC))

At issue is Perkins's credibility as witness. Perhaps an analogy will help to clarify this: Suppose that the prosecution's main witness claims to have seen the defendant on the night of the murder leaving the victim's house wielding a bloody knife. Suppose that that same witness has previously written a book arguing that JFK was killed by aliens. Then the defense could legitimately bring up that book to argue that the witness's testimony at the murder trial shouldn't carry much weight. Logically there is no reason why being wrong about JFK and the aliens would necessarily mean that the witness is wrong now about the defendant at the murder trial. But if I think that the witness is a crackpot, then I will naturally take his current testimony less seriously.

This is particularly relevant in Perkins's case because all we have is his say-so for what is by far his most serious allegation, without which his book would be of no particular interest: that the NSA hired him to deliberately saddle Third World countries with unpayble debts. I think that anyone who is even slightly acquainted with how global finance works will realize that this is an extraordinary claim. In evaluating how seriously to take that claim, the fact, for example, that Perkins believes in shamanism is a legitimate consideration.

I have revised the "Criticism" section so as to include references to other major sources who have questioned the value and credibility of Perkins's book (all it took was a Lexis-Nexis search). -- Eb.hoop 15:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

How about this example:

• Some guy (let's call him Joe) tells me that googol is a large number. So big that I'd spend years counting to it, perhaps dying before I could finish it.

• Another guy (let's call him Dan) shows me documentation (former report cards, etc.) that Joe got dismal spelling grades, and in fact, that he was prone to misspell words. Furthermore, I am shown that he has a history of misleading people (practical joker) and getting things confused.

• Under previously suggested "logic", I would dismiss what Joe says given "the weight" of all the other things standing against him. I'd be apt to think that he just got it confused with Google, or that he's playing a joke on me. But none of that has any relevance to the fact that investigating shows that googol is a number. It has NOTHING to do with Joe's skill at spelling that he can make this observation and pass it on.

If we are serious about all of this, we HAVE to check each claim, independent of any other claims made. The "weight" of all this other stuff has absolutely NO bearing on the claim that googol is a large number.

Plus, in order for you example to match up with John Perkins, the prosecution's witness you refer to would also be presenting pictures or other solid evidence.

Have you even READ the book? There is documentation supporting all of the most serious claims. NSA or no NSA, he STILL makes a serious case that government and big business have been colluding in an inappropriate manner, and that exploitation has resulted.

So if any criticism is going to be serious, it has to question the validity of EACH claim. Otherwise, we are the villagers from "The Boy Who Cried Wolf". They boy in that story lied, but when we fail to examine each claim, the wolf eats our sheep.

(Antelope In Search Of Truth 20:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC))

I think that something important is being overlooked here, which is that Perkins attended Middlebury College. Like the prep school system in the U.K., certain elite institutions of higher learning are recruiting centers for intelligence operatives. And here is something I just came across: in October of 2004, a conference was held at The Rohatyn Center for International Affairs of Middlebury College, entitled "The Privatization of National Security." Sponsored by the Rohatyn Center (see Felix Rohatyn) and the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, the conference discussed privatization of functions which historically have been considered the sole province of the military and of official intelligence agencies.[3] One participant, Peter Feaver, said that "In fact what we’re seeing is a return to neo-feudalism. If you think about how the East India Company played a role in the rise of the British Empire, there are similar parallels to the rise of the American quasi-empire." --HK 07:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Very intriguing tidbit, HK. Although the discussion had shifted to whether or not proving/disproving one claim, disproves or otherwise affects the validity of other claims made by the same claimant.

(Antelope In Search Of Truth 18:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC))

How do you balance the truth? Just add more false claims. If you read the book, you'll see there are many items that don't make sense. 02Nov07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.180.38.41 (talk) 08:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

State Department claims can only be questioned by those who have an agenda at undermining America and destroying our freedoms. I would equate the questioning of such statements with mild acts of terror. Mwahcysl (talk) 15:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Criticism Section Clean-up/POV

All the criticism in the criticism section boils down to:

• Details of Perkins' story are far-fetched or seem like embellishments
• No solid evidence is provided to back up a link to NSA
• Economic studies are provided to support claims that some of Perkins' economic claims are not valid.

EVERYthing that is actually directed at the BOOK, can be boiled down to these things. At least so far.

