Michael Moore- "Capitalism is evil"... (1 Viewer)

[Saint77]

Micheal Moore is a turdburgler.

 

[SoonerJim]

Michael Moore and his counterparts on the right are always more effective when juxtaposed against those in power. Moore's job is more difficult because he is allied with the President. Similarly, those opposed to Obama couldn't get much influence when Bush was in office. That's how adversarial media are supposed to work.

There are books and articles written on the moral basis of Capitalism (Michael Novak, Ayn Rand, Michael Harrington) , and I'll refer to those. I've seen all of his film work excepting "Canadian Bacon", and I'll watch this one too.

 

[blackadder]

http://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSTRE5850F320090906

People a re flawed. Greedy and self centered. Just enough of us will do anything they have to in order to profit at the expense of others.

This will always be the case. Thus, there is nothing to replace it with.

If you "replace" capitalism, then the greedy will just move into the right positions oif the new system and use thier positions to steal.

It's about the best we can do. Just live with the warts.

It woiuld help a little if we effectively regulated to catch the bad eggs who are out there stealing and cheating, and the only way to do that is to curb their ability to use money for lobbying and thier ability to capture the aganecies that are supposed to be regulating.

 

[blackadder]

http://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSTRE5850F320090906

Actually, we don't havbe capitalism anymore, and have not for a long time and this is a bipartisan outcome.

We have some hybrid, mixed economy.

In capitalism you have risk and reward.

In our current system, government is protecting large players in the market from risk through infusions of public money, because those large players have captured the government with bribes in cash and kind.

Over the years their bribing has allowed them to undercut regulation so that they could grow "too big to fail". So, now they are able to hold households hostage.

"Give me money to make good my losses, or else you will all lose your jobs and not be able to feed your children."

 

[Squeezebox]

Actually, we don't havbe capitalism anymore, and have not for a long time and this is a bipartisan outcome.

We have some hybrid, mixed economy.

In capitalism you have risk and reward.

In our current system, government is protecting large players in the market from risk through infusions of public money, because those large players have captured the government with bribes in cash and kind.

Over the years their bribing has allowed them to undercut regulation so that they could grow "too big to fail". So, now they are able to hold households hostage.

"Give me money to make good my losses, or else you will all lose your jobs and not be able to feed your children."

We have always had a hybrid economy. The only places that don't have a mixed economy are places where there is no real government, like Somalia for example. Or Afghanistan. Countries like those don't have to deal with a pesky and powerful socialist government, so why hasn't the magical free market taken off over there?

These capitalism v. socialism debates are always stupid, because there are way too many people who are ideologically wed to the pure form of one or the other, as if they can and should be mutually exclusive.

Fact is, any government whatsoever is a form of socialism. Our roads are brought to us by socialism. Our schools. Our teachers. Our firemen. Our entire infrastructure. NASA. Our mail service. Socialism, socialism, socialism.

And even the "free market" wouldn't be what it is today without the government's intercession. The only reason insurance companies cover as many people as they cover is because of government regulation. The only reason airline companies are profitable are because of government subsidies. The only reason we can make fun of Chinese toys is because our government does a decent job of keeping the lead out of ours. Etc, etc, etc....

But you and too many other people seem to have this misguided belief that government "intrusion" into the "free markets" is some sort of recent phenomenon that will most certainly mean the death of America. And if you want to point to the 19th century as an example of when the markets were truly free or whatever, then we can talk about "company towns" where one company would own every store in the town and refuse basic rights like the first amendment because they were, after all, a private company. Or we can then talk about child labor. Or refusing to hire women. Or any number of things that would demonstrate that individual freedom does not necessarily go hand-in-hand with economic freedom. In fact, they are sometimes as mutually exclusive as many believe capitalism and socialism should be.

We have always had government involvement in markets, and it's a good thing, too. Rational individual actions result in irrational group actions. And that's even assuming individuals will act rationally.

It's becoming increasingly apparent that hopeless, pie-in-the-sky idealism is not a monopoly of the Left.

 

[St. Anger]

Michael Moore = Rush Limbaugh = Howard Stern. Shock jocks. Nothing more.

 

[saintfan-n-alex]

There's plenty to do with Moore's (lack of) content; i.e. many people have mentioned his lack of journalistic integrity in regards to labeling his films as 'documentaries' when they really aren't. Michael Moore is no better than any pundit on the right making outrageous claims without any facts to back them up.


<div_prefs id="div_prefs"></div_prefs><div_prefs id="div_prefs"></div_prefs>

Or pundit on the left for that matter.

Would be interesting to see how far a person can get passed the ticket booth without buying a ticket to see the movie, probably about as far as Moore can get passed the cashier at th all u can eat buffet lol

 

[blackadder]

We have always had a hybrid economy. The only places that don't have a mixed economy are places where there is no real government, like Somalia for example. Or Afghanistan. Countries like those don't have to deal with a pesky and powerful socialist government, so why hasn't the magical free market taken off over there?

