@indians4bobbyjindal We the people elected we the government, dumb ass. So you have bad government, blame yourself for voting for bad government. Vote third party, vote independently.
@thedocumentarian Maybe he's in the minority or maybe the ruling class is in minority opinion. Proportional representation doesn't take place here, so don't blame an individual for what a collective set of people have voted for.
As usual, a guy like Michael Moore correctly identifies the problem but fails to identify the real CAUSE. Yes, college is too expensive. If the federal government hadn't begun guaranteeing loans in the 1960s, post-sec education would truly be a free market - capitalism - rather than the crony fascist system it is today, and we could still afford to go to college without loans! Rather than blame capitalism Moore should stick the blame where it belongs-at the feet of lousy government policy.
He complains over the superpaid CEOs without considering how the free market works. In a free market, if the Chiefs pay themselves waay to much, their products would have to be a bit more expensive. With more expensive products, other companies will beat them in the market, then they would go out of business if they don't cut their salary.
Today, There's a big government that bail them out to "stimulate" the economy.( i.e. use the people's money to pay their crazy wages)
@jefeller Having more equality with income is not Marxist. Just because the word equal is used does not mean it's from communism. What about equal opportunity, equal protection, equal income starting wages, equal competition, equal wage liability. Etc. Read a book.
Forced equality of income through redistribution of wealth is inherently Marxist. That is the founding tenant and ultimate goal of Marxism. It is to set about a classless society to destroy a perceived class struggle.
Capitalism lifted the grinding masses out of poverty unlike any system before it. If you let the free markets work, they quickly and steadily raise living standards. Thats why people in the America don't live in mud huts
@jefeller Okay. You altered my words to something very different. "More equality income" is different than what you said which was "forced equality of income through distribution of wealth." What I said isn't Marxist (I've read both Marx books) and what you said is fundamentally, communism. A social democracy, which Norwegian countries have, include more income equality. Their standards of living are higher, they have more social programs and they are doing very well.
@thedocumentarian If you suggest that the government should forcibly take your wealth on threat of imprisonment or death, in order to reduce or eliminate income inequality, it is Marxist. It is then a matter of degree of how much you want of re-distribution.
A "social" democracy is not economically feasible on a large scale, and that's not just my opinion. The Euro debt crisis is the result of social democracy where too many people want too much free stuff. I wish, but it just can't work here.
@jefeller Wrong again. For the past 200 years, we've had government constitutionally authorized to collect taxes from people, including the wealthy. Would you call the 16th amendment Marxist? I highly doubt it and a rational person would think so too. When government collects additional revenue through taxes and creates programs for the consumer to save money, the economy grows and incomes of everyone grow. Income equality could be simply as creating a system of consumer safety nets.
@thedocumentarian I'm arguing an ethical argument with you, not a legal one. If you wouldn't let your next door neighbor hold you at gunpoint for 20% of your income, why should you let a man with a gov badge do it? The gov is just a collection of individuals.
The 16th amendment is somewhat Marxist. It was put in place under the most progressive US president, Wilson.
You have your demand side economics down. But you forget about supply, just as important. Supply is always reduced by taxation.
@jefeller If you know what the process is to put forth an amendment for vote, you wouldn't be pointing fingers at Wilson. Somewhat Marxist? So anything that collects money for the common good is Marxist? Would you like the American people to follow an individual mindset similar to the national Juche ideologie of self-reliance? I don't think so. It would destroy us and create an absolute Darwintopia.
It doesn't start with the 16th amendment, it starts with the promotion of a general welfare.
@thedocumentarian Ah, but for whose common good? And who says it is both for the common, and who says it is good? Well the tax collector of course!
To suggest that an individual is just a cell in an organism is misleading and needlessly altruistic. You make different decisions than I do. I have no allegiance or war with you.
It doesn't matter what the legal system says or does, a forced redistribution of wealth is both immoral and unethical. I tolerate taxation but promote free-market ideas.
@jefeller For the common good of the American people! It's a constitutional declaration on behalf of the founding fathers. Jefferson, Madison, Morris, Adams and several others spoke on behalf of the American people and spoke of the necessity to promote the general welfare.
If you think that a forced redistribution of wealth is immoral, then you should protest against any public service that you use. Don't drive on roads, drink water, buy safe appliances, purchase food, etc. List goes on.
UL approves such a large array of electronic appliances and items and its a private consumer reporting company. You have conflated all these functions as exclusively government roles. Even so called public good problems such as the internet where access is free is solved with advertising, keyword auctioning, etc.
@takadi UL is a needle in a haystack. It really is. However, their private consumer reporting does not include the process of requiring private and public companies to have a set of standards for their goods and services. A private company cannot do that. Consumer reporting does not have the power to PREVENT something from exploding, physically and economically speaking.
It may have come off as conflated scenario but I also mention the role of the private market.
@thedocumentarian The government doesn't save something from exploding, physically and economically speaking, they in fact encourage products and economies to explode.
Competitive supply delivers better products to the demand. That's why free markets work better than command economies.
@thedocumentarian Sorry, that's BS. If the common good is to eliminate gays or forcibly inject drugs to dumb you down, would you still support the common good?
The common good is the biggest lie ever imposed on mankind. What is more subjective?
It is created by those in power or those who seek it.
@thedocumentarian I will work for a policy change towards free market public alternatives--toll roads, private (more competitive) water systems, list goes on. To make such changes without using public goods would be an ineffective use of my energies.
Free markets get you cleaner foods/better appliances than the low standards the government imposes because suppliers have to fight harder to get you the absolute best product. If you care about demand side, you should want supply to work harder 4 u.
@jefeller A social democracy actually is economically feasible on a large scale. Look at the economies of Japan, Sweden, Norway, The Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, Australia, etc. I don't know where you get your data but the Euro debt crisis isn't the results of social democracy. Quite frankly, those countries who are involved in the Euro debt crisis are run by conservatives. Look it up.
You can have social REGULATED programs with guidelines and rules, just like with private industry.