So we can/should consolidate, while providing references for each criticism issue, or category, if you will. Readers can follow up on each reference, but this is an article about a guy's book, not specifically it's criticism. Besides which, it's ridiculous to have several guys repeating themselves about the same points.

Make each point. Show that "these guys" all make that point. No need to repeat it over and over and over and over.  ;)

As far as POV......

• The way some of the criticism is phrased, it is not always clear what content in the book is being criticized.

• As content is being added, it is submitted in a way that retains bias from the auther of that content. If you cannot find a way to phrase such content that is, "cold, fair, analytical,"[[4]] without deflating the argument, it is not submittable.

And can we clean up the "External links" section? The article at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina#References is a good form.

(Antelope In Search Of Truth 22:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC))

I agree with you that this article is about the book, rather than about criticism of the book. On the other hand, it'd be absurd to have an article about, say, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which doesn't discuss criticism of it. (BTW, I'm not comparing Perkins's book to the Protocols, I'm only making a point. The Protocols come to mind because they are in today's featured article.) So I sympathize with the desire to keep the "Criticism" section succint and well organized.

I think that you have not identified one of the strands of criticism of the book: that, regardless of whether what it says is true or not, it offers only a titillating tale of global intrigue and contributes little to the serious debate on Third World debt. This is the point made by the quote from the NYT. It's also the point made by Mark Engler of In These Times, who in his review explicitly says he otherwise agrees with the views Perkins expresses about Third World debt.

The recent edits by Herschelkrustofsky contain several violations of the NPOV policy: certain newspapers are characterized as "establishment press organs" and a sentence from Mallaby's column is described as "typifying" the establishment's "angry response." In fact this book, which was published in 2004, had been almost completely ignored by major newspapers and magazines until it became a bestseller and was picked up by Penguin. With the exception of Mallaby's column, all the other sources of criticism quoted treat the book very politely. In any case such value judgments shouldn't appear in the article.

Finally, I don't think you can downplay the issue of whether Perkins's NSA story is true. If Perkins's had simply written a book saying that when he worked for Chas. T. Main he signed deals with Third World governments which didn't aid development and instead created onerous loads of debt for them, then his book might have been truthful and perhaps even interesting, but it wouldn't be a bestseller. It's pretty clear to me that that was the book Einar Greve thought Perkins had written when he was first asked about it. Then he realized that the book is something else entirely: it claims that these loans were forced upon those countries through the NSA, assassinations, bribes, and all other kinds of skullduggery. -- Eb.hoop 01:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

"....regardless of whether what it says is true or not, it offers only a titillating tale of global intrigue and contributes little to the serious debate on Third World debt. This is the point made by the quote from the NYT."

Now maybe I misunderstood the quote you submitted to the article, "the actual content of Perkins' admissions proves distressingly thin", but it comes off quite different from what I just quoted from you. Talking about the content of his admissions is not quite the same as whether or not a serious contribution to debate was rendered.

From what you said and what is in the article, I'm not sure whether the author was claiming Perkins needed to suggest solutions to the problem fo 3rd World debt (or something like that) OR claiming that he wasn't really admitting to much. Objectively speaking, it needs to be clear what the author meant.

"It's pretty clear to me that that was the book Einar Greve thought Perkins had written when he was first asked about it. Then he realized that...."

I can't emphasize this enough. We don't decide what someone meant. They either expressed something, or they did not. We submit what authors and/or sources say, not what we think they meant. He doesn't explain the apparent contradiction? We do not do that for him. We present it as objectively as possible.

p.s. "I don't think you can downplay the issue of whether Perkins's NSA story is true." I'm not.  :) [See: Criticism is issue by issue, not "all or nothing"]

(Antelope In Search Of Truth 20:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC))

(I agree completely. This is why I'm arguing that here rather than in the article. But by the same token I think the part about how Greve "appeared to contradict himself" should be removed. Why not just transcribe the two statements made by him?) -- Eb.hoop 21:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC))

I agree. I didn't see your response before but I think one of us already changed it to address this so it's moot now.  ;) (Antelope In Search Of Truth 02:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC))

I agree. Everything in the book seems to be true. Those who dispute anything are hacks working for the US government. Mwahcysl (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Criticism is issue by issue, not "all or nothing"

"If Perkins's had simply written a book saying that when he worked for Chas. T. Main he signed deals with Third World governments which didn't aid development and instead created onerous loads of debt for them, then his book might have been truthful and perhaps even interesting....."