These capitalism v. socialism debates are always stupid, because there are way too many people who are ideologically wed to the pure form of one or the other, as if they can and should be mutually exclusive.

Fact is, any government whatsoever is a form of socialism. Our roads are brought to us by socialism. Our schools. Our teachers. Our firemen. Our entire infrastructure. NASA. Our mail service. Socialism, socialism, socialism.

And even the "free market" wouldn't be what it is today without the government's intercession. The only reason insurance companies cover as many people as they cover is because of government regulation. The only reason airline companies are profitable are because of government subsidies. The only reason we can make fun of Chinese toys is because our government does a decent job of keeping the lead out of ours. Etc, etc, etc....

But you and too many other people seem to have this misguided belief that government "intrusion" into the "free markets" is some sort of recent phenomenon that will most certainly mean the death of America. And if you want to point to the 19th century as an example of when the markets were truly free or whatever, then we can talk about "company towns" where one company would own every store in the town and refuse basic rights like the first amendment because they were, after all, a private company. Or we can then talk about child labor. Or refusing to hire women. Or any number of things that would demonstrate that individual freedom does not necessarily go hand-in-hand with economic freedom. In fact, they are sometimes as mutually exclusive as many believe capitalism and socialism should be.

We have always had government involvement in markets, and it's a good thing, too. Rational individual actions result in irrational group actions. And that's even assuming individuals will act rationally.

It's becoming increasingly apparent that hopeless, pie-in-the-sky idealism is not a monopoly of the Left.

When did I say it was a "recent" phenomenon.

You can read history and see that even the Romans regulated the economy and tried wage and price controls way before Nixon. Then there is Jean Baptiste Colbert in France.

Economies have been mixed to varying degrees in varying times and places. But there was a time when the U.S. was much less "mixed" than other places.

My point is, the more mixed you become, the less true capitalism you have.

Especially when you start legislating gauranteed profit for favored sectors.

 

[Crzycjunx76]

Moore is mistaken, capitalism is not evil. It is amoral. there is a difference, although there is also a little overlap.

Evil is simply an opinion... I suppose someone could find capitalism evil, it all depends on ones point of view.

Of course I find the idea of redistributing wealth to be horribly immoral, seeing as is theft to my point of view.

Michael Moore = Rush Limbaugh = Howard Stern. Shock jocks. Nothing more.

Yes, anyone remember celebrity death match? Well can we just skip the claymation part and throw these guys in a ring.

 

[Shockmo]

This dude is proof you can be fat, dumb, ugly, and smell bad and still make lots of money in America. It's the american way ...get over it.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

Both evil and amoral are simply opinions... it all depends on ones point of view.

Of course I find the idea of redistributing wealth to be horribly amoral, seeing as is theft to my point of view.

You know tax cuts are a form of redistribution of wealth as well.

 

[crosswatt]

You know tax cuts are a form of redistribution of wealth as well.

Do you really not understand the basics of the taxation process or are you.... nevermind. I don't think this is gonna go anywhere.

 

[Lon Huang]

Michael Moore and his "Tilt-A-Whirl" of leftward spinformation

I pass

 

[N.O.Bronco]

Do you really not understand the basics of the taxation process or are you.... nevermind. I don't think this is gonna go anywhere.

So if every earner in society is paying a fixed tax rate to pay for roads that everyone uses equally and you cut taxes for the largest earners using that road, they are now able to use that road at a cheaper price and their wealth has increased by virtue of not having to pay the same amount as others to support that road.

Or say corporation X is receiving subsidies to build some form of infrastructure but the congress passes a tax cut to corporations making over 250,000 dollars a years. Corporation X makes over 250,000 dollars a year. So they now pay less in taxes while receiving the same subsidies as before, their wealth has increased.

Redistribution of wealth works both ways but it seems most conservatives tend to only view it as a one way street.

 

[AeonSaar]

Good for Michael Moore. I disagree with his statement and favor a mixed economy that tries to balance the social and economic needs of the whole with the need for liberty and freedom for the individual. Though democracy is not a financial system, it can help authenticate those goals by giving people representatives who decide how to best establish this balance. Its a fluid act changing with both the sentiment and need of the general public.

However, I am happy that he is coming out with another movie. Though I do not agree with him on many points (especially gun control), I find his movie creative and engaging. They force me to think about and reevaluate my own positions in much the same way the libertarian posts of BlackAdder do. If you constantly hide yourself from the opposition or dismiss your opponents offhandedly via ad hominem attacks, you limit your own ability to learn and comprehend new information and ideas.

For example, Adder, in an entirely separate post, has taught me that Carter is just as much of a dog as Reagan was. This is not something I believed until today by listening and considering something different than my own opinion in a fair minded fashion.

I would encourage you all to pay Mr. Moore the same courtesy. He is not the left-wing equivalent of Rush Limbaugh. He is more of a Utopian idealist than a democrat.