If you click on "more" you see the weekly total gross. That is, however much it made each week is added in, and the total is displayed. The total gets bigger each week, ending at $1,879,301.
From that, subtract: the theaters take (60%), the distributor's take (50% of what's left, + cost of prints & advertising), with what's left you pay back investors etc. etc.
@LilyAnorah Capital and money moves at the speed of a mouse click. Sovereignty is void, Governments are impotent, and the individuals are rendered slaves. But do keep sucking the corporate kool-aid if you must Lily.
I love the way these people always claim they serve their shareholders etc. Dude the SH are you guys. Less than 10% of stock is owned by individuals. Even then those are traders having no vested interest in any of it beyond making a quick buck. What a load this whole stock deal is. We are way past it being about raising capital.
Man, these industry types even look like movie villains. I guess it takes a lot of cognitive dissonance and narcissism to look at what a mega-national corporation like Monsanto does and think that's good work.
@TheSamuraiGoomba These creeps want nothing more than to kill and destroy. All that creates opportunities to make a buck, or euro, yen whatever. Look at Iraq. That is a pretty good template to what they desire.
In my opinion, we should limit but not totally cutting off. Admit it or not, we need their product or services in order for us to live in convenience.
ALL we have to do is CUT THEM OFF. STOP CAMPAIGN FINANCING and LOBBYISTS. Make it illegal. Make it illegal to transfer funds into the country unless you can show all transactions as to where the funds originally came from, ie. off shore accts. Capitalism can work if THE LAW IS ENFORCED.
@tctctctc4 all we have to do is cut them off with the only right they let us have: purchase power. Cut them off by NOT giving them money. Support local businesses avoid corporations and slowly starve the beast.
I haven't seen the last two clips. But the way this one ends: that it is "the work of governments" is, I believe, misguided. That opinion overlooks that politicians nowadays, specially in big industrialized countries earn their elections mainly based on the contributions of big business, so they often "owe" corporations more than they owe the people who elect them. Our governments are seized in the grip of this loop. Common people are basically left out of the picture.
This is the corporate argument: supply and demand is a democratising force, if people didn't support by demanding and buying, then that business supply cannot survive. This means the reason we have a 'world corporatocracy' is becuase people want it. I mean select 1000 households at random, how many are stocked up with corporate products? So don't winge, we are getting what we are asking for, with the losers out of sight, hence out of mind.
@cricketii Good point. But mind can overcome wants: there are frequent and reoccuring instances when the manipulation is as plain as day especially since the advent of the internet which can be a personal connection with whats happening in the outside world rather than relying on what those around you are saying.
Corporations are global and gaining power all the time in the name of buisness. All this in a period of human history where we for the first time have a connected and linked world. Of the 100 top economies in the world buisness count for 51 making gouverments around the world with no power.
Americans can, and will, achieve freedom from capitalism and freedom from capitalist exploitation of workers and the natural world. It's absolutely necessary. And the Constitution says nothing about having to tolerate capitalism. Not a single word.
@LilyAnorah Those "evil corporations" actually help those people by providing BETTER jobs then they are avaliable there(otherwise nobody would work there ..doh!). If you look at countries that embrace globalization you would see success(south east asia) but look at countries as zimbabwe which doesnt even have little economic freedom - there was no progress what so ever.
Poverty is not caused by capitalism. It is the standart state of human kind. On the other prosperity is caused by capitalism.
@Jigssaw1989 The poor are much better off in Capitalist countries.. All of the best economies are capitalist. It is the communist, socialist, dictatorships that make their people suffer.
@BartofGod Like to finaly find someone likeminded. I was getting tired of explaining economics 101 to those bleeding heart liberals.
There even were 2 "labtest" of sortof capitalism and sortof socialism, same people, same culture different system. The one with more freedom(civil and economic) always outperformed the other one. China - Hongkong/Taiwan; And West adn East Germany.
@Jigssaw1989 yeah I agree. All you need to do is look at the best, and worst governments in the world to see which have the best systems. All the countries with the highest standard of living are capitalist. People flee non-capitalist countries to come to a capitalist country for better living conditions, and fair wages. I've never heard of an American refugee fleeing to the middle-east.
@LilyAnorah Oh how possibly could goverment create wealth ? Yeah i know steal 50% of what people makes in taxes and then just pay their cronies and decide what overprized thing it should pay for.
What you call "slavery" i call opportunity - those people were always poor and now they start working in factories. Why ? Maybe because its better then in a damn field! And then they will get enough money to pay education for their children and they become wealthy. Look at hongkong, taiwan, singapore ..
@Jigssaw1989 corporations are a tool of anti-capitalist forces to form monopolies and centralize power. yes government regulation is also a tool of these people oddly enough to push out competition. the problem is human beings hell-bent on lording over other people rather than simply "making profits"
That is just stupid. Country(goverment) on its own doesnt create any wealth the people inside do and the people make companies because its not as easy to make money alone. You are simply saying that "if you take all companies from country they are richer than the country.....". This argument has no value what so ever.
5:01 There is a lot more accountability in free market and over corporations than over our goverment ...
In goverment you can vote once in 4 years and only between very limited choices and even that doesnt matter if majority chooses something else and you are forced to pay for what the majority have chosen.
In free market you vote everyday with your money ! You dont like what is company A doing stop buying their products, everything in free market is voluntary as opposed to goverment coercion.
@Jigssaw1989 You cant buy out of a closed, monolithic system. Corporate accountability and the free market are intrinsically destined to spiral into monopoly and self regulation.
To put our eggs in that basket is nothing more than surrender to a dystopian inevitability.
@Mathertron Well there is some truth in your argument. Free market is not what we have. Nowadays big corporations have a big shares of market . But the only reason why companies got too big in the first place wasnt free market it was big goverment. All those regulations only complicate the entry to the market and the new guy has to cope with thousands of pages of legislation.... If you think goverment should regulate more try starting your own bussines you will drown in papers.
@Jigssaw1989 Well, but to stop buying a company's products, to come to that judgement as to what this company actually means to the world, one needs access to unbiased information about its deeds. Don't go thinking today's press is fair. Far from it. There is no single information source that is totally unbiased today, exactly because media corps are corps! What you call "government coercion", I call "accountability", in all the shapes it takes in the social sphere. Sorry. You're wrong.
Sorry but goverment run media are biased too ! They are biased towards big goverment - so they can get more funding. I come from czech republic and we have had goverment run media here since comunist took over in 48 and trust me it was not unbiased :) .. Howewer we still have a goverment run media its of course better nowadays but its NOT unbiased its comparable with any news media overthere but we dont pay for them...
Goverment media represents goverment .... but who represents taxpayer ?
@felixn65 Accountability ..... sure have you ever heard about some nameless buerocrat fired for screwing something up ?:) Or accountability of politicians ? ... Sure once in 4years maybe. If goverment screws something up guess who pays ? Not politician not buerocrat but taxpayer. If you think you can do a better job providing a unbiased news do it ! You will sure do a service for them and make money in the proccess(That is how capitalism works). But dont force other people to pay for it.
How come this documentary is not going after Alan Greenspan? after all he's the main engineer of the multi-national corporate co-opting of sovereign nations.
4:05 "Im inside and this is all outside, so, that's the way it is." could he be any more arrogant? Idm not a violent person, but i will admit to fantasizing about punching him in his mouth right after he says that.
AND, can you believe that THIS is in CANADA? And now, look what the Alberta Oil Sands are getting away with. A corporation controlling the government.
Ever since there was a monkey that worked harder than others, there has been another monkey conspiring to take what he worked for away from him.