Now I think we are getting somewhere. I think we are disagreeing about the importance of any possible NSA link, relative to the rest of the book.

I am saying that truth HAS to be evaluated individually for EACH claim brought forth. You seem to be advocating an "all or nothing" approach. The NSA issue is clearly contestable. Also, Perkins' style seems to include colorful language at times, to put it kindly. We agree there. Those two issues are clearly areas that can be contested.

But documentation is cited to support the other points made. Who Perkins worked for (Chas. T. Main), what he did, some of the effects his work (and others doing work like his) had on 3rd World countries, and the blurring line between business and government (e.g., officials and administration members passing between company jobs and government offices), not to mention the use of skullduggery (e.g., assassinations, etc.). He is even citing many things which are public record.

That is why one cannot simply write that "he does not provide support for his most 'serious' claims" when paraphrasing a case made regarding the NSA issue. For one thing, the NSA thing is only ONE claim. For another, arguing the NSA thing does not somehow prove that he did not work for Chas T. Main. Nor does it disprove the nature of his job. Nor does it disprove the effects his job had on 3rd World countries. Nor does it disprove the blurring line between business and government. Nor does it disprove congressional hearings and the like that are cited to support the use of skullduggery (e.g., assassinations, etc.). All of which could be considered "serious" claims.

Criticism regarding the NSA issue does not translate into a case made against his other points. None of the criticism cited so far has been powerful enough to explain away the evidence cited for all the other points being made in the book, so it should not be presented as such.

(Antelope In Search Of Truth 19:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC))

It's perhaps unnecessary for me to point out that the statement that none of the criticism cited so far has been powerful enough to explain away the evidence cited for all the other points being made in the book is your POV. And even if that criticism were, in your mind, strong enough to explain away all the claims in Perkins's book, as a Wikipedia writer your job would still be simply to accurately summarize that criticism as it has been made by others in major media outlets.

You insist that even if the story about the NSA is not true, Perkins's book is still a valuable contribution to the debate about Third World debt. You are entitled to that opinion, but many of the book's critics think otherwise and we should make that clear in an objective discussion of criticism of the book. The reason why these critics disagree with you is first that a. some, like Mark Engler, don't think Perkins's has any really major insights to contribute on the subject, b. others, like Sebastian Mallaby, disagree with the view of modern foreign corporations in the Third World as essentially predatory, and c. some might not be inclined to take seriously on any subject an author who makes wild and scantily supported allegations.

On this third point perhaps another analogy might be useful: Let's say I'm a retired LAPD officer unhappy about the things I saw and did on the job. Let's say I write a book which raises some legitimate, though controversial questions about police brutality, police corruption, etc. Let's say that I also claim in that book that I know from experience that the LAPD is controlled by the Japanese mafia with the consent of the mayor of LA, the governor of California, and the Prime Minister of Japan. If you read that book and decide that the Japanese mafia stuff is made up, what would you think of the book as whole? Would you say it's a good book, aside from the fact that I think it's main selling point is fiction? (This last bit reminds me of the joke about how someone asked Lincoln's wife, after she returned from Ford's Theater on the night Lincoln was killed, "Yes, but apart from that, how did you enjoy the play?") -- Eb.hoop 01:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Stating that "none of the criticism cited so far... (etc.)" is not POV. Although I apologize if you misunderstood it. I will attempt to restate it. Hopefully we will all be laughing about this later.

The point I was trying to make, using your own analogy: If that retired officer accurately depicts cases of police corruption AND has sources to back up those cases (i.e., he shows and proves), then even if you discover and disprove the Japanese mafia point, that is a separate issue from the corruption that has been shown and proven. As a wikipedia editor, you NEED to be able to see the difference. You need to be able to see the correct form of argument if you are going to be depicting it.

Before you have submitted content which disproved only the NSA point, and summarized it so it appeared they disproved ALL of his book, when they didn't.

And honestly, I'm amused that you got an opinion from, "Talking about the content of his admissions is not quite the same as whether or not a serious contribution to debate was rendered." Stating that, "one argument is different from another," is not an endorsement of either argument.

And perhaps one more example, in case yours doesn't work. If I'm teaching a class of kids math, kids who've never seen numbers, and I say that aliens came down from the sky to give us the knowledge that 1+1=2...... and some guy comes along and refutes that aliens gave us that knowledge, he has not simultaneously refuted the fact that 1+1=2.