@thedocumentarian Doesn't matter what party they belong to, what matters are the fundamentals put in place. You can argue for the moral obligation to input government top down policies, but don't tell me they are economically feasible. It is a fact--even from keynes himself--that government crowding out and regulation creates deadweight loss. Do you know anything about economics?
The Scandanavian countries like finland are about 1.5% of the size of the US, and they don't invent iPhones.
@jefeller I think you must know that there is a difference between innovation and invention. The iPhone was an innovation of the cell phone. Just like Nokia was an innovator of cellphones from Finland. That is a poor logic on your part.
If you using Keynes government and wealth quote, why did he have optimism for FDR's policies during the depression, "You are the only one who sees the necessity of a profound change of methods and is attempting it without intolerance, tyranny or destruction."
@thedocumentarian I used the iPhone example to show that free(er) markets make the big ideas. I should have looked that up on my great Nokia phone which is better than my iPhone [sarcasm].
Keynes believed in government intervention. Increase G--> multiplier effect--> increase real gdp. I know Keynes. Keynes acknowledged positive short term effects of +G, but he also knew the side effects: deadweight loss. Thats why he only said we should use expansionary policy in a recession.
@jefeller You're using personal biases to compare two different companies. At one point in our lifetimes, Nokia was the leader in cell phones. I believe it was 2003 when Nokia was at it's peak. Apple...was in the toilet at the time. Competition. If intervention really did destroy capitalism and "invention" since it's been applied for over 200 years, wouldn't Apple still be in the toilet? Of course not.
@jefeller If capitalism lifed the "grinding masses out of poverty", why is it that every time we have a financial crisis due to capitalism, we have more people placed in poverty. FBI reported stated that 80% of the reason for the financial crisis is because of Wall Street. What does Wall Street do? Exercise free market. We practice corporate capitalism way more than capitalism.
FYI: People in America do live in mud huts, look up the word "slum". Read a book,sir.
Wall Street finances Capitalism. It is not capitalism itself. Capitalism is an ideal, not a system.
Those who live in slums do not live in mud huts. They may have lower standards of living compared to others in the US, but they still often have access to food, shelter, television, utilities. Do the poor who live in the Nigeria get this treatment? No. They beg or hunt for food. They build houses out of mud and sticks. They have no access to medical treatment & live short lives.
@jefeller Wall Street is capitalism. What do you think stocks and bond prices are, simply pretty green and red numbers to make companies look pretty? Get real. Capitalism actually IS an economic system. Talk to ANY economist and they will tell you that it is an economic system. What ideal does this country run on? Feudalism? Consumerism? Free market...ism?
@thedocumentarian No, wall street is not capitalism. Wall street could exist in a mercantilist market or some form of socialist market as well.
No. Every economist (including 3 that I know) understands that capitalism is an ideal, not a system. We do not have a capitalist market, its a mixed one. Any degree of government intervention instantly discounts it from a truly capitalist market and pushes it towards the IDEAL of socialism. Remember, we don't have a capitalist market, its a mixed one.
@jefeller I don't know what economists you know but the ones that I know are firm that capitalism IS a system. We have a mixed economy dominated by capitalism. If we didn't have capitalism in our economy, we would have the economy and output of 1980's China. Capitalism does include regulation and intervention. It not, we would all be dead. I think you're confusing the general term capitalism with free market capitalism, a specific form of capitalism. Are you sure you know economics?
I am trying to teach you that capitalism is an ideal, like socialism. Capitalism is the idea of a perfect non-interventionist marketplace and socialism is the idea of a perfect all-interventionist market. What happens in the real world is somewhere between (mixed).
Venezuela isn't fully socialist, just like NK isn't. It just mostly is, there might be some very limited degree of free market undertakings involved which disqualifies it.
@jefeller So? I studied global political economy as an undergrad and am studying public administration as a grad student.
I'm not here to listen to your supposition on a system of economics which you think is purely ideal. Trust me. It's not. Capitalism on a large scale includes market intervention to sustain practices of innovation, protection, and success. In a non-interventionist marketplace, the economy would suffer at the hands of monopolization and unsafe conditions.
@thedocumentarian Political economy is a joke. Its just political philosophy with an economic stat when convenient.
Show me one example where a mostly free market needs intervention (besides policing when someone steals money or property)?
Real monopoly has only occurred historically with the assistance of the the largest monopoly of all: government. And as for unsafe conditions, that is impossible in a free market because supply needs demand as much as demand needs supply.
@jefeller Poor people have access to food and shelter because of social programs. Medicaid, food stamps, and public housing. As said before, none of them are perfect because they need MORE regulation. The private sector benefits US Citizens from regulation and so does the public sector. There is no compromise to each other.
I don't know where you got Nigeria into this but it really is comparing apples and oranges. Would living in cardboard houses in the US (people do) be better than mud huts?
@thedocumentarian Surely, you don't think I want people living in mud or cardboard huts? Of course we should keep people from starving or having to sleep outside. My point is that our "poor" people are far richer than poor people in other nations such as Nigeria. It results from an increased standard of living from the economic prosperity Capitalism has given us. Our poor people don't have to worry about genocide, malaria, starvation, etc. We don't live in a third world country.
@jefeller Well, I used cardboard huts as an example for your use of mud huts in Nigeria. Haha! "Of course we should keep people form starving or having to sleep outside". Now you're contradicting yourself. Poor people in our country shouldn't have to compare themselves with poor people from other country like a competition. You also agree that we do in fact have capitalism. However, it's sad that some third world countries provide universal healthcare and the richest country in the world can't.
@jefeller You contradiction pertains to your statement of "of course we don't want people without homes". I'd like for your to name a successful non public service that has fed people continuously and housed people without resorting to food pantries and cardboard boxes. Reminds me of Michelle Bachmann.
I agree. Capitalism did revolutionize the world and so did public interest and legislation to use government intervention for the common good in the practice of the SYSTEM that is capitalism..
@thedocumentarian Please don't compare me to an imperialist republican.
I'm first trying to show you that taxation is unethical, and then demonstrate why we need it. It might seem backwards to do this, but unless you first gain an understanding of Austrian school economics/philosophy, you can't fully understand capitalism.