This latest argument is just the latest, most sophisticated version of this piracy scheme. The idea is that the very act of having a successful means of producing products that people want is, in and of itself, an inherently criminal act. Of course, the way to punish this "crime" is by giving the wealth generated by such an entity to someone else.
@DrCruel oh how nice we have you to clear it all up for us.
there i thought the problem could not be stated any more simple.
now pls, for decency's sake, rewrite your "argument" with the words "legal non-existing monkey representing, in fact, a bunch of ruthless rich fat (that are white) monkeys" that "works harden than others" etc.
plus it was never about the fact that the "legal monkey" was successful or not. It was about the means it employed to acquire it's success.
guess what? they didnt interview anybody who are actual shareholders. who are they? find them. those are the fuckers who dont care(aside from everyone else, including you, who bought a computer).
This reminded me of 'dawn of the dead.' The rich are in their hotel, dining, enjoying life, while the other 99% are sititing below, waiting to die. :/
Sly foxes. Motherfucker. Stop talking crap and lick my ass. I don't rememer how many times I punch the table. I point my middle finger on every part I have watched.
Oh My God! What a bunch of elitist assholes! How loosely they converse in the broadest of terms! Any good con man can exploit the elocutions of existentialist cherry-picking in the fekking clouds! Sounds "real smart," means absolutely ZERO & NEVER materializes! {typical corporate politicians!}
Look what Shell is really doing in Ireland. They bought the rights from the Irish goevernement for a token amount and now have all the gas off the west coast! Natural recources belong to the Irish. Now we have to buy back our own gas? Whats next? Bags on our rear end to collect our gas?
And then there is the child-industry. Children sold into slavery. See iamnotanumbernr1 channel.
Democracy is just the new thing around. The ruling families realized, if they are not a target to the population and they let the people decide who they think will be i charge of politics in the next few years, the people always will feel guilty too, because they put the politicians into their seats.
The real power, that makes agendas and is ruling comes from evil incest families, to keep the power in the family. As always!
Democracy is just the new thing around. The ruling families realized, if they are not a target to the population and they let the people decide who they think will be i charge of politics in the next few years, the people always will feel guilty too, because they put the politicians into their seats.
The real power, that makes agendas and is ruling comes from evil incest families, to keep the power in the family. As always!
I think the scariest and most atrocious thing about the whole situation, is that the vast majority of the public is ok with what is happening to the world. It is as if Americans and people in general crave ignorance. Stupidity is the sancuary in which they will hide until the death throws of civilization tears it down. How can the few enlightened fight against the sea of those who crave to be domineered. I am 19 years onld and dont see much hope for the world
@rudley0innapropriate I will tell you how. its people like yourself who to the time to think ands see th truth, and I do thank you for that. Pass it along friend.
We all see that the world is fucked. Going on about it won't stop it. There must be a peoples movement away from this morally, socially and economically bankrupt system before it is to late. We must see what the problems exist at our root and rebuild our society on a healthier foundation . There is such a movement. It is called the zeitgeist movement and is the communication arm of the Venus project. Get started by typing 'zeitgeist addendum' into google. 'Fear is your only god' RATM. Peace.
at 6:00....classic corporate bullsh#t "worry about the climate and pollution" coming from the former chairman of shell. he doesn't care how much his company has and is still polluting heavily in nigeria. i dont advocate murder but sorts like him should be lined up and shot.
@iamdiaperman 3. if i had to choose between communism or capitalism, i would definatly choose communism. 5. You are a truly sick minded indivdual to post that.
To corporations, the US Government is just another business, and a hostile takeover is already underway. Campaign contributions and lobbying are all targeted toward a single goal--expand corporate power and diminish government regulation. The ultimate goal is to achieve corporate sovreignty.
We need to pass a Constitutional Amendment to abolish "Corporate Personhood" and ban corporations from politics before this takeover is complete.
Could someone please point out to me what's so wrong with free trade? Despite the fact that basically every economist, regardless of ideological affiliation is supportive of unrestricted movement of goods as the best way to increase living standards in both developing and developed countries? Thank you.
Free trade is not FAIR trade. "Free trade" is exploiting poorer countries in favor of rich countries. Just look at what the IMF and World Bank do, headed by U.S. con men.
The Fair Trade (brand) is a marketing gimmick which mainly benefits retailers. Only one tenth of the fair trade premium paid by the consumer actually reaches the grower. Also, "fair" trade is quite.... unfair, as only a small number of farmers receive a higher, fixed price for their goods at the expense of all the rest, which do not qualify for the FT certification. Land owners in relatively developed countries like Mexico are the main benefiters from FT.
FT does not encourage economical development, it actually hinders it by subsidizing uncompetitive farmers and preventing healthy competition (of course, this would be "unfair").
Free trade is the best way to lift a country out of poverty. The "exploitation" you are referring to allows people to make use of their only resource: their arms.
Indeed, mass production and consumption is, as suggested... beneficial to the great majority of consumers, i.e. lower-middle class ones. They are the ones employed in factories and farms, they are the ones who, having less disposable income benefit from lower prices brought about by competition. Inequality has indeed increased in some countries (although there are exceptions) as a result of increased trade. But simply looking at inequality is misleading.
Instead, one has to take into account the increase in living standards for both the rich and the poor, for a better understanding of the effects of trade. And, as I said before, the rich might be better off, but the poor are also better off! All this data is available in IMF reports like the October 2007 World Economic Outlook, which looked specifically at the effects of globalization and inequality, by analysing data between 1990 - 2003 and Gini coefficients (measure of inequality).
There are also plenty of examples of countries that have benefited from opening up their borders, which helped them lift themselves out of chronic poverty: Hong Kong, China, India, Ireland, Georgia, Mexico and so on.
@shine2rust no that is not true since "opening the borfers in 1994" mexico poverty level increased from 30% to 60 % currently is estimated that 60million people live in poverty.
"If there were an Economists Creed, it would surely contain the affirmations 'I understand the Principle of Comparative Advantage' and 'I advocate Free Trade'."
Paul Krugman - not at all a libertarian, despite what you might have heard
When your water,electricity,hospitals,TV stations,oil and all natural resources are privatized or taken over by foreign corporation that's when your government are completely corrupted,incompetence and under the influence of the corporates business.
Fuck Moody-Staurt and Anderson's liberal bullshit. Makes me sick. This liberal image that they throw up to hide their despicable deeds, We're just like you! We care! As we destroy what's left of the planet for profit."
Yes, it's so true. That hypocrite posing as an actual human being! When everyone knows that all oil industry CEOs are actually malevolent demons from the underworld exhaling methane and with raw oil running through their veins.
That hypocrite IS an actual human being, doing actual damage to the only planet we have, our children will have, and our grandchildren will be stuck with. Those actual-human being CEOs are allowing actual life destroying processes to exist. It wouldn't matter if they were malevolent demons or angel tooth fairies, you fucking idiot.
Ignoring the few, insignificant, benefits of the exploitation of our natural resources (raising living standards through the huge number of people employed and the economic and technological development it brought about) , how is drilling for oil destroying our planet? Also, since that might be too easy for an astute intellectual such as yourself, try to point out to me the advantage of having publicly owned enterprises involved in oil extraction and refining as opposed to private ones.
The costs of industrialization based on oil simply out weigh the benefits; we are set up for collapse, which could very well mean the end of all life on this planet through a myriad of ways. Nuclear apocalypse is one, ecological collapse is another, water wars is another, over consumption is yet another, the altering of our planet's climate, and so on. Diamond has written on this, as well as others. I don't even think necessarily that there should be publicly-owned oil businesses because,
Ok. Throw away the clothes you wear, the computer you are typing on, walk to the nearest mountain top and build a house (with tools made by yourself), grow your own food, weave clothes from hemp or whatever and then tell me about the benefits of living like that. Oil is in EVERYTHING around you, either as a direct component or part of the production or transportation. The affordability of all the products we use is a consequence of mass production and market forces.
