"Capitalism is Evil" - Michael Moore.

[Thunder]

Capitalism is evil. That is the conclusion U.S. documentary maker Michael Moore

Capitalism isn't evil. Human beings are evil.

Pick whatever you like. Communism, Socialism, Capitalism, Anarchism, bad people will take advantage of whatever system is in place in order to get ahead and screw others doing it.

 

[applecorped]

Capitalism isn't evil. Human beings are evil.

Pick whatever you like. Communism, Socialism, Capitalism, Anarchism, bad people will take advantage of whatever system is in place in order to get ahead and screw others doing it.

Human Beings are Evil would be a more interesting title for a movie.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

It never fails to amuse me to see rich people bemoaning the evil capitalism won't give up their money.

Surely that's not yet another ad hominem directed at Michael Moore I see?

That's the hypocrisy I often see with Socialists, is that they always want someone else to give up all their property and wealth and give it to themselves.

Nooo... actually, that's capitalism. Socialism has this wonderful idea that everyone should contribute, not just the ones who feel like writing out cheques to the local charity.

That's why I've come to call it the politics of envy, as well as the politics of materialism.

But you just bemoaned the fact that there were rich people, too, that were socialists. I think you're somewhat contradicting yourself here.

Also, strawman, much?

Because at the core of socialism is the argument that people should not be allowed to have more than anybody else, if they do it must be taken away from them and given to the the people who don't have a s much.

Possibly. Still doesn't change the fact that it's the democratic socialist nations in the world that are rated as the best places in the world in which to live, and that statistics show that giving people welfare money and other goods pays off in the long run, as the recipients end up getting educations and well-paying jobs, thus putting far more money back into the system than the American single mothers with their minimum wage jobs.

You seem to be shooting down a system not based on its efficiency, but because you dislike its inherent ideology.

It's a fine system for those who want to voluntarily live in it. But as for me, why should I work if it's just going to be taken away from me, or why should I work if it'll just be taken away from somebody else and given to me?

I know. I lived for three years in the US and they insisted on taking my money and giving it to this socialist fire department and armed forces. Couldn't the citizens of Manhattan fund their own private firefighters? Had they done anything for me to deserve my compulsory charity?

Envious *****s.

 

[gtc]

Possibly. Still doesn't change the fact that it's the democratic socialist nations in the world that are rated as the best places in the world in which to live, and that statistics show that giving people welfare money and other goods pays off in the long run, as the recipients end up getting educations and well-paying jobs, thus putting far more money back into the system than the American single mothers with their minimum wage jobs.

B.S. Australia is ranked 2nd in the world on the in the survey you reference and we have done it without the over the top tax burdens of Norway.

Not to mention the fact that raw comparisons between a country like Norway with barely half of the population of New York City and the United States are pretty much meaningless.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well I saw the movie tonight. I found it pretty much on par with what I see except for the conclusion, capitalism rather than greedy rich bastards being the problem. Capitalism is not the problem. But that's a semantics issue. The movie is fairly accurate presenting the actual problem.


It's too bad because the people against Moore are going to focus on only the condemnation of capitalism and will likely miss all the points and evidence the movie presents.

 

[arthwollipot]

May I suggest that the entire topic of Michael Moore's weight is off topic for a thread about the issues raised in one of his movies?

Agreed.

 

[daredelvis]

Compared to what?
"...until the social memes developed to reduce the rates of offspring*.





* An excellent example of intelligence as allowing a still-faster modification of the organism, if "only" in behavior, than even sexual reproduction with non-catastrophic re-juggling of genes can produce."

Can you tell me what were you trying to say here? This makes no sense.

Daredelvis

 

[INRM]

Well, unrestrained capitalism is bad, however I don't think sufficiently regulated capitalism is necessarily bad.

 

[BeAChooser]

Capitalism is evil. That is the conclusion U.S. documentary maker Michael Moore comes to in his latest movie "Capitalism: A Love Story," which premieres at the Venice film festival Sunday.