You don't have all the facts, please don't be so close minded.
@thedocumentarian The FBI is not a financial or economic entity. The SEC is the organization that polices the financial sector (there are some other smaller ones too).
The business cycle is made more volatile by government messing with it. Government creates bubbles and inflates currency without being able to think rationally on both large and small scales (like a collection of individuals can). Government imposes price ceilings and floors and taxes and regulations which create deadweight loss.
@jefeller However, the FBI is federal agency who goes into investigative work on behalf of financial or economic entities.
On the contrary, the business cycle has turned to government TO mess with it. Do you think 2008 was a year of government monetary rewards for banking industries destroying the financial sector? Get real.
Government during the 1950's had more taxes and regulations and the economy BOOMED. Ever heard of the marginal tax rate of 90%? Incomes grew and deficits shrunk.
Wow, I didn't expect this Moore actually gets what the problem is at the beginning of the video - corporatism. But then he looses me, he says he wants power to the people rather than these corporations. YEAH! It's called CAPITALISM it eliminates the ability of corporations to eliminate their competition through government control and make people choose them and allows people to choose other companies that are ethical. IT GIVES TOTAL CONTROL TO THE PEOPLE! So what is he talking about, anyone?
@PiercingKnight Actually, Democracy gives control to the people. Corporatism and monopolies, eliminate choice. And yes we can completely boycott one choice if we only have that through "Capitalism", but Democracy is the ultimate ability to control our lives. So in a way Democracy, Corporatism, and Capitalism should exist together but also be in conflict with one another when necessary to balance things.
@Sconi71 Lol Democracy is a form of government we are talking economics here. Domocracy puts people in charge, however, our elected leaders are almost always bought by megabanks and corporations. Allowing government interventionism in economics means megabanks and corporations doing what they want such as eliminating their competition and becoming Gods, and creating corporatism. Capitalism is sort of like direct democracy, it eliminates this problem by putting people in control.
@Sconi71 Think about it how many of these corporations and companies are evil remember that movie if corporations are persons then their sociopaths? How many people hate them and would like to choose something else but that something else does not exist because laws put in by the government to help those corporations. I can give you thousand examples just look at raw milk farmers. If you had a choice would you buy from these evil people or would you choose someone else? U have no choice
Moore makes over 1000 times the average employee of his movies but he doesn't talk about that. The average would have got about 30k for a year and he got over $22m for the movie and counting depending on royalties. He wants to limit other peoples freedom and income but not his. The old soviet system he talked about only having one car company was that a free market or centrally planned like the system he wants to create? Admit you are a capitalist in the 1% and love it or give the cash away!!!
Michael Moore is not credible. The problems we are having with, say, college inflation, is the fact the federal government has made it easy for anyone to get a college loan. That has led to a rise in demand to go to college, and with a rise in demand comes a rise in price. Moore's idea that this can all be fixed through 'tax-funded education' is completely off; that's just shifting the cost to someone else, not lowering it. The federal government has grown too powerful, and must be shrank.
You said it yourself Moore, your representative is not representing you.... Because we have large ceos being appointed by politician's because they were given a campaign contribution. Notice how he doesn't want to blame the government at all
China is a paradise for all the world's poor. Long live socialism!
100% of Chinese people own their own land and property. Because we had the revolution. 60 years ago, 300 landowners owned 90% of China's family land, 4 family owns 90% of China's wealth. 400 million Chinese people hungry and cold. So we revolution. Thanks to our leader Chairman Mao, let us live a life today. Looking back now, we cried.
How many shady, corrupt politicians does it take for the American people to realize that government is not looking out for you? They are looking for your votes and after that, they'll rob you blind. Government healthcare, social security, welfare, etc. is all an enormous failure. Wake up!
@13RC101 Lol the majority of the people don't even care to vote what makes you think they will care about what the goverment does, they wont until the nation collapses.
People wish to take no responsibility at all for the way things are. Point and blame is the motto (gov't, corporations, etc etc).
Everything we consume is because we choose to consume it. Nothing is "forced" upon us, even though we like to believe so, therefore allowing us not to take responsibility for our own actions. It is sad how " keeping up with the Jones' " seems to be such a high priority in our lives.
People will never admit to this... that is, until they are forced to.
People wish to take no responsibility at all for the way things are. Point and blame is the motto (gov't, corporations, etc etc).
Everything we consume is because we choose to consume it. Nothing is "forced" upon us, even though we like to believe so, therefore allowing us not to take responsibility for our own actions. It is sad how " keeping up with the Jones' " seems to be such a high priority in our lives.
People will never admit to this... that is, until they are forced to.
@miasma1616 Bravo, bravo! Glad to see SOMEONE here gets it! Culture is why the world is falling apart. We have abandoned virtue in pursuit of self interest. Self interest is not "evil" as MM would imply... but balance has been lost. We must restore the virtue that made us great, including (but not only) the United States.
What do you mean "gets him to admit"? I'm pretty sure Michael Moore has never claimed that we have 'pure capitalism.' Its the PURSUIT of pure capitalism that gives us corporatism.
@eirefrance Free market capitalism, as taught by Friedman, discourages corporatism and oligopoly of every kind. Especially governmental/quasi-mili monopolies (like the power/energy industry). The focus is on small business and when those business reach an inexpandable limit, goods must rise in quality while lowering in price, creating a top-down paradox. The kind seen in the rail/shipping industry.
@eirefrance Of course, this was in the context of the existing market. In the absence of the stock market and the system of bidding on perpetual growth, there would be, in effect, no such thing as a non-expandable industry/business... unless of course people stop making babies.
a.) Michael Moore doesn't know what "democracy" is. America is not and never has been a democracy. Constitutional Republic. True democracy discourages inovation and positive change. He lives in the illusion that people are economically created equal.
b) If everyone in a company has a say, who exactly starts new businesses?
c) This idealism may sell books and films... but it has little practical application in the real world.