"Nuclear apocalypse" Been there. "ecological collapse, water wars, over consumption, climate" Those basically all refer to the same thing: 'eating KFC is killing polar bears!'. Consumption means progress and the alleviation of poverty. Next time you go shopping, think about all the people that were involved in the making (and that's just part of the story) of the simplest product and how all those will benefit from your purchase. For all you know the trail leads to some poor guy in Malaysia.
And unless you're Al Gore, you know that climate change does not mean you have to go shopping for lifevests but rather much smaller, almost imperceptible changes, as there have always been, and not all of their effects harmful.
if you consider education one of the benefits of improved living standards brought about by free trade, then clearly you are living proof of the inadequacies of the system.
though there may be more democratic control and influence in the planning of what the oil specifically (and all industry in general) is used for, as long as it's based on profits (corporate state capitalist or state capitalism) and in control of a few, it's not really better than being private. If there were any sanity and will to make a better world, there'd be massive investment in public transit, and a changing of the structure of how society is set up, e.g., not for disaster.
Ok. I'm glad that at least you make the distinction between crony capitalism and a free market system. What you also need to consider is that profit is always a motive, an incentive, regardless of the system. It is an intrinsic part of ourselves. What free markets do is channel the individual efforts directed at improving ourselves towards productive actions.
"massive investment"
You have to allow people to make money before you take it away from them.
that is what i think too, the blue guy admits that he is a spy and can lie a man in a face and does it for a job and now he expects that we trust him when he says that the biggest meating ever happend right in front off him
After all the evidence that they have provided clearly demonstrates that the state has created the institution of "corporation" and then let them run amok, they still come to the conclusion that "democracy" is the solution to the problem?
Democracy CREATED the problem, THE STATE, created the problem.
Corporations are only the symptom. The disease is the state.
You cannot solve social conflicts by instituting a violent monopoly.
I agree with your comment, however I might suggest that the way they present the role of democracy (or government) would effectively limit the multitude and the magnitude of problems that corporations can create.
Please formulate an argument as to how (I'm assuming) direct democracy can limit problems with businesses?
To my mind, the state is itself no different than any other business, it simply has a monopoly on certain services, like defense and conflict resolution. By instituting a violently enforced monopoly on services, we give society no recourse, no alternative.
Also, "problems" are subjective, and the collective definition of what is a problem, and how to solve it, should not be enforced.
It is impossible to formulate an argument based on such a broad response. If you are stating that a problem could be seen as everything and anything, and then asking how direct democracy could limit such problems, well then there is no answer, because the problem is everything.
However, if I'm arguing in support of the film, democracy has (or rather, can have) that one key ingredient that sets it apart from the corporation: morality. That should dictate their control within corporations.
Morality is defined on the individual level, there is no universal moral value, only subjective moral values defined by individual people. So when you take the collective moral values of "the majority" and force people to obey them, you are going to coerce behavior and reduce diversity which destabilizes social function.
Considering that any formal state is enforced with violence, no the state is not moral. Most businesses kill fewer people than the state, so which is the more moral?
I respectfully disagree. Although many morals are subjective, yes, any state, community, colony, or gathering of people throughout all of human history have been defined by basic, universal values: Don't murder, don't take what isn't yours. These, I would argue, are what CAN set a state (and therefore democracy) apart from corporations, as corporations see only profit.
That being said, the perfect society doesn't exist, but at least it is governed by moral obligation, and not greed.
The area where subjective morals overlap is called "the inter-subjective consensus". Naturally, people make value judgments, we evolved as social animals so we also interract progressively.
However I see no reason to institutionalize governance, and force people to obey a single set of rules. Even with something as concrete as murder, people have different values. I am against war as an act of murder, some people aren't. I would appreciate it if I wouldn't be forced to abide and fund wars.
Again, you have my full agreement, and thanks for the term! (didn't know it before) I would pose this as an idea: A world in which we are free to choose which states jurisdiction to fall under, based on our agreement of their imposed moral governance. (open democracy?)
However, a state with no governance holds little structure to support anything, as anything goes. We NEED the state for corporations to exist, but we need corporations to be governed by at least some moral guidance.
I don't think we need corporations. I'm not going to advocate anything in particular, but I will acknowledge that business is an evolutionary model for resource allocation. I just think it would be better regulated without a state, just by supply and demand, voluntary association. if society can function without business, so be it.
The term for what you are describing is "Panarchy", non-compulsory collectives based on voluntary association, no geographical location.
I agree, and in theory, that would work. However, and what the documentary was pointing out, is that business (and in the film, corporations) are not governed by morals, and therefore need the moral directives asserted by a state. As can be seen, supply and demand systems fail, because false situations are manipulated to drive profits for business. Again, it boils down to morals: I think a business sector focused on bettering human life is best, but how is that possible without the state?
In the absence of a state, a business must serve the needs of it's customers, or it will fail. This existential necessity forces businesses to conduct businesses effectively. The state has no existential check on it's power, and the state is the force that protects businesses from their own responsibility.
Since a private business is owned by an individual, greed may or may not be a motive. In order to grow a business must serve it's customers.
Again, this theoretically would work, and I agree that it would be a much better system then what currently exists. But, as can be seen within the film, the problems occur when businesses begin telling customers what they need through covert avenues not easily perceived. This again brings us to the same conclusion: ultimately, a moral governance is needed over institutions motivated by greed. However, change what the motivation is for, or even vary it, and that may cause positive change.
Thanks for the terms, again, btw. Panarchy sounds a lot like anarchy, which I'm taught to believe is dangerous, so maybe I should refrain from posting my preferable state!
The word Anarchy simply means "without rulers", so there are many interpretations.
I consider Anarchy to be an accurate model of social order rather than a political ideology. Emergence theory, sync, and evolution, all demonstrate that order occurs out of individual actions, rather than hierarchical planning.
Again, you have my agreement, however this implies that individuals are able to continue ordered action without hierarchical planning, which I cannot agree with. I'm not very well read in Noam Chomsky, however I do believe he separates society into "pawns" and "intellectuals" with the minority being the latter. Therefore, do you not need hierarchical planning by "intellectuals" in order to cause order amongst the "pawns"?
No, you don't need a planner for progressive structure to occur within society, any more than you need a God to plan the evolution of species.
When people lack an empirical model for a complex system they immediately reach for supernatural explanations. How did diverse life come about? God. How is society ordered? The state.
In truth, the state is just a group of fallible people, there is nothing that they can do, that we can't do.
But, do you not agree that certain people (a vast majority it seems) NEED to be told direction in order to function in a positive way (ie. the betterment of themselves and those around them)? This ultimately leads back to a state/hierarchical structure.
Your last phrase is 100% correct, however, not enough people realize it to move away from the current structures, and that is why an anarchy-type society would ultimately fail.. It would restructure itself into a hierarchical system. Correct?
I can't really agree, because I think it will vary between people. humans are evolutionarily prepared for making decisions that will end up proliferating their dna, people are perfectly capable of making choices for themselves. And it's not like the state can make better choices for the strangers it governs, than they can make themselves.
If there is indeed a market demand for planning services, I see no reason that they should be institutionalized.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, that any planning that goes on has to suit the needs of the individual, and you can't really get that from a coercive institution.
I see what you're saying, however you can't plan an infrastructure system based on the individual needs of each person, as each person has such diverse needs. I certainly agree to your overall idea, and think it would certainly make for a more humane "society," but, as always, everything has issues. Is there no perfect scenario to work towards?