Isn't Michael Moore the guy who sat with former President Jimmy Carter at the Democratic National Convention in 2004? Wasn't he greeted with fawning admirers and applause? Didn't Carter tell Moore that there was no one he would rather sit with? And Moore thinks Capitalism is evil? Well I guess so does Carter, who democrats made President. And now they've made Obama president and he may be of like mind ... just not so straight forward about it.

But let's look at some other conclusions by Michael Moore to test his judgement ... of lack of it:

"There is no terrorist threat in this country. This is a lie. This is the biggest lie we've been told."

"The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not 'insurgents' or 'terrorists' or 'The Enemy.' They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win."

"(Americans) are possibly the dumbest people on the planet"

"You know in my town the small businesses that everyone wanted to protect? They were the people that supported all the right-wing groups. They were the Republicans in the town, they were in the Kiwanas, the Chamber of Commerce - people that kept the town all white. The small hardware salesman, the small clothing store salespersons, Jesse the Barber who signed his name three different times on three different petitions to recall me from the school board. CENSORED all these small businesses - CENSORED 'em all! Bring in the chains. The small businesspeople are the rednecks that run the town and suppress the people. CENSORED 'em all. That's how I feel."

So does MM really say anything worth listening to?

 

[oldhat]

Good argument, BAC, also, Michael Moore is fat.

 

[Ohmer]

Well I saw the movie tonight. I found it pretty much on par with what I see except for the conclusion, capitalism rather than greedy rich bastards being the problem. Capitalism is not the problem. But that's a semantics issue. The movie is fairly accurate presenting the actual problem.

Yes. The real problem as I see it is that greedy rich bastards have way too much influence on government policy. It's nearly a year after massive government handouts to save the economy and there has been no meaningful reform that will keep the same crap from happening again. Congress critters don't dare slap the hand that funds their campaign. Nothing will change until this cycle is broken. If Moore would just say that instead of "Capitalism is Evil" he would look like less of a whack job.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm not saying Michael Moore is right or wrong or part right but if he really thinks capitalism is evil, why doesn't he give up his millions and his several corporations?

And stop publishing his books and producing his movies through firms?

He produced this movie himself. I don't see how you can expect a movie to reach a wide audience if you don't use a distributor.

AND GIVE UP HIS HOLDINGS IN STOCK!

How do you know he has any?


I sincerely doubt you could make much of a case Moore is a hypocrite. Seems to me you are just assuming he is because his movies have been profitable. But Moore has used his money to make even more message films.

He said he provides full medical coverage for his employees and they pay no copays or deductables. I'd bet heavily he pays decent wages as well.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes. The real problem as I see it is that greedy rich bastards have way too much influence on government policy. It's nearly a year after massive government handouts to save the economy and there has been no meaningful reform that will keep the same crap from happening again. Congress critters don't dare slap the hand that funds their campaign. Nothing will change until this cycle is broken. If Moore would just say that instead of "Capitalism is Evil" he would look like less of a whack job.

I totally agree. I wonder if he did it to create controversy and get more interest in the movie?

I'm curious if he put the priests against capitalism in there to irritate the Jerry Falwell types with political and media power on the right? The Catholic Church is actually one of the worst for ripping off the poor via the collection plate in order to build elaborate cathedrals and store up art treasures in the Vatican. They have merely been replaced by the big Televangelists for greed in the modern world, like the era of the Catholic opulence has somewhat passed.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Compared to what?

See, unbridled capitalism, with all its ugly warts like locked back doors, child labor, and so on, ended up causing a skyrocketing in the population as people didn't die because they didn't labor in near-poverty on farms, until the social memes developed to reduce the rates of offspring*.
....

This suggests you didn't see the movie yet.


Moore presents a credible case that the US prospered after WWII because our competitors were mainly bombed into oblivion. When Europe and Japan recovered, their more socialist workplace models were very competitive with our more capitalist models.

The evil in Moore's film is not capitalist production. That's why a couple of us here are saying the movie didn't really make a case against capitalism (except semantically), it made a case against greed and concentration of wealth at the top. It made a case against rewarding profits while ignoring the welfare of the workers.

That is not communism or socialism. It is a different model of capitalism in my book. You don't treat workers like slaves because you can. You treat them well because in the long run, that benefits everyone. You produce customers for your products.