@eirefrance Right. But employee-shares are not a method of democracy... because everyone does not own an equal share. The exception is very small businesses which are nothing more than partnerships (unless filed as corps) and not the type of corporation MM is talking about. I worked at ACIPCO (14,000 employees) for 4 years which is employee owned. I had a boss, who had a boss who had a boss... each with more of a say than I. If MM ever worked in these places, he'd know how crazy his ideas are.
@eirefrance This type of democracy among vast enterprises (and to an extent, small businesses) deeply discourages hard-work, innovation and entrepreneurship. Throughout history, the few have made ground-breaking discoveries. Not the masses. There's a reason companies are structured the way they are. If MM had listened to Dr. Milton Freidman years ago, he may have learned something about how capitalism ACTUALLY works not how he (the guy never interested) THINKS it works.
@Histonia If you watched Moore's movie Capitalism, you would see evidence to the contrary. In fact, you may find out that Friedman's vision of how he THINKS capitalism works is just as skewed as Moore's. The difference is really that Moore evidence to prove his point, while Friedman uses rhetoric.
@eirefrance You've pointed out the very problem with this generation. No one wants evidence because it reflects culture. WE are all part of the problem. Without much digging, you can find that Friedman was a professor, statistician and Presidential (economic) advisor for more than 30 years. His evidence is overwhelming. Michael Moore has yet to define "capitalism". He confuses it with "corporatism". Two concepts which are polar opposite. He's an entertainer, not an educator.
@Histonia No, YOU define capitalism as different from corporatism. Capitalism is a system whereby trade and industry are run for profit. That, in no way, differentiates it from corporatism. Corporatism is simply a subset of capitalism. You can't really accuse Moore of trying to redefine capitalism to suit your ideology when that's exactly what you're doing. Moore, in fact, never claims to define capitalism. He simply points out it's flaws.
@eirefrance Corporatism is a system where individuals rely mostly on big businesses (corps) for their most basic needs. This is Marxist in nature... not capitalistic. Again, polar. Corporatism is not even close to free-market capitalism. Corporatism is made possible because of governments who are bought out by large businesses.... a concept foreign to free-market capitalists.
@eirefrance Corporations, themselves, run for profit. But not the concept of corporatism. The difference is who controls what. In capitalism, corporations would always be allowed to fail. I.e. bank bailouts are illegal.
@eirefrance The bailouts shouldn't have... but then again, they shouldn't have happened. But they did increase profit according to share holders. In reality, the banks' equity fell so greatly, I don't think they truly increased profit on a long term scale. That didn't stop the CEOs from writing and cashing their own checks.
@eirefrance Friedman didn't base his analysis strictly on opinion (which is exactly what MM has done). He based his research off of thousands of years of empirical evidence. In his classes, he discussed the Roman free-market as well as the American colonial free-market. I have watched the movie, by MM, and he is largely confused about a number of topics. Having never produced a commodity (himself), it's no surprise he (MM) doesn't know what he's talking about.
@Histonia Using the Roman empire and colonial America as examples of a "free" market just shows how hard he is trying to prove his point by selectively choosing evidence. Friedman was brilliant at arguing; but you can't argue an apple into an orange. Both of those economies had varieties of market controls and taxes that affected their economies just like our regulation does.
@eirefrance Sure, but adding/subtracting controls is not the same as overhaul. Moore is not asking for reform. If he were, he wouldn't be viewed the way he is. Friedman had little to prove when the two met... being MM was a kid with little experience. The chips were stacked highly in MF's favor. Again... 30+ years as an administrator, educator and scholar. I know who I'd rather believe.
@Histonia And I don't look to Moore for policy, but that doesn't change the value of his message. All he does is bring sunlight to abuses committed by the powerful. Just because the powerful use the ideology of free markets to give themselves the ability to commit these abuses doesn't put him in opposition to "capitalism" (and I've never heard him say that it does) it puts him opposition to abuse of power.
@Histonia You can call that muckraking if you want, or attacking the job creators, or whatever else you want. Moore never says "I'm an economist", he uses his platform to expose abuse of power. Maybe you should consider why exposing abuses of power seems to put him at odds with you? What is about your philosophy that you find yourself defending injustice and abuse?
@eirefrance I agree with the exposing Michael wants to accomplish. I'm all for it! But not under the banner of "capitalism". If he educated himself more on what some of these terms meant, he'd only be a more powerful orator.
@Histonia Perhaps. However, I think what Moore is doing is pointing out that under the guise of capitalism, these abuses happen. Which is true. It's the same thing Naomi Klein does. Maybe they are barking up the wrong tree, but they both have evidence to back up their claims. So, the question is, if they are not wrong, how come? Where is the weak link between rhetoric and reality?
@eirefrance Virtue, my friend. Virtue is the missing link. Our currently weakened condition is more a cultural phenomenon than simply a fiscal one. Everyone is pointing fingers at everyone except themselves. When everyone is fighting each other, guess who always comes out on top? The guy (company) with the most resources... unless the rule of law is upheld. Which can not happen when the benefit to power is so great as it is today. You and I (and everyone else) made these corps what they are.
@Histonia People have been claiming that virtue has disappeared since Cato's time (speaking of ancient Rome). Maybe that's so, maybe it's not that simple. But, if it is that simple, we've been told that greed is a virtue for some time now. Maybe telling people one of the original cardinal sins is a virtue helped?
@eirefrance I'm only talking about one virtue: integrity. This culture of blaming instead of doing has to end. If we are mad that corporations get rich by destroying us, we should stop buying their product and working in their stores/factories. No laws necessary. Just stop buying/working. Supply and demand will right the situation. People want to blame others for being greedy while they're sitting at a drive-thru holding an iPhone in a Ford.
@eirefrance A lot of instruments the United States military still uses today. He practiced what he preached and worked in a factory for about 15 years... the last 3 of which he ran it.
@Histonia There may be a specific label you're going for here, but copyrights and patents can be bought and sold like anything else. In that sense, intellectual property is a commodity like anything else. Certainly, noone would claim that Steve Jobs never produced anything, and his work was all intellectual.