When your government outsourcing your rights of bills and you have not rights or sayings in the out source businesses, what can you do? What is employment when they hire only someone who can fend off your opportunities and give it to foreign investors who don't give a dame of your living environment. Corporations are just fancy words, I would rather simply call it exploitations.
A U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 1886 set the stage for the full-scale development of the culture of capitalism, by handing to corporations the right to use their economic power in a way they never had before. Relying on the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court ruled that a private corporation is a natural person under the U.S. Constitution, and consequently has the same rights and protection extended to persons by the Bill of Rights, including the right to free speech.
Thus, corporations, as persons, were free to lobby legislatures, use the mass media, establish educational institutions such as many business schools founded by corporate leaders in the early twentieth century, found charitable organizations to convince the public of their lofty intent, and in general construct an image that they believed would be in their best interests. All of this in the interest of free speech.
I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. ... corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.
— U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864 (letter to Col. William F. Elkins)
haha no shit, I was wary of calling him a fascist in the past...just strongly disliked him...this interview is unbelievable, hey! being socially responsible isn't your expertise? on their heads be it.
So they think the gov't no longer has any control over them, eh? Well what they forget is the power of the people...if we dont buy their goods they will soon disolve away into bankruptcy...if the big bankers think they have the upper hand, u just wait til people start pulling all their money out of them...if they (the gov't) try to enslave us...see how they can do it if we refuse to work and pay taxes as one large unit...would be total collapse & chaos...this is why they want our guns & fear us!
This has been flagged as spam show
They need to make a change to the 14th Amendment; change the word "Person" with the words "Flesh And Blood HUMAN BEING (INDIVIDUAL/SINGULAR)".
davisbm1 1 week ago
Napoleon Dynamite at 7.21
Blooger2 4 weeks ago
poor makers of "the corporation" only made $26,000,000 from cinema releases in 2004. If only I had a $1 for everytime I hear someone cry poor.
trgContact 1 month ago
@trgContact I wish! Where'd you get that number???
machbar 1 month ago
@machbar imdb
trgContact 1 month ago
@trgContact
IMDB says: "Opening Weekend: $28,671 (USA) (6 June 2004) (2 Screens)
Gross: $1,879,301 (USA) (14 November 2004)"
If you click on "more" you see the weekly total gross. That is, however much it made each week is added in, and the total is displayed. The total gets bigger each week, ending at $1,879,301.
From that, subtract: the theaters take (60%), the distributor's take (50% of what's left, + cost of prints & advertising), with what's left you pay back investors etc. etc.
machbar 1 month ago
CEO's are the high priests, The private banks that control the FED (rockefeller, rothchild, others) are GOD LOLOLOL
XxXVideoVeiwerXxX 2 months ago
@LilyAnorah Capital and money moves at the speed of a mouse click. Sovereignty is void, Governments are impotent, and the individuals are rendered slaves. But do keep sucking the corporate kool-aid if you must Lily.
stephenrblv 3 months ago
I love the way these people always claim they serve their shareholders etc. Dude the SH are you guys. Less than 10% of stock is owned by individuals. Even then those are traders having no vested interest in any of it beyond making a quick buck. What a load this whole stock deal is. We are way past it being about raising capital.
stephenrblv 3 months ago
Man, these industry types even look like movie villains. I guess it takes a lot of cognitive dissonance and narcissism to look at what a mega-national corporation like Monsanto does and think that's good work.
TheSamuraiGoomba 3 months ago in playlist More videos from machbar
@TheSamuraiGoomba These creeps want nothing more than to kill and destroy. All that creates opportunities to make a buck, or euro, yen whatever. Look at Iraq. That is a pretty good template to what they desire.
stephenrblv 3 months ago
In my opinion, we should limit but not totally cutting off. Admit it or not, we need their product or services in order for us to live in convenience.
charredpalace 3 months ago
ALL we have to do is CUT THEM OFF. STOP CAMPAIGN FINANCING and LOBBYISTS. Make it illegal. Make it illegal to transfer funds into the country unless you can show all transactions as to where the funds originally came from, ie. off shore accts. Capitalism can work if THE LAW IS ENFORCED.
tctctctc4 4 months ago
@tctctctc4 all we have to do is cut them off with the only right they let us have: purchase power. Cut them off by NOT giving them money. Support local businesses avoid corporations and slowly starve the beast.
Findyourownway1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LilyAnorah Well said. You have got it.
Jamjar107 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
its like some people only do things for money , this blog will help you see the world better:
courtious-society.blogspot.com/
STEVELANGMISTER 7 months ago
I haven't seen the last two clips. But the way this one ends: that it is "the work of governments" is, I believe, misguided. That opinion overlooks that politicians nowadays, specially in big industrialized countries earn their elections mainly based on the contributions of big business, so they often "owe" corporations more than they owe the people who elect them. Our governments are seized in the grip of this loop. Common people are basically left out of the picture.
dnm25 9 months ago 3
This is the corporate argument: supply and demand is a democratising force, if people didn't support by demanding and buying, then that business supply cannot survive. This means the reason we have a 'world corporatocracy' is becuase people want it. I mean select 1000 households at random, how many are stocked up with corporate products? So don't winge, we are getting what we are asking for, with the losers out of sight, hence out of mind.
intermender 10 months ago
@intermender But how do you know you have not been programed to want it since infancy?
cricketii 10 months ago
@cricketii Good point. But mind can overcome wants: there are frequent and reoccuring instances when the manipulation is as plain as day especially since the advent of the internet which can be a personal connection with whats happening in the outside world rather than relying on what those around you are saying.
intermender 10 months ago
...I'm buying a gun.
damnbacon88 11 months ago 10
@damnbacon88 I agree. Burn the fuckin' lot.
chazmeistro 10 months ago
Corporations are global and gaining power all the time in the name of buisness. All this in a period of human history where we for the first time have a connected and linked world. Of the 100 top economies in the world buisness count for 51 making gouverments around the world with no power.
sdfghzxc 11 months ago
Americans can, and will, achieve freedom from capitalism and freedom from capitalist exploitation of workers and the natural world. It's absolutely necessary. And the Constitution says nothing about having to tolerate capitalism. Not a single word.
beesleeper 11 months ago
@LilyAnorah Those "evil corporations" actually help those people by providing BETTER jobs then they are avaliable there(otherwise nobody would work there ..doh!). If you look at countries that embrace globalization you would see success(south east asia) but look at countries as zimbabwe which doesnt even have little economic freedom - there was no progress what so ever.
Poverty is not caused by capitalism. It is the standart state of human kind. On the other prosperity is caused by capitalism.
Jigssaw1989 1 year ago
@Jigssaw1989 The poor are much better off in Capitalist countries.. All of the best economies are capitalist. It is the communist, socialist, dictatorships that make their people suffer.
BartofGod 1 year ago
@BartofGod Like to finaly find someone likeminded. I was getting tired of explaining economics 101 to those bleeding heart liberals.
There even were 2 "labtest" of sortof capitalism and sortof socialism, same people, same culture different system. The one with more freedom(civil and economic) always outperformed the other one. China - Hongkong/Taiwan; And West adn East Germany.
Jigssaw1989 1 year ago
@Jigssaw1989 yeah I agree. All you need to do is look at the best, and worst governments in the world to see which have the best systems. All the countries with the highest standard of living are capitalist. People flee non-capitalist countries to come to a capitalist country for better living conditions, and fair wages. I've never heard of an American refugee fleeing to the middle-east.