I am objecting to any framing of criticism that represents that more than one point has been refuted, IF in fact, only one has been. Lastly, government/intelligence agency involvement is cited and sourced in instances other than the NSA claim, so conceding that point does not win an argument that "the government has no part in the corruption depicted".

(Antelope In Search Of Truth 19:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC))

Sebastian Mallaby

Sebastian Mallaby CFR - Director of the Maurice R. Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies and Paul A. Volcker Senior Fellow for International Economics Deputy Director of Studies:- http://www.cfr.org/bios/4452/

I think that it was a mistake to remove the description of Mallaby's curriculum vitae. I would submit that under the circumstances Mallaby could be considered a spokesperson for the interests that Perkins is attacking, although I do not suggest that this point should be made in the article. I think that the information should be included so that the reader may draw his own conclusions. I am restoring it to the article. Also, calling the man a "frothing conspiracy theorist" is not exactly "questioning the fairness of his economic worldview" -- it is what would be called here at Wikipedia a "personal attack." In deference to Ed, I have not used the word "angry" in characterizing Mallaby's response. Instead, I wrote that he "reacted sharply." --HK 15:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I think in the name of succinctness, curriculum vitae is not necessarily needed to show any bias in arguments being presented. I think that if you phrase the argument in it's most basic terms, it will stand or fall on it's own. Unfortunately, that might be more work because you need to read all the sources, not simply try to fix what is submitted.

I'm with you that "calling the man a frothing conspiracy theorist is not exactly questioning the fairness of his economic worldview". But "frothing conspiracy theorist", is a conclusion. I think the most constructive thing for a criticism section is listing "why" he makes this claim. That should be depicted. Not all criticisms being leveled are based on "the fairness of his economic worldview. As such, even if they make their case, it's a different argument they are winning.

(Antelope In Search Of Truth 20:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC))

It is worth mentioning that Mallaby misrepresents Perkins claims. Mallaby says that Perkins claims to have been a consultant who 'who bamboozled unsuspecting Asians and Latin Americans into borrowing too much'. To the contrary, Perkins claims that the deals were made with corrupt powers-that-be in those nations, and that ancillary local personnel in the deals looked at him with suspicion, that local political figures who challenged the deals were deemed heros by the masses, and that part of the process was to force into power corrupt and willing local entities. This is far from being fooled or unsuscpecting. Mallaby also states some of the progress of Indonesia as evidence that the West wasn’t intent on keeping it in servitude. When does Perkins claim that the EHM attempts were always perfectly successful and the organization omnipotent? Furthermore, Perkins likens the 'corporatocracy' to a 'tight-knit fraternity' who 'shared self-interest' and are 'drawn together in a loose association' rather than an exclusive group who meets in clandestine hideaways. Mallaby states Perkins claims as the latter. Mallabys writing is hyperbolic, hardly scholarly and disingenuous. It is not serious enough to be worthy of prominence in this wiki article. His artcile is probably effective in deterring many of those who know nothing of Perkins book from ever picking it up, which is unfortunate. Mallabys intentions and character should be examined, and reference to his article removed, or examined in the wiki article for its (lack of) intellectual honesty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.203.130.11 (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Critique of the Man or the Book

Content of the book is a separate issue from his published works or public comments.

Criticism regarding those things belong on the author's page or pages for the relevant published works.

Since critics are still citing things related to the author, etc., in regards to this book, a reference (that is, a brief summary) to it should be cited and linked to the appropriate place for the information.

[Although I would agree that the subject of his "new age leanings" might be fair game to the extent that it is discussed in his book.]

(Antelope In Search Of Truth 21:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC))

The Man is Irrelevant, the Book Lacks Evidence

All this talk about the man seems pointless to me. I've read the book and what strikes me is how there is no evidence. The book is nothing more than anecdotal claims. He claims to have spoken with famous figures who soon met their untimely ends, but there is not a shred of evidence of foul play, not a shred of evidence that the discussions went as Perkins claims, not a shred of evidence of the extraordinary claims in the book. It seems pointless to argue the finer points of logic, because from a scientific point of view the book could well be pure fabrication. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.245.223.213.

It's a bit odd to criticize the book as "anecdotal". Multiple anecdotes are not a replacement for data, but the book doesn't purport to be a study. If I write that I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die, it would be an anecdote. It would also be a confession, and suitable for jury-treatment (or psych treatment, perhaps). Like "correlation is not causation", the "anecdote" criticism gets thrown around the net by people who don't seem to know what it means. Not that it isn't a valid criticism in the proper context, but outside of that, it makes it look like you're not even bothering to axe-grind accurately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.194.127.36 (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

"what strikes me is how there is no evidence."