@eirefrance Except Jobs produced goods and services... and didn't preach anti-capitalism. The point against Michael was that he has yet to produce a tangible. He comments on a number of issues related to those producing but, even in that venture, has misrepresented much of the terminology. How can someone who's never produced a tangible be an expert? He makes a lot of good points, but what I think is intentional misdirection makes his work tilt toward propaganda rather than education.
@Histonia His movies have provided millions of jobs and billions in revenue. Film crew, film company executives, movie theaters owners and employees, concessions producers, DVD producers, truckers and shipping companies, retail, etc... That's quite a tangible.
@eirefrance You're straying from the argument on an "economic" level. A "job" is not a tangible. A loaf of bread is a tangible. Most of those jobs would exist with or without his films. His ideas counter the system which gives companies the ability to provide everyone with a loaf of bread at the most reasonable price... while seeking to provide his product under the same system. Without some form of capitalism, you wouldn't have seen "Capitalism" haha
@eirefrance In other words, MM says what he does to sell copies... not to help people (in my opinion) which is the very thing he accuses corporations of doing. In order to be the change, he has to show the viewers how THEY TOO are responsible for much of what has gone wrong.
@Histonia Perhaps. You're assuming a motivation here. He often finishes his films with suggestions for improvements. Having heard him speak once, I can say that he focused his message on A) solutions and B) trying to get the crowd to understand that this isnt us vs. them in a battle of ideologies but rather that we all live here and a better country is better for everyone. I am certain he says what he believes, which is probably why he is so popular, because he's genuine.
@eirefrance Have you seen his house(s), car(s), etc? The motive is not too subtle. If there weren't money in it, he wouldn't be doing it. I.e. Capitalism. The ironies are endless.
@eirefrance a) No. I do not. In fact, it never has too. b) Every time he gives examples like the one in Milton Friedman's class (Ford Pinto). He likes to argue numbers... instead of principle; until those principles are turned toward him and the average person. A sound principle doesn't change because of the number of people involved (corporation). There's no doubt he has a lot of good ideas. I only take issue with how he presents them.
@eirefrance I'm down to talk about any and every issue. But I'll stop harping on MM when he stops mistreating and misrepresenting fact in order to push a film, book, message, etc. It often causes more harm than good. Kids today don't know what to believe because those with power will say anything for personal gain... MM included.
@Histonia But he doesn't misrepresent facts. Go through Capitalism and show me the facts he misrepresents. Does he misrepresent Dr. Jonas Salk giving away his vaccine for free? Does he misrepresent the message of Christ as not in line with a profit motive? Does he misrepresent the Citibank memos?
He DOES NOT misrepresent facts. At worst, you could say he mislabels what capitalism is, but we've already established that you also mislabel capitalism.
@eirefrance This is where I have to ask: Did YOU actually watch the movie "Capitalism: A love story"? A kid who passed 6th grade social studies could tell you more about how capitalism works. He places superior emphasis on collectivism. That's NOT capitalism. It's corporatism. I think every grievance he has is legitimate... but he takes a tactic that will lead, ultimately, to the destruction of the working man.... in simliar fashion to today's unions. Round and round, we go :)
@Histonia Yes, I watched it. And rewatched it when we started having this discussion. Rather than telling me "Any 6th grader can figure it out" and telling me the definition of capitalism has been redefined to fit your ideological needs, point out what he gets wrong. I gave a few examples above. Feel free to provide your own.
@eirefrance Capitalism, in its most broad definition, is the economic system that gives the most buying power to those with the most capital and those with the most resources the most selling power. In free trade, one's ability to buy and sell is only effected by what he/she owns. The element missing from MM's argument is the principle of private ownership. Though some sociologists argue that motive, not profit, drives people, the only tangible form of labor/resource measurement is currency.
@Histonia Okay, you've provided a definition of capitalism that I can agree with (although ownership is decided on and controlled by the state-the first failure in pretending trade is "free"). Now, at what point in the movie Capitalism does MM miss the "element of private ownership?"
@eirefrance The very nature of capitalism: it doesn't rely on government. We need currency... but a truly capitalistic society would have no fed. The gov't would only print money; not determine its value. Capitalism was first used to put an end to feudalism... the system of appropriating buying/selling power with blood lines and natural (supposedly, devine) nobility. MM's whole perspective, that people are naturally (economically) equal, misses this principle... as seen in this youtube video.
@eirefrance This can evolve into corporatism if unchecked by the market (not government). Gov't doesn't make anything. It only redistributes, under these conditions. In capitalism the emphasis is on the market (and therefore, goods and services) as opposed to MM's proposed system, where laborers (not suppliers or demand-ers, if you will) decide the outcomes. In simple terms: those who have nothing to gain or lose make the rules. This sounds noble but is unrealistic in terms of output.
@eirefrance Economically speaking, the gov't does not "make" any product or service from money/labor/resource it generates on its own. If it does, it is, by definition, not a government. It is a business. The primary source of revenue being: tax. If the government ever buys, sells, builds, subsidizes, lends, grants or borrows, it is with money you and I gave it. Not money it (they), personally, owns. Therefore, gov't takes from some and gives to others. It does not generate anything.
@eirefrance In America, the government SHOULD NEVER determine ownership. Gov't is only meant to protect ownership. Because WE pay for that service. Citizens are not customers. We are share holders.
@Histonia "In America, the government SHOULD NEVER determine ownership."
Okay, I'm going to try a different tact. Just to warn you, this is an exercise is proving that corporatism is a form of capitalism. I tell you this so you don't think I'm trying to spring one on you and so that you have the opportunity to respond to each point I make.
In capitalism, profit is the motive. Morals or ethics MAY play a role in the profit-seeking enterprise of the capitalist, but it is possible to profit in a capitalist system while ignoring ethics.
@eirefrance It is possible to [get away with] ignoring ethics (as it is possible in any economic system) for a short while. In the long run, ethics can only be ignored for as long as the buyer (demand) allows these actions to continue by supporting (buying from) an unethical supplier (company). If neither buyer nor seller (supply/demand) recognizes/practices a standard code of ethics, the person(s) most abundant in knowledge and/or resources progress(es) while crippling the other.