BartofGod 1 year ago
@LilyAnorah Oh how possibly could goverment create wealth ? Yeah i know steal 50% of what people makes in taxes and then just pay their cronies and decide what overprized thing it should pay for.
What you call "slavery" i call opportunity - those people were always poor and now they start working in factories. Why ? Maybe because its better then in a damn field! And then they will get enough money to pay education for their children and they become wealthy. Look at hongkong, taiwan, singapore ..
Jigssaw1989 1 year ago
@Jigssaw1989 corporations are a tool of anti-capitalist forces to form monopolies and centralize power. yes government regulation is also a tool of these people oddly enough to push out competition. the problem is human beings hell-bent on lording over other people rather than simply "making profits"
farneyblakeley 1 year ago
@LilyAnorah
That is just stupid. Country(goverment) on its own doesnt create any wealth the people inside do and the people make companies because its not as easy to make money alone. You are simply saying that "if you take all companies from country they are richer than the country.....". This argument has no value what so ever.
Jigssaw1989 1 year ago
5:01 There is a lot more accountability in free market and over corporations than over our goverment ...
In goverment you can vote once in 4 years and only between very limited choices and even that doesnt matter if majority chooses something else and you are forced to pay for what the majority have chosen.
In free market you vote everyday with your money ! You dont like what is company A doing stop buying their products, everything in free market is voluntary as opposed to goverment coercion.
Jigssaw1989 1 year ago
@Jigssaw1989 You cant buy out of a closed, monolithic system. Corporate accountability and the free market are intrinsically destined to spiral into monopoly and self regulation.
To put our eggs in that basket is nothing more than surrender to a dystopian inevitability.
Mathertron 1 year ago
@Mathertron Well there is some truth in your argument. Free market is not what we have. Nowadays big corporations have a big shares of market . But the only reason why companies got too big in the first place wasnt free market it was big goverment. All those regulations only complicate the entry to the market and the new guy has to cope with thousands of pages of legislation.... If you think goverment should regulate more try starting your own bussines you will drown in papers.
Jigssaw1989 1 year ago
@Jigssaw1989 Well, but to stop buying a company's products, to come to that judgement as to what this company actually means to the world, one needs access to unbiased information about its deeds. Don't go thinking today's press is fair. Far from it. There is no single information source that is totally unbiased today, exactly because media corps are corps! What you call "government coercion", I call "accountability", in all the shapes it takes in the social sphere. Sorry. You're wrong.
felixn65 1 year ago
Sorry but goverment run media are biased too ! They are biased towards big goverment - so they can get more funding. I come from czech republic and we have had goverment run media here since comunist took over in 48 and trust me it was not unbiased :) .. Howewer we still have a goverment run media its of course better nowadays but its NOT unbiased its comparable with any news media overthere but we dont pay for them...
Goverment media represents goverment .... but who represents taxpayer ?
Jigssaw1989 1 year ago
@felixn65 Accountability ..... sure have you ever heard about some nameless buerocrat fired for screwing something up ?:) Or accountability of politicians ? ... Sure once in 4years maybe. If goverment screws something up guess who pays ? Not politician not buerocrat but taxpayer. If you think you can do a better job providing a unbiased news do it ! You will sure do a service for them and make money in the proccess(That is how capitalism works). But dont force other people to pay for it.
Jigssaw1989 1 year ago
@Jigssaw1989 Fine! Rant as you wish!
felixn65 1 year ago
How come this documentary is not going after Alan Greenspan? after all he's the main engineer of the multi-national corporate co-opting of sovereign nations.
seanmPWH 1 year ago
4:05 "Im inside and this is all outside, so, that's the way it is." could he be any more arrogant? Idm not a violent person, but i will admit to fantasizing about punching him in his mouth right after he says that.
yossarian1633 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
AND, can you believe that THIS is in CANADA? And now, look what the Alberta Oil Sands are getting away with. A corporation controlling the government.
123benny4 1 year ago
AND, can you believe that THIS is in CANADA? And now, look what the Alberta Oil Sands are getting away with. A corporation ontrolling the government.
123benny4 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
AND, can you believe that THIS is in CANADA?
123benny4 1 year ago
we have created a unstoppable monster of Corporation and some of us who did not created it are stuck in the in their corporation system...
tyllo08 1 year ago
Sir Moody is a SCUM BAG, built a shinny veneer on generations of SCUM BAGS purchased by the best PRIVATE SCHOOLS.
unicorn187 1 year ago
Ever since there was a monkey that worked harder than others, there has been another monkey conspiring to take what he worked for away from him.
This latest argument is just the latest, most sophisticated version of this piracy scheme. The idea is that the very act of having a successful means of producing products that people want is, in and of itself, an inherently criminal act. Of course, the way to punish this "crime" is by giving the wealth generated by such an entity to someone else.
DrCruel 1 year ago
@DrCruel oh how nice we have you to clear it all up for us.
there i thought the problem could not be stated any more simple.
now pls, for decency's sake, rewrite your "argument" with the words "legal non-existing monkey representing, in fact, a bunch of ruthless rich fat (that are white) monkeys" that "works harden than others" etc.
plus it was never about the fact that the "legal monkey" was successful or not. It was about the means it employed to acquire it's success.
peace.
tachios85 1 year ago
@tachios85 A bit rich, for crooks to want me to be an accomplice "for decency's sake".
We'll see is the "peace" comment is as much a lie as the rest of it. There are plenty in the US ready for either instance.
DrCruel 1 year ago
guess what? they didnt interview anybody who are actual shareholders. who are they? find them. those are the fuckers who dont care(aside from everyone else, including you, who bought a computer).
selfresonator 1 year ago
LosuoL = In the 21st century (the real movie) the rich will live underground and everyone else will die in the street
lebiew 1 year ago
This reminded me of 'dawn of the dead.' The rich are in their hotel, dining, enjoying life, while the other 99% are sititing below, waiting to die. :/
Losuol 1 year ago 2
@Losuol It's natural social selection
WarmongerWW3 1 year ago
Renewing trust? Try stepping down from your "armed guardians" and start acting like you want to care...
Don't dazzle us with words.. dazzle us with deeds
gorgeousdzastr 1 year ago
Sly foxes. Motherfucker. Stop talking crap and lick my ass. I don't rememer how many times I punch the table. I point my middle finger on every part I have watched.
skullhoof 1 year ago
How to correct a democracy once it has gotten out of control: watch?v=BBezaI0bnAQ&
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
How to correct a democracy once it has gotten out of control: watch?v=BBezaI0bnAQ&
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
Oh My God! What a bunch of elitist assholes! How loosely they converse in the broadest of terms! Any good con man can exploit the elocutions of existentialist cherry-picking in the fekking clouds! Sounds "real smart," means absolutely ZERO & NEVER materializes! {typical corporate politicians!}
evernetherall 1 year ago
Frippiat is a faggot. hes a dirty jew cock sucker. he likes three dicks in his assholes and has AIDs. hes allso a nigger faggot. fuck you nazi!
Misschokesonpenis 1 year ago
yes ira i think i understand.
instead of fascism we have a corporatocracy, is that right?
will it be mandatory to worship your new high priests?
jamesa4050 1 year ago
"a lot of these countries are not saying they want to get off... they want to get on"
they're not saying because they've been made an offer they can't refuse.
and if they do speak up and say no, they'll be treated just like those demonstrators outside the window, isn't that right Mr. Keyes?
jamesa4050 1 year ago
that ceo from schell is disgusting
bullbunnies 1 year ago
At 8:20: "These are decisions to be made by government." Govern = Regulate. Because it is necessary.
conzatorium 1 year ago
jaajajaj i cant stop laughing every time Elaine bernard shows up in this documentary ....
anyways, its a good documentary ...
fackafacka 1 year ago
governments have become powerless? Then why the hell are we even wasting time voting?!
jellyfarm2 1 year ago 2
@jellyfarm2 because the corporations control the media and they don't want us knowing were slaves.
tomlambsays 1 year ago
we have ben sufering the effects of fasist usa for years now.