You didn't read it very well if you failed to take note of the footnotes leading to references in the back of the book. References like documents of public record, government documents, newspaper articles, etc..

You can certainly attack the book for the style of its presentation, the NSA claim, or theoretical talks with famous people. There is no evidence for some claims in the book, but claims regarding 3rd World Debt & the merging of US state and business...... arguably the most important claims...... nothing you've said addresses those things. You seem to be saying those things are not important.

(Antelope In Search Of Truth 02:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC))

He was just on the Alex Jones show talking about third world debt and how it is being used as a weapon but failed to mention that the majority of third world debt was written off and forgiven this decade.Also,Alex,the nut that he is,helped expose John's nuttyness by getting him to support the idea that 911 was an inside job.Thanks Alex,for exposing the most credible(not that John is credible reletive to normal people,but he was far more credible than Alex Jones type people)conspiracy theorist your movement had.

I find it very peculiar that so much space is used for critiquing the author and not providing information on the issues and cases he brings to light. There is alot of interresting stories and welldocumented facts in his book that needs to be cross referenced to other articles in Wikipedia and elsewhere, regardless of where other not the rabbit hole is as deep as Perkins claims. As to that, the claims in his book are far more subdued than what is "normal" in conspiracy circles". I find it plausible that powerful players, be it corporate or government, would use NSA reports as a basis to assess a "candidate" before employment. But that doesn't mean that it is the NSA that is doing the hiring. According to the book Jenkins got the NSA "interview" because of familiar connections and as an attempt to dodge the draft, he wasn't headhunted by them to become an agent. That, in his opinion, came later, over time. So when the NSA claims that they have nothing to do with his story, I believe it, but that doesn't mean that some other goverment agency, or simply people or corporations with enourmous influence over there agencies, are orchestrating the projects that Perkins describes. The news are filled with corruption scandals like that every single day, and is even well documented that the CIA as been behind numerous political/economic assassinations, so this is nothing new.

A question: Would it be proper to simply write a long list of the issues in the book, and linking the various keywords to their relevant articles?

mskogly 19:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. A lot of time and space is used to critique the author, not enough to provide information for the issues in the book. I have to admit, time has gotten away from me.

I do have a plan for laying out those issues in an organized way, I just don't have time to impliment the changes yet. I'll submit my plan soon or I'll just start plugging away on it.... Within the next week, hopefully.

Antelope In Search Of Truth 03:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Film

Was there a film produced for the book and what is it's title ? Kendirangu 07:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It's called paranoid delusions, about a man who makes up all sorts of crap about things he thinks he are reasons for things that already exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.180.38.41 (talk) 12:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Picture

I'm removing the picture of the cover of the Jet Li movie, because these two things obviously have nothing in common. If anyone can find a relevant picture please put it up. sorry forgot my sig --Hisownspace 09:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Content of the Book

This article is much too focused on the controversies the book as brought out and hardly mentions any of the actual contents of the book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.110.218 (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The actual contents of the book don't make sense. Does a lender of money want the borrower to default on the loan?

In the case for the book, what kind of advantages has the U.S. government received due to countries not being able to make timely payments? Perkins did not show cause & effect, nor connections for every claim. One example: Why would a country with huge oil revenue, need to borrow money?

Perkins saw companies making money and thinks that continual poverty in the LDCs are because of that.

He does not have a degree in economics. Not even a Master's in anything. That's pretty good evidence of being fraudulent.

Borrowing money from the World Bank, IMF or other, is a separate process than deciding upon which companies to help build your infrastructure.68.180.38.41 08:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The trick with oil is, that its not a surefire route to prosperity. Oil is expensive to produce, the infrastructure is exceedingly vulnerable to military or terrorist attack, and expensive to replace or repair. And this is just producing, not refining which is even more capital intensive. It's not a labor intensive industry, so, there aren't actually a lot of jobs produced by the industry (on the labor side anyway.) Finally the fluctuations in price mean that all of that capital is gambled on the world oil market, which wanders up and down. Most third world countries simply don't have the resources to exploit their own oil reserves.