@Histonia You're presuming that the customers have full knowledge of the ethical decisions and behavior of the company. You're also presuming the seller isn't looking to make short term gains. Or that the customers are the ones being treated unethically. The history of conflict diamonds is an example. The victims of the unethical behavior had no means to affect the market.
@Histonia DeBeers, since I mentioned diamonds. One could argue that the meat industry engages in unethical practices, since science has helped us understand how animals feel pain and boredom. But that's beside the point; you agree that simply engaging in unethical behavior does not preclude someone from the rolls of capitalists, right?
@eirefrance Our deviation from capitalism since WWII has allowed corporations to buy votes and get paid in gov't bills. We haven't had real capitalism since the industrial revolution. We have some (distorted) form of it. Hence, the massive protesting and whatnot. At the moment (only) of the infraction, yes, I agree. But we've yet to go into WHO exactly is responsible for maintaining the free-market system. But the sake of argument, my answer is: yes.
@eirefrance It is possible for people to stop buying diamonds from DeBeers/packaged meat. But consumers have ignored this version of "ethics". In our society, people have generally accepted that it's ok to buy DeBeers and packaged meat. So... given those rules, no one is being cheated. A instance of corporatism would be, if someone tried to raise cattle for meat and couldn't because corporations lobbied strict laws (via PETA) written so only they could raise cattle... wait. That's happening! lol
@Histonia No one is being cheated....except the animals who are penned into small cages, pumped with hormones, spend their entire lives in great discomfort and are tortured at the end. Or the people raped and murdered by the African insurgency that can only afford to operate because they sold diamonds to DeBeers. Basically, ethical behavior is broader than cheating customers. Do you agree?
@eirefrance Not in an economic context. If we were arguing cultural deference, I'd say yes. If African countries had free markets who were aware and agreed with this rationale, they would stop this behavior. Likewise, in the meat processing business in the U.S. These "atrocities" (in quotes because I don't fully agree in both cases) are possible in any society; but less frequent in free markets. This assertion converts economic thinking to cultural... which is the bigger issue, I think. Culture.
@Histonia Ok, moving on, then. You seemed to imply that capitalism is about producing tangible objects, right? But I think you would agree that it's really about selling something people want. So, for instance, if I have a skill that is particularly useful to someone who wishes to pay for it, I would be operating within a capitalist system. Even if my particular skill is not necessarily tangible such as military expertise or software encryption.
@eirefrance Yes. Tangibles are what the system is based upon as some are necessary for human survival. Not to imply non-tangibles are not also necessary. As a broad term, capitalism allows those with money (capital) to decide what they wish to buy/sell/invest in, no matter social status/rank/share. This can not be used with any form of gov't except one which allows exclusive, individual property ownership and representation in the governing body (the reason we are a constutional republic).
@Histonia Okay, so if someone has a particular "skill" to sell, it could take the form of an idea, right? So, if I write a book or a song or write some software, this is my book, song or software to sell as I see fit, correct?
@eirefrance If unethical behavior effects a customer, he/she will know at some point. If this effects workers, they will know at some point. I can't think of a single instance where a company has gotten away with unethical behavior for decades and survived. The seller is always looking for short term gains. But an economic system has to provide short term, intermediate and long term gains to be useful for any extended period of time.
@Histonia Or, put another way, if a business engages in unethical behavior and the market punishes the business, would the business still be considered capitalist during the time that they engaged in unethical practices?
@eirefrance Being that a capitalist is simply one with capital looking to invest, yes they would be considered a capitalist at the time of the action. But an economic system, as you know, generally works with flows as time is a constant. So would that person/company be a capitalist? Sure. But if allowed to continue malpractice under a presumed standard code of ethics (for buyer/seller) while profiting, he/she/they is not operating in a capitalistic system... but a form of plutocracy.
@eirefrance As this applies to my own economy (don't know if you live here) some one/company could not ignore ethics for any extended period of time, profit and be a free-market capitalist (which is why we have deviated from capitalism in America). The FMC's gave America all the great things we're known for. The (immoral) corporations are ripping it apart.
@eirefrance This is a huge problem in American culture. Most have ignored their own role in society in pursuit of "the dream". Therefore, they have given undue power to government/corps which caused imbalance. Naturally, the rich keep getting richer. The focus in capitalism is localization as pertains to supply/demand. In Marxist theory, it is generalization which has never worked for an extended period of time. Hence, Russia/China converting, over time, to some variant of free trade.
@eirefrance I haven't redefined capitalism, though. I've only defined it as it has been since the phrase was first used in the 16th century. I haven't gone into any certain type of capitalism. Only it's most basic definition from the most broad scope... capital-ism. Supply and demand is not simply an element of such. It's the cornerstone and very nature of human being. The greater the reward, the harder people tend to work.
"Democracy in the workplace. That you would actually own and run the place were you work"
Now that is great! Actually this is an anarchistic idea. That is how it should be! That is the only way! Thanks Michael Moore for speaking out so clearly.
As we are talking movies. Dare to watch: The Women of Brukman"
He "doesn't want to get into labels" because then he'd have to admit that he's lying in order to push his agenda and sell his books.
He didn't answer the question at all, except for admitting that he has mislabeled his book.
And he's also wrong about us not having any say in the way things are run. We vote with our dollars in a free market. You don't have to shop at Wal-mart, you can go to Target. Also, what does he think stock options are but people owning part of the company? MORON.
@Oyaji291 the freemarket is not democratic. the economy runs based on investment which comes from owners of private stock. their investment determines the livelihood of others. people sell their labor for another to accumulate more stock. something more democratic would have workers playing a part in investment and the general output of the industry they labor in.
@mcshobe2008 Though I would venture to say that if the majority of a company's investors were to pull out and it collapsed, it almost has a democratic penage(sp?) to it. Though not literally.
@Zailang that argument can be used for maybe the commercial aspects of our society but beyond that it does not work. it is undemocratic because people's ability to make a living (workers) are subjected to the will of investors with private stock whos interests are based on expected profits. Resource allocation is left up to a tiny tiny percent of the population --if those aspects were democratized we would be moving in what i think is a better direction.