DANTHETUBEMAN 1 year ago
Weird Al provides some insight - 7:22
zeekology 1 year ago
Look what Shell is really doing in Ireland. They bought the rights from the Irish goevernement for a token amount and now have all the gas off the west coast! Natural recources belong to the Irish. Now we have to buy back our own gas? Whats next? Bags on our rear end to collect our gas?
And then there is the child-industry. Children sold into slavery. See iamnotanumbernr1 channel.
Iamnotanumbernr1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Democracy is just the new thing around. The ruling families realized, if they are not a target to the population and they let the people decide who they think will be i charge of politics in the next few years, the people always will feel guilty too, because they put the politicians into their seats.
The real power, that makes agendas and is ruling comes from evil incest families, to keep the power in the family. As always!
whatthehell81 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Democracy is just the new thing around. The ruling families realized, if they are not a target to the population and they let the people decide who they think will be i charge of politics in the next few years, the people always will feel guilty too, because they put the politicians into their seats.
The real power, that makes agendas and is ruling comes from evil incest families, to keep the power in the family. As always!
whatthehell81 1 year ago
Money masters >>> This movie
Hichemcj 1 year ago
I think the scariest and most atrocious thing about the whole situation, is that the vast majority of the public is ok with what is happening to the world. It is as if Americans and people in general crave ignorance. Stupidity is the sancuary in which they will hide until the death throws of civilization tears it down. How can the few enlightened fight against the sea of those who crave to be domineered. I am 19 years onld and dont see much hope for the world
rudley0innapropriate 1 year ago
@rudley0innapropriate I will tell you how. its people like yourself who to the time to think ands see th truth, and I do thank you for that. Pass it along friend.
mobilechief 1 year ago
We all see that the world is fucked. Going on about it won't stop it. There must be a peoples movement away from this morally, socially and economically bankrupt system before it is to late. We must see what the problems exist at our root and rebuild our society on a healthier foundation . There is such a movement. It is called the zeitgeist movement and is the communication arm of the Venus project. Get started by typing 'zeitgeist addendum' into google. 'Fear is your only god' RATM. Peace.
fibbsabaddy 1 year ago
dont protest, infiltrate and destroy from within..
iTeaze888 1 year ago
at 6:00....classic corporate bullsh#t "worry about the climate and pollution" coming from the former chairman of shell. he doesn't care how much his company has and is still polluting heavily in nigeria. i dont advocate murder but sorts like him should be lined up and shot.
ganjaweedow 1 year ago
I find this disturbing and all, but I question what will happen if all of society suddenly refuses to 'consume' commercial goods on any level.
Would it be possible for society to function still? Or have we grown so populous that a reversal of the current system is impossible.
DavidofThe 1 year ago
1. hey film maker; if you didnt want to give it away for free, dont put it on youtube !
2. i support the film maker by giving him some good old USA milk!
3. its either this or communism: you choose!
4. corporations need a well incomed middle class, so you work it out.
5. Obama is the criminal who sold your grandkids body organs to chinese in order for him to give trillions to wall street.
iamdiaperman 1 year ago
@iamdiaperman ehh he obviously did want to give it away for free, he decided to educate you instead of making a profit. he just wants some support.
druminirish83 1 year ago
@iamdiaperman 3. if i had to choose between communism or capitalism, i would definatly choose communism. 5. You are a truly sick minded indivdual to post that.
Derrian6 1 year ago
To corporations, the US Government is just another business, and a hostile takeover is already underway. Campaign contributions and lobbying are all targeted toward a single goal--expand corporate power and diminish government regulation. The ultimate goal is to achieve corporate sovreignty.
We need to pass a Constitutional Amendment to abolish "Corporate Personhood" and ban corporations from politics before this takeover is complete.
wbaltzley 2 years ago
Could someone please point out to me what's so wrong with free trade? Despite the fact that basically every economist, regardless of ideological affiliation is supportive of unrestricted movement of goods as the best way to increase living standards in both developing and developed countries? Thank you.
shine2rust 2 years ago
Free trade is not FAIR trade. "Free trade" is exploiting poorer countries in favor of rich countries. Just look at what the IMF and World Bank do, headed by U.S. con men.
Antiks72 2 years ago
The Fair Trade (brand) is a marketing gimmick which mainly benefits retailers. Only one tenth of the fair trade premium paid by the consumer actually reaches the grower. Also, "fair" trade is quite.... unfair, as only a small number of farmers receive a higher, fixed price for their goods at the expense of all the rest, which do not qualify for the FT certification. Land owners in relatively developed countries like Mexico are the main benefiters from FT.
shine2rust 2 years ago
FT does not encourage economical development, it actually hinders it by subsidizing uncompetitive farmers and preventing healthy competition (of course, this would be "unfair").
Free trade is the best way to lift a country out of poverty. The "exploitation" you are referring to allows people to make use of their only resource: their arms.
shine2rust 2 years ago
Indeed, mass production and consumption is, as suggested... beneficial to the great majority of consumers, i.e. lower-middle class ones. They are the ones employed in factories and farms, they are the ones who, having less disposable income benefit from lower prices brought about by competition. Inequality has indeed increased in some countries (although there are exceptions) as a result of increased trade. But simply looking at inequality is misleading.
shine2rust 2 years ago
Instead, one has to take into account the increase in living standards for both the rich and the poor, for a better understanding of the effects of trade. And, as I said before, the rich might be better off, but the poor are also better off! All this data is available in IMF reports like the October 2007 World Economic Outlook, which looked specifically at the effects of globalization and inequality, by analysing data between 1990 - 2003 and Gini coefficients (measure of inequality).
shine2rust 2 years ago
There are also plenty of examples of countries that have benefited from opening up their borders, which helped them lift themselves out of chronic poverty: Hong Kong, China, India, Ireland, Georgia, Mexico and so on.
shine2rust 2 years ago
@shine2rust no that is not true since "opening the borfers in 1994" mexico poverty level increased from 30% to 60 % currently is estimated that 60million people live in poverty.
ClaudioCesar 1 year ago
"If there were an Economists Creed, it would surely contain the affirmations 'I understand the Principle of Comparative Advantage' and 'I advocate Free Trade'."
Paul Krugman - not at all a libertarian, despite what you might have heard
shine2rust 2 years ago
@shine2rust
jesus, i can't decide if you are purposely
advocating nonsense because you're being paid by some
corporation, or if you truly completely indoctrinated,
to the point that you do it for free.
Free Trade, Consumption, does not alleviate poverty nor reduces the income gap.. The growing income gap and
continued poverty is seen in the wealth of
data at gapminder . org
The links between consumption and continued poverty are clearly shown
in storyofstuff . com
WurmD 2 years ago
not to be a nerd, but the Canadian Minister of Trade is named Pierre Pettigrew= a certain slimy rat from harry potter?
hellyes45lpe 2 years ago
@hellyes45lpe peter pettigrew is the guy from harry potter lol
fleurgi 2 years ago
When your water,electricity,hospitals,TV stations,oil and all natural resources are privatized or taken over by foreign corporation that's when your government are completely corrupted,incompetence and under the influence of the corporates business.