Sorry if that's not coherent enough, I'm kinda in the middle of six things. (StarkeRealm (talk) 11:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC))

Yes that's true, but with oil income, there's not a need to borrow money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.180.38.41 (talk) 11:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Chas. T. Main Inc

Any evidence of that company? The only record that I find is in Wikipedia. Is that another fabrication? 2Nov7 68.180.38.41 08:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

1. There is evidence of this company. It took me less than a minute to find evidence of it.

2. The fact you ask if it's "another fabrication" coupled with your lack of actually looking for evidence shows you are significantly biased in this matter. 72.208.196.33 (talk) 23:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of some text

Just an explanation for why I removed some text from the criticism section.

Bold indicates the sentence that has been removed.

Some of the book's critics have questioned whether Perkins makes a significant contribution to the debate on global finance and the development of the Third World. For instance, columnist Mark Engler of In These Times, has written that "the actual content of Perkins' admissions proves distressingly thin."[2] According to the New York Times, "the book's popularity seems driven more by the mix of cloak-and-dagger atmospherics and Mr. Perkins's Damascene conversion" than by insight into "the larger issue of America's role in emerging economies."[3] It is interesting to note however, that many of these publications are affiliated with the Council on Foreign Relations.[4].

The sentence was very vague and seems to be an attempt to weaken the criticisms offered by the news publications without actually addressing the substance of their arguments. sinblox ^(talk) 04:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

More content needed

With a criticism section as big as this one, and a content section so small, this page is currently unbalanced. But, rather than chop up the criticism page, the act of which could be seen as censorship or POV, can we get more in the way of describing the book's contents? I haven't yet read the book, so I feel unqualified.72.78.23.18 (talk) 06:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Article structure

Acording to Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities/Article guidelines, we are still missing sections on:

• Academic profile
• Research and endowment
• Student life

... anyone care to help me write them? David Bailey (talk) 12:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

These would be good additions (although I'm not volunteering), the lead paragraph could also do with expanding (see WP:LEAD) but watch out for any potential Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.— Rod ^talk 12:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Rod... I'm not a brilliant writer anyway. I prefer to leave that sort of work to others, then help out with the formatting, linking, references, spelling and grammar. Maybe I've been a professional webmaster too long! Just so that everyone else is aware, I do declare my interests and affiliations on my user page. David Bailey (talk) 13:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.102.185.17 (talk)

The page seems to be a bit out of date, and some references are to dead links. Sadharan (talk) 08:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Einar Greve

The article stated: Perkins's first boss at Chas. T. Main, Einar Greve, initially declared to journalists that "basically [Perkins's] story is true" and that "what John's book says is, there was a conspiracy to put all these countries on the hook, and that happened" [5].

The link leads nowhere, and a search for Einar Greve on the Tucson Citizen gives no result. I have deleted the claim. -- Zz (talk) 16:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The article is real. Deleting a reference (especially one with a critical point) because a website removes an article is not good practice.

This is the article: C. T. Revere, "Tsunami Aid May Line U.S. Pockets," The Tucson Citizen, January 17, 2005.

Reference and excerpt in Boston Magazine - http://www.bostonmagazine.com/articles/economic_hit_man/

Excerpt on the author's website - http://www.economichitman.com/pages/bookpages/praise.html

Link to copy of complete article - http://www.mombu.com/culture/bolivia/t-tunnels-dams-highways-new-airports-for-colombia-2741614.html

I'm changing it back w/ the entire relevant excerpt.99.29.230.201 (talk) 19:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on the side who claims something. Deleted articles from sources whose quality are not known in the first place are not sufficient. In the current version, you introduce an additional level of reference - people who say somebody else said something who say Greve said something - respectively alleged collection of copies of the article surviving on other websites. Hearsay, in other words. Apparently, the Tucson magazine said something about an Einar Greve. We do not know any background about him - in fact, we do not even know he exists . You call the point critical. WP:REDFLAG states clearly that extraordinary claimes demand extraordinary evidence. -- Zz (talk) 09:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