I want to say as a hypothesis: Capitalism perhaps facilitates corporatism more so than any other form of Government. I would rather see people looking for solutions in governance rather than pointing out the bad. A focus on a solution would help... after all "a pound of prevention is worth a ton of cure".... Congressman and officials have to go through tons of documentation. I love michael to draw up a well rounded document solution because he makes some awesome points! I'll help you Michael.
@brahud The solutions need to be looked at in the economic system itself for the reasons you say: Capitalism facilitates corporatism. Powerful Corp. then utilize the state to further their own ends. From the late 19th ce till the New Deal business sought gov regulation to kill competition. Later they used the state for deregulation. small example. The point is that the state (and army) is under control of corporate influence because capitalism is a system that concentrates wealth in few hands.
Corporatism is a direct result of unfettered, deregulated, free-market capitalism. Because as Karl Popper said "If the government does not intervene and try to control the markets, other shady organisations, such as trusts, multi-national predators and political extremes, will." If you let the markets run amok, there is nothing stopping them from banding together to create monopolies, infiltrating government to pass favourable laws and crushing the middle- and working-class.
Well take the other end of that. What makes you think a government that intervenes will be one that hasn't already been infiltrated by special interests and corporations? Yes the possibility of government and corporate collusion is always there, but I don't think the level of government involvement in the private sector really affects that. The only solution is to make government as small as possible to minimize the inevitable effect of when government is infiltrated.
@takadi If government, which is created by and for the people, loses our confidence and if we crush it - then our lives will be dominated entirely by the mighty corporate interests. Government is the only intermediary institution between unsecure, powerless citizens and irresponsible, uninterested corporations. If you have an entirely free market with no government intervention to even the playing field, then all competitors will be killed off and 3-4 immensely powerful corporations will be left
When you talk about an "entirely" free market, you are referring to a market anarchy, which has never existed in human history. Also, there is no evidence of correlation between the level of market freedom and the power of corporations over people . Corporations have been ruling over the people since the beginning of civilization regardless of free markets. They are able to do so because they have thugs to do their bidding. It just so happens that government is the most effective at this.
@takadi The dream is over for us........the constitution is a joke to these gov. officials. We might as well just become Europe if you all want to be like Europe. Here's the problem with Europe-especially France-We Americans are subsidizing(spelling) the French with their military protection so that they can pay for everyone's health insurance. It will soon collapse because the system can't handle that either. Also, France imports cheap labor from Moslum countries for the rich elite-like us
@MrMfloor I find it utterly hilarious how a small select economic elite has brainwashed an entire nation into relying on them as opposed to a democratically elected body by invoking knee jerk patrotism ... I think you deserve your own fate and relish its advance. I have to purchase car insurance and find it utterly infuriating how much I get ripped off, if I had to do the same for medical insurance I think I'd just leave the country
@MrMfloor I agree the french are too socialist for they're own good, they rely on government subsidies to support failing business. Defense spending is pointless though,we have nuclear weapons, nobody will ever again provoke war, terrorism is the the last bastion of the defiant but you can't stave off terrorist with gunships
@alsdaftable we rely on government subsidies to support business. not only the bank bailout. the entire high tech industry was built through government support... by providing plants, subsidies, and BUYING the product. the guarantee a market to aid investment.Thats what defense spending is and that is why it is used. It provides demand in an economy. That has been its function since WW2. The national defense highway act suburbanized america... same with aviation industry.
@mcshobe2008 I think we're relatively on the same page... although I'm assuming that when you refer to defense spending you mean the portion of it that is used for developing prototypes, product development etc all of which I'm of course in favour of. This is a small portion of what constitutes defense spending though.
TANSTAAFL!
jefeller 5 days ago
Ya it says we the people not we the goverment.....F*** michael Moore!!
p.s this username was a mistake from 4 years ago....Ron Paul 2012!
indians4bobbyjindal 4 weeks ago
@indians4bobbyjindal We the people elected we the government, dumb ass. So you have bad government, blame yourself for voting for bad government. Vote third party, vote independently.
thedocumentarian 1 week ago
@thedocumentarian Maybe he's in the minority or maybe the ruling class is in minority opinion. Proportional representation doesn't take place here, so don't blame an individual for what a collective set of people have voted for.
The Republic of the United States will not fall!
"the rule of law and not of men"
jefeller 1 week ago
FAT FUCKING SLOB
TheHAMMER77777 1 month ago
fuck you. hating on the japanese. rot in hell you fuck
jcindass89 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
As usual, a guy like Michael Moore correctly identifies the problem but fails to identify the real CAUSE. Yes, college is too expensive. If the federal government hadn't begun guaranteeing loans in the 1960s, post-sec education would truly be a free market - capitalism - rather than the crony fascist system it is today, and we could still afford to go to college without loans! Rather than blame capitalism Moore should stick the blame where it belongs-at the feet of lousy government policy.
ghiisga 1 month ago
By mislabeling his movie he has ruined his credibility.
clintcastle 1 month ago
He complains over the superpaid CEOs without considering how the free market works. In a free market, if the Chiefs pay themselves waay to much, their products would have to be a bit more expensive. With more expensive products, other companies will beat them in the market, then they would go out of business if they don't cut their salary.
Today, There's a big government that bail them out to "stimulate" the economy.( i.e. use the people's money to pay their crazy wages)
Andersll11 1 month ago
Wow. I actually agreed with Michael Moore for a while until he started talking about income inequality. Too bad he's so much of a marxist.
jefeller 1 month ago
@jefeller I agree with Moore too....until he starts talking.
beatles1000 1 month ago
@jefeller Having more equality with income is not Marxist. Just because the word equal is used does not mean it's from communism. What about equal opportunity, equal protection, equal income starting wages, equal competition, equal wage liability. Etc. Read a book.
thedocumentarian 1 week ago
@thedocumentarian
I would encourage you to read a book, sir!
Forced equality of income through redistribution of wealth is inherently Marxist. That is the founding tenant and ultimate goal of Marxism. It is to set about a classless society to destroy a perceived class struggle.
