Naomi Klein's books and films are well worth acquainting yourself with as an introduction to alternate perspectives on corporate globalisation, but there is nothing new in what she says and there are better commentators on the subject. Her attempt to stretch the 'shock' metaphor to all corners of the globe seems to be a little contrived, besides shock therapy (in an economic sense) as far as I know is a term coined by Jeffrey Sachs to describe the post communist transition model he applied to Russia and others with predictable consequences.
Naomi is known in activist/NGO circles as being something of a prima donna and she has a tendency to err on the parochial and emotional side of arguments (especially with regard to Argentina where she lived for some time) but I'm sure even she would be horrified to read the narrow minded message taken from her book which appeared in these forums. Milton Friedman is not the architect of all the ills of the world - the reviewer who posted here is certainly correct when he says 'It seems at once absurd to actually believe that one man, an American was able to convince the Presidents of the USA to buy into his dream of a free global market place totally privatized' - of course it does, because it is absurd. Yes he was influential (but I've never heard him referred to as the father of economics), yes he advised governments on policy but the imperative for dismantling the post war Bretton Woods system came from global capital - Milton like any good man of the market merely packaged an attractive philosophy around his theories to advocate what was essentially a return to pre-war uncertainty and deregulation - others have certainly expanded on the theme since his time. He wasn't the instigator nor was he the only operator in the process.
Constructing a scapegoat for all that ails the modern world is attractive in some Hollywood sense and negates any necessity to read further into a complex subject, but I would urge that you look into this complex subject a little more.