ToiYeuDatNuocCuaMinh 2 years ago
Fuck Moody-Staurt and Anderson's liberal bullshit. Makes me sick. This liberal image that they throw up to hide their despicable deeds, We're just like you! We care! As we destroy what's left of the planet for profit."
coffeebeaner 2 years ago
Yes, it's so true. That hypocrite posing as an actual human being! When everyone knows that all oil industry CEOs are actually malevolent demons from the underworld exhaling methane and with raw oil running through their veins.
shine2rust 2 years ago
That hypocrite IS an actual human being, doing actual damage to the only planet we have, our children will have, and our grandchildren will be stuck with. Those actual-human being CEOs are allowing actual life destroying processes to exist. It wouldn't matter if they were malevolent demons or angel tooth fairies, you fucking idiot.
coffeebeaner 2 years ago
Ignoring the few, insignificant, benefits of the exploitation of our natural resources (raising living standards through the huge number of people employed and the economic and technological development it brought about) , how is drilling for oil destroying our planet? Also, since that might be too easy for an astute intellectual such as yourself, try to point out to me the advantage of having publicly owned enterprises involved in oil extraction and refining as opposed to private ones.
shine2rust 2 years ago
The costs of industrialization based on oil simply out weigh the benefits; we are set up for collapse, which could very well mean the end of all life on this planet through a myriad of ways. Nuclear apocalypse is one, ecological collapse is another, water wars is another, over consumption is yet another, the altering of our planet's climate, and so on. Diamond has written on this, as well as others. I don't even think necessarily that there should be publicly-owned oil businesses because,
coffeebeaner 2 years ago
"out weigh the benefits"
Ok. Throw away the clothes you wear, the computer you are typing on, walk to the nearest mountain top and build a house (with tools made by yourself), grow your own food, weave clothes from hemp or whatever and then tell me about the benefits of living like that. Oil is in EVERYTHING around you, either as a direct component or part of the production or transportation. The affordability of all the products we use is a consequence of mass production and market forces.
shine2rust 2 years ago
"Nuclear apocalypse" Been there. "ecological collapse, water wars, over consumption, climate" Those basically all refer to the same thing: 'eating KFC is killing polar bears!'. Consumption means progress and the alleviation of poverty. Next time you go shopping, think about all the people that were involved in the making (and that's just part of the story) of the simplest product and how all those will benefit from your purchase. For all you know the trail leads to some poor guy in Malaysia.
shine2rust 2 years ago
And unless you're Al Gore, you know that climate change does not mean you have to go shopping for lifevests but rather much smaller, almost imperceptible changes, as there have always been, and not all of their effects harmful.
shine2rust 2 years ago
if you consider education one of the benefits of improved living standards brought about by free trade, then clearly you are living proof of the inadequacies of the system.
rocaillecanaille 2 years ago
Ouch!
Actually, since education is provided by the state (and therefore crappy), I don't have much consideration for it, not even in the developed states.
Anyway, is there some actual point you can make, or do you feel that you've contributed more than enough through your witty insult?
If so, then thank you for at least revealing the condescending arrogance which is often to be found under the loving, caring mask of leftists.
shine2rust 2 years ago
though there may be more democratic control and influence in the planning of what the oil specifically (and all industry in general) is used for, as long as it's based on profits (corporate state capitalist or state capitalism) and in control of a few, it's not really better than being private. If there were any sanity and will to make a better world, there'd be massive investment in public transit, and a changing of the structure of how society is set up, e.g., not for disaster.
coffeebeaner 2 years ago
Ok. I'm glad that at least you make the distinction between crony capitalism and a free market system. What you also need to consider is that profit is always a motive, an incentive, regardless of the system. It is an intrinsic part of ourselves. What free markets do is channel the individual efforts directed at improving ourselves towards productive actions.
"massive investment"
You have to allow people to make money before you take it away from them.
"public transit"
Don't need it, I cycle.
shine2rust 2 years ago
NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN:
RELATEDXXX 2 years ago
at 7:23 weird al yankovic ha ha ha..
2skullscrushing 2 years ago
2:35 ...there aren't 800,000,000 citizens of the United States...
Jordainio 2 years ago
@Jordainio "The Americas" 800 million citizens... the people of north and south america.
bosoxfan84 2 years ago 3
that is what i think too, the blue guy admits that he is a spy and can lie a man in a face and does it for a job and now he expects that we trust him when he says that the biggest meating ever happend right in front off him
udrilave 2 years ago
i beleive all things said here except for that strange guy who has his hair up like some anime guy
happiness6589746 2 years ago
haha she really is :D
FUGLY!
Knuhben 2 years ago
7:20 WHOA!!!!!!
deathunlimited454 2 years ago
the solution is take away the status of the corporation as an individual
kurtisblow3000 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Protestors don't represent the people.
whitesox889 2 years ago
the solution is a government regulate profit cap, say 10%. Boom, greed is kept in check.
8jdb2 2 years ago
Then they will just pay out more in salaries to the execs and funnel the rest into "shell" corporations. It's not that easy to tame this beast
murjani80 2 years ago
good god it's like Bruce willis and Carrot top had a retarded baby
MrCitizenbane 2 years ago
I thought that was a guy! Ugly, gender challenged, but smart as a whip, and in an odd sort of way, SASSY!!!
chuckdee121 2 years ago
Jcolinsol and AnotherMusicMan,
What are you guys doing having a civil and intelligent discussion? Don't you know this is YouTube?
JoshSitar 2 years ago 17
I can't believe how confused this documentary is.
After all the evidence that they have provided clearly demonstrates that the state has created the institution of "corporation" and then let them run amok, they still come to the conclusion that "democracy" is the solution to the problem?
Democracy CREATED the problem, THE STATE, created the problem.
Corporations are only the symptom. The disease is the state.
You cannot solve social conflicts by instituting a violent monopoly.
Jcolinsol 2 years ago
I agree with your comment, however I might suggest that the way they present the role of democracy (or government) would effectively limit the multitude and the magnitude of problems that corporations can create.
AnotherMusicMan 2 years ago
Please formulate an argument as to how (I'm assuming) direct democracy can limit problems with businesses?
To my mind, the state is itself no different than any other business, it simply has a monopoly on certain services, like defense and conflict resolution. By instituting a violently enforced monopoly on services, we give society no recourse, no alternative.
Also, "problems" are subjective, and the collective definition of what is a problem, and how to solve it, should not be enforced.
Jcolinsol 2 years ago
It is impossible to formulate an argument based on such a broad response. If you are stating that a problem could be seen as everything and anything, and then asking how direct democracy could limit such problems, well then there is no answer, because the problem is everything.
However, if I'm arguing in support of the film, democracy has (or rather, can have) that one key ingredient that sets it apart from the corporation: morality. That should dictate their control within corporations.
AnotherMusicMan 2 years ago
Morality is defined on the individual level, there is no universal moral value, only subjective moral values defined by individual people. So when you take the collective moral values of "the majority" and force people to obey them, you are going to coerce behavior and reduce diversity which destabilizes social function.
Considering that any formal state is enforced with violence, no the state is not moral. Most businesses kill fewer people than the state, so which is the more moral?
Jcolinsol 2 years ago
I respectfully disagree. Although many morals are subjective, yes, any state, community, colony, or gathering of people throughout all of human history have been defined by basic, universal values: Don't murder, don't take what isn't yours. These, I would argue, are what CAN set a state (and therefore democracy) apart from corporations, as corporations see only profit.
That being said, the perfect society doesn't exist, but at least it is governed by moral obligation, and not greed.
AnotherMusicMan 2 years ago
The area where subjective morals overlap is called "the inter-subjective consensus". Naturally, people make value judgments, we evolved as social animals so we also interract progressively.
However I see no reason to institutionalize governance, and force people to obey a single set of rules. Even with something as concrete as murder, people have different values. I am against war as an act of murder, some people aren't. I would appreciate it if I wouldn't be forced to abide and fund wars.
Jcolinsol 2 years ago
Again, you have my full agreement, and thanks for the term! (didn't know it before) I would pose this as an idea: A world in which we are free to choose which states jurisdiction to fall under, based on our agreement of their imposed moral governance. (open democracy?)
However, a state with no governance holds little structure to support anything, as anything goes. We NEED the state for corporations to exist, but we need corporations to be governed by at least some moral guidance.
AnotherMusicMan 2 years ago
I don't think we need corporations. I'm not going to advocate anything in particular, but I will acknowledge that business is an evolutionary model for resource allocation. I just think it would be better regulated without a state, just by supply and demand, voluntary association. if society can function without business, so be it.
The term for what you are describing is "Panarchy", non-compulsory collectives based on voluntary association, no geographical location.
Remember: state =/= order
Jcolinsol 2 years ago
I agree, and in theory, that would work. However, and what the documentary was pointing out, is that business (and in the film, corporations) are not governed by morals, and therefore need the moral directives asserted by a state. As can be seen, supply and demand systems fail, because false situations are manipulated to drive profits for business. Again, it boils down to morals: I think a business sector focused on bettering human life is best, but how is that possible without the state?
AnotherMusicMan 2 years ago
In the absence of a state, a business must serve the needs of it's customers, or it will fail. This existential necessity forces businesses to conduct businesses effectively. The state has no existential check on it's power, and the state is the force that protects businesses from their own responsibility.
Since a private business is owned by an individual, greed may or may not be a motive. In order to grow a business must serve it's customers.
Jcolinsol 2 years ago
Again, this theoretically would work, and I agree that it would be a much better system then what currently exists. But, as can be seen within the film, the problems occur when businesses begin telling customers what they need through covert avenues not easily perceived. This again brings us to the same conclusion: ultimately, a moral governance is needed over institutions motivated by greed. However, change what the motivation is for, or even vary it, and that may cause positive change.
AnotherMusicMan 2 years ago 2
Thanks for the terms, again, btw. Panarchy sounds a lot like anarchy, which I'm taught to believe is dangerous, so maybe I should refrain from posting my preferable state!
AnotherMusicMan 2 years ago
The word Anarchy simply means "without rulers", so there are many interpretations.
I consider Anarchy to be an accurate model of social order rather than a political ideology. Emergence theory, sync, and evolution, all demonstrate that order occurs out of individual actions, rather than hierarchical planning.
Jcolinsol 2 years ago
Again, you have my agreement, however this implies that individuals are able to continue ordered action without hierarchical planning, which I cannot agree with. I'm not very well read in Noam Chomsky, however I do believe he separates society into "pawns" and "intellectuals" with the minority being the latter. Therefore, do you not need hierarchical planning by "intellectuals" in order to cause order amongst the "pawns"?
AnotherMusicMan 2 years ago
No, you don't need a planner for progressive structure to occur within society, any more than you need a God to plan the evolution of species.
When people lack an empirical model for a complex system they immediately reach for supernatural explanations. How did diverse life come about? God. How is society ordered? The state.
In truth, the state is just a group of fallible people, there is nothing that they can do, that we can't do.
Jcolinsol 2 years ago
But, do you not agree that certain people (a vast majority it seems) NEED to be told direction in order to function in a positive way (ie. the betterment of themselves and those around them)? This ultimately leads back to a state/hierarchical structure.
Your last phrase is 100% correct, however, not enough people realize it to move away from the current structures, and that is why an anarchy-type society would ultimately fail.. It would restructure itself into a hierarchical system. Correct?
AnotherMusicMan 2 years ago
I can't really agree, because I think it will vary between people. humans are evolutionarily prepared for making decisions that will end up proliferating their dna, people are perfectly capable of making choices for themselves. And it's not like the state can make better choices for the strangers it governs, than they can make themselves.
If there is indeed a market demand for planning services, I see no reason that they should be institutionalized.
Not hierarchical - fibrous
Jcolinsol 2 years ago
I guess what I'm trying to say is, that any planning that goes on has to suit the needs of the individual, and you can't really get that from a coercive institution.
Jcolinsol 2 years ago
I see what you're saying, however you can't plan an infrastructure system based on the individual needs of each person, as each person has such diverse needs. I certainly agree to your overall idea, and think it would certainly make for a more humane "society," but, as always, everything has issues. Is there no perfect scenario to work towards?
AnotherMusicMan 2 years ago
When your government outsourcing your rights of bills and you have not rights or sayings in the out source businesses, what can you do? What is employment when they hire only someone who can fend off your opportunities and give it to foreign investors who don't give a dame of your living environment. Corporations are just fancy words, I would rather simply call it exploitations.
beancube2008 2 years ago
A U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 1886 set the stage for the full-scale development of the culture of capitalism, by handing to corporations the right to use their economic power in a way they never had before. Relying on the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court ruled that a private corporation is a natural person under the U.S. Constitution, and consequently has the same rights and protection extended to persons by the Bill of Rights, including the right to free speech.
northpal2 2 years ago
Thus, corporations, as persons, were free to lobby legislatures, use the mass media, establish educational institutions such as many business schools founded by corporate leaders in the early twentieth century, found charitable organizations to convince the public of their lofty intent, and in general construct an image that they believed would be in their best interests. All of this in the interest of free speech.
northpal2 2 years ago 2
I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. ... corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.
— U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864 (letter to Col. William F. Elkins)
northpal2 2 years ago 2
I think it's worth watching
rtorresuk 2 years ago
@8:20
These are decisions that must be made by THE INFORMED CONSUMER!
Not the Government.
Garmichael1 2 years ago
Haha that is correct.
camreeno360 2 years ago
i can't believe milton friedman got a nobel prize
fucking facist
bullbunnies 2 years ago 2
haha no shit, I was wary of calling him a fascist in the past...just strongly disliked him...this interview is unbelievable, hey! being socially responsible isn't your expertise? on their heads be it.
rolpho 2 years ago
Al Gore
Simirial 2 years ago
So they think the gov't no longer has any control over them, eh? Well what they forget is the power of the people...if we dont buy their goods they will soon disolve away into bankruptcy...if the big bankers think they have the upper hand, u just wait til people start pulling all their money out of them...if they (the gov't) try to enslave us...see how they can do it if we refuse to work and pay taxes as one large unit...would be total collapse & chaos...this is why they want our guns & fear us!
kokonutbaby1 2 years ago
The Markets will correct the wrong. WTF?
Yea, so long as they are not "to big to fail," BULLSHIT!
hiphopsocnroc 2 years ago 4
yay let's ban all guns too, just so the cops can have em
mistarcraw 2 years ago
ya...great shell...murder Nigerians for disagreeing......that's great capitalism
jlivings10 2 years ago
Captilism and Communism have merged into Corporatism
sarahconner11 2 years ago 2
this aint no communism
mistarcraw 2 years ago
Actually, Corporatism is a form of Fascism. Fascism is the opposite of Communism.
trelane227 2 years ago
like i said those mother*&%$%&@$%&
designlover88 2 years ago
6:24-6:25
Any rational person watching this advertisement would understand that it is mere Greenwashing, not honest business.
okayillgonow 2 years ago 3
temporomandibular
wesleygodin 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this is scary if u read this far u will die in 10 days if u dont send to any 15 videos in 2 hours good luck hope u dont die
mItCh0325 2 years ago
4:45, is that guy holding a katana!?
1amsm1th 2 years ago
lol shit ya he is wtf
willman32 2 years ago
wow i missed the katana the first time
rfry 2 years ago