That is the factor being left out of the capitalism model in many corporate boardrooms.

 

[BeAChooser]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/63553027.html

Just days after his personal pitch failed to secure the 2016 Olympic Games for Chicago, President Obama will reportedly "get right back up on that horse" and personally lobby the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in an effort to get an Oscar for Michael Moore's last film.

Yes, folks, I know it's satire. But is it? Really?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....


It's price we pay for having a dynamic economy where new technologies are always emerging and some jobs are becoming obsolete every day. ....

If that were the only issue, it would be fine. But that is an oversimplistic view of downsizing and of buying companies in order to liquidate them which has been done.

And profitable local companies are sometimes lost because national and international chains can out compete them. But sometimes you lose a lot in exchange. Take ClearChannel, for example. They can run radio stations more efficiently because they can broadcast from single sites over many stations. But you lose variety in programming. You lose local programming. The local radio station cannot compete for advertising dollars. The small audience for a particular kind of programming is stuck with the generic programming there are more people listening to. That is not a better product just because it is more profitable.

 

[tyr_13]

If that were the only issue, it would be fine. But that is an oversimplistic view of downsizing and of buying companies in order to liquidate them which has been done.

And profitable local companies are sometimes lost because national and international chains can out compete them. But sometimes you lose a lot in exchange. Take ClearChannel, for example. They can run radio stations more efficiently because they can broadcast from single sites over many stations. But you lose variety in programming. You lose local programming. The local radio station cannot compete for advertising dollars. The small audience for a particular kind of programming is stuck with the generic programming there are more people listening to. That is not a better product just because it is more profitable.

That's funny, because when ClearChannel bought out our local programing, they kept the old stuff, plus added three stations.

 

[RandFan]

Surely that's not yet another ad hominem directed at Michael Moore I see?

Why is it not a valid criticism? Moore needed investment in order to make his movie. He relied on capitalism to turn a profit. If he truly is against the idea of profit based motivation (capitalism) then why wouldn't he give up his money?

Let me hasten to add, if Moore simply targeted aspects of the excesses of American capitalism then I wouldn't mind but his criticism is broad based and seems particularly naive of what capitalism and socialism actually are and that they are not mutually exclusive. If he is not ignorant then he is being dishonest. I've watched his interviews and I'm really not sure. If he is truly ignorant it is willful.

FWIW: There are nations with higher HDI ratings than the US and these nations have more socialism than the United States. But these nations are still capitalistic.

IOW: Moore's premise is one dimensional. Capitalism has been, demonstrably, a boon to human progress. Socialism in and of itself won't do anything but burn through resources (see the former Soviet Union, Communist China and other nations that did away with capitalism). And check out Moore's vaunted Cuba.

 

[Meed]

Socialism in and of itself won't do anything but burn through resources (see the former Soviet Union, Communist China and other nations that did away with capitalism). And check out Moore's vaunted Cuba.

What do you mean "burn through resources"? The Soviet Union was huge in manufacturing for a good 50 years. Mao was a disaster. Castro and Chavez were improvements over their country's prior governments. It depends on the country.

 

[RandFan]

What do you mean "burn through resources"? The Soviet Union was huge in manufacturing for a good 50 years.

The Soviet Union was never on par with the West. Never. They did in fact have natural resources and did for the short term produce some semblance of production but there were always large scale systemic problems. Note that while the west was churning out surpluses the Soviet Union was coming to the West hat in hand. That's an incontrovertible fact. The Trabant, arguably the worst car ever produced, stands as the hallmark of communist production. What makes this so deplorable is that the Germans have been known as master craftsmen for many years and are quite simply some of the finest car makers in the world (BMW, Mercedes Benz, etc.).

Mao was a disaster. Castro and Chavez were improvements over their country's prior governments. It depends on the country.

Define "improvements". There have been some but let's put this into perspective. Chavez hasn't done away with capitalism and he is burning through assets (oil) at a fast clip. Take away the oil and there is no basis for economic expansion. Castro did away with capitalism and he relied on Soviet help for decades. Now without the Soviets they have a crumbling infrastructure and all the trade with South and Central America they want (IOW it's not the blockade) will not help them as they have no basis for economic expansion.