To avoid getting into this situation the citation templates are outfitted with the fields |archiveurl= and |archivedate=. Use either the Wayback Machine or WebCite to backup critical reference articles. __meco (talk) 09:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. But it does not solve the problem that source cannot be assessed in its reliability in the first place. Just for the record. -- Zz (talk) 00:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you contesting the validity of the source? Obviously the article exists - C. T. Revere, "Tsunami Aid May Line U.S. Pockets," The Tucson Citizen, January 17, 2005. I've personally read the article on the TusconCitizen.com website before it was deleted. The Tuscon Citizen is a 139-year old newspaper owned by Gannett. The article was not a blog post if that's what you are implying. Your hearsay comment is meaningless and deceptive. 75.54.68.145 (talk) 03:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Obviously the article exists [...] I've personally read the article on the TusconCitizen.com website before it was deleted. [...] Your hearsay comment is meaningless and deceptive. - I appreciate your sense of humor, especially when using an ever changing IP. And yes, I do not see a compelling reason to trust the content of what is claimed to have been written in said article. -- Zz (talk) 12:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Conspiracy explains the criticism

If the book is true, it *would make sense* that everyone involved denies it. It also would make sense that financial interests controlling the media discredit the book by any means, including ad hominem arguments such as "damascene conversion". It also would make sense that everyone involved takes great care of presenting a facade of ethical concern for the third world, and can fool a great number of people, and the idealists are the most easily fooled. So anyone who criticizes the book could very well be influenced by the conspirators through a network of influence, because they're naive, or because they like to live in denial, or because they benefit in some way if they look the other way (e.g. get to keep their jobs as book reviewers), and most probably a combination of all 3.

On the other hand, if there *is no conspiracy* and the reviewers were independent and impartial, they might say the book makes some good and bad points, and so on.

So really, it seems to me that those scathing criticisms actually support the conspiracy theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.132.201.193 (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Removed apparent POV statement.

In the criticism/controversy section I removed this sentence attached to Niall Ferguson's comments on the work.

Of course, it should be noted that Niall Ferguson openly advocates for the US to be an imperial power

It appears to me to be an attempt to discredit [Niall Ferguson] by accusing him of being an imperialist. Even if it is true, I do not think it is relevant to be included in this article as Ferguson's page discusses his views. —IrishStephen (talk) 22:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Criticizing the Criticism

"The State Department", and "NSA" official statements- and released documents are never Full-declassification or Full-disclosure of the information known by the State / NSA or other government agencies. Given the fact that additional information is deliberately being withheld from the public about the matter, neither of the official statements can be regarded as Factual or Truthful sources- and true [SKEPTICS] should be critical of anything claiming to "debunk" or "refute" any of the book's claims. '...the statement issued by the State Dept. They only state that, "his claim that he was acting as an “economic hit man” AT THE BEHEST of the NSA appears to be a total fantasy".' has in fact, LESS credibility than the statements made by John Perkins- since #1, this press release seems to be entirely NON-Existent #2, in addition to it's lack of existence- said press release was not made by any specific individual(s) Under Oath of Office, nor was any evidence supporting the "refutation" presented for analysis.

Also, and this is VERY important: Statements such as Marc Engler's "This man is a frothing conspiracy theorist, a vainglorious peddler of nonsense, and yet his book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, is a runaway bestseller." IN ABSOLUTELY NO WAY discredit or debunk ANYTHING written in the book. This statement is therefore has no valid reason to be included under the "Criticism" section, and should of course be removed immediately. Additionally, however well received Engler's Biography of James Wolfensohn may have been- it doesn't give the statement "Perkins' conception of international finance is "largely a dream" and that his "basic contentions are flat wrong.""- any basis for believing that Engler has provided arguments and evidence actually refuting anything that Perkins claimed in the book.

Additionally: The statement "For instance he points out that Indonesia reduced its infant mortality and illiteracy rates by two-thirds after economists persuaded its leaders to borrow money in 1970."- is TRULY an entire "WEASEL-SENTENCE" (comprised entirely of Weasel-Words), and causes the reader to ASSUME that "infant mortality and illiteracy" are the main goals of The World Bank, NSA, as well as any/all organizations involved with "global finance" and "the development of the third world". It also leads readers to believe that "Since some good was done at some time, somewhere [Indonesia]"- ALL initiatives and all of the true intentions of the World Bank, NSA, et. al. the same as- or similar to "lowering infant mortality and illiteracy rates". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.30.88.155 (talk) 20:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

(Osama Bin Laden)'s audio tape

In the top of article there is a line: " The book was allegedly referred to in an audio tape released by Osama Bin Laden in September 2009." this is what OBL said in the two tapes released in sep 2009 http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bin_Laden_Statement_(13_September_2009) http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bin_Laden_Statement_(25_September_2009)

Dr B2 (talk) 04:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)