Capitalism lifted the grinding masses out of poverty unlike any system before it. If you let the free markets work, they quickly and steadily raise living standards. Thats why people in the America don't live in mud huts
jefeller 1 week ago
@jefeller Okay. You altered my words to something very different. "More equality income" is different than what you said which was "forced equality of income through distribution of wealth." What I said isn't Marxist (I've read both Marx books) and what you said is fundamentally, communism. A social democracy, which Norwegian countries have, include more income equality. Their standards of living are higher, they have more social programs and they are doing very well.
thedocumentarian 1 week ago
@thedocumentarian If you suggest that the government should forcibly take your wealth on threat of imprisonment or death, in order to reduce or eliminate income inequality, it is Marxist. It is then a matter of degree of how much you want of re-distribution.
A "social" democracy is not economically feasible on a large scale, and that's not just my opinion. The Euro debt crisis is the result of social democracy where too many people want too much free stuff. I wish, but it just can't work here.
jefeller 1 week ago
@jefeller Wrong again. For the past 200 years, we've had government constitutionally authorized to collect taxes from people, including the wealthy. Would you call the 16th amendment Marxist? I highly doubt it and a rational person would think so too. When government collects additional revenue through taxes and creates programs for the consumer to save money, the economy grows and incomes of everyone grow. Income equality could be simply as creating a system of consumer safety nets.
thedocumentarian 5 days ago
@thedocumentarian I'm arguing an ethical argument with you, not a legal one. If you wouldn't let your next door neighbor hold you at gunpoint for 20% of your income, why should you let a man with a gov badge do it? The gov is just a collection of individuals.
The 16th amendment is somewhat Marxist. It was put in place under the most progressive US president, Wilson.
You have your demand side economics down. But you forget about supply, just as important. Supply is always reduced by taxation.
jefeller 5 days ago
@jefeller If you know what the process is to put forth an amendment for vote, you wouldn't be pointing fingers at Wilson. Somewhat Marxist? So anything that collects money for the common good is Marxist? Would you like the American people to follow an individual mindset similar to the national Juche ideologie of self-reliance? I don't think so. It would destroy us and create an absolute Darwintopia.
It doesn't start with the 16th amendment, it starts with the promotion of a general welfare.
thedocumentarian 4 days ago
@thedocumentarian Ah, but for whose common good? And who says it is both for the common, and who says it is good? Well the tax collector of course!
To suggest that an individual is just a cell in an organism is misleading and needlessly altruistic. You make different decisions than I do. I have no allegiance or war with you.
It doesn't matter what the legal system says or does, a forced redistribution of wealth is both immoral and unethical. I tolerate taxation but promote free-market ideas.
jefeller 4 days ago
@jefeller For the common good of the American people! It's a constitutional declaration on behalf of the founding fathers. Jefferson, Madison, Morris, Adams and several others spoke on behalf of the American people and spoke of the necessity to promote the general welfare.
If you think that a forced redistribution of wealth is immoral, then you should protest against any public service that you use. Don't drive on roads, drink water, buy safe appliances, purchase food, etc. List goes on.
thedocumentarian 1 day ago
@thedocumentarian
UL approves such a large array of electronic appliances and items and its a private consumer reporting company. You have conflated all these functions as exclusively government roles. Even so called public good problems such as the internet where access is free is solved with advertising, keyword auctioning, etc.
takadi 1 day ago
@takadi UL is a needle in a haystack. It really is. However, their private consumer reporting does not include the process of requiring private and public companies to have a set of standards for their goods and services. A private company cannot do that. Consumer reporting does not have the power to PREVENT something from exploding, physically and economically speaking.
It may have come off as conflated scenario but I also mention the role of the private market.
thedocumentarian 1 day ago
@thedocumentarian The government doesn't save something from exploding, physically and economically speaking, they in fact encourage products and economies to explode.
Competitive supply delivers better products to the demand. That's why free markets work better than command economies.
jefeller 17 hours ago
@thedocumentarian Sorry, that's BS. If the common good is to eliminate gays or forcibly inject drugs to dumb you down, would you still support the common good?
The common good is the biggest lie ever imposed on mankind. What is more subjective?
It is created by those in power or those who seek it.
jefeller 17 hours ago
@thedocumentarian I will work for a policy change towards free market public alternatives--toll roads, private (more competitive) water systems, list goes on. To make such changes without using public goods would be an ineffective use of my energies.
Free markets get you cleaner foods/better appliances than the low standards the government imposes because suppliers have to fight harder to get you the absolute best product. If you care about demand side, you should want supply to work harder 4 u.
jefeller 17 hours ago
@jefeller A social democracy actually is economically feasible on a large scale. Look at the economies of Japan, Sweden, Norway, The Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, Australia, etc. I don't know where you get your data but the Euro debt crisis isn't the results of social democracy. Quite frankly, those countries who are involved in the Euro debt crisis are run by conservatives. Look it up.
You can have social REGULATED programs with guidelines and rules, just like with private industry.
thedocumentarian 5 days ago
@thedocumentarian Doesn't matter what party they belong to, what matters are the fundamentals put in place. You can argue for the moral obligation to input government top down policies, but don't tell me they are economically feasible. It is a fact--even from keynes himself--that government crowding out and regulation creates deadweight loss. Do you know anything about economics?
The Scandanavian countries like finland are about 1.5% of the size of the US, and they don't invent iPhones.
jefeller 5 days ago
@jefeller I think you must know that there is a difference between innovation and invention. The iPhone was an innovation of the cell phone. Just like Nokia was an innovator of cellphones from Finland. That is a poor logic on your part.
If you using Keynes government and wealth quote, why did he have optimism for FDR's policies during the depression, "You are the only one who sees the necessity of a profound change of methods and is attempting it without intolerance, tyranny or destruction."
thedocumentarian 4 days ago
@thedocumentarian I used the iPhone example to show that free(er) markets make the big ideas. I should have looked that up on my great Nokia phone which is better than my iPhone [sarcasm].
Keynes believed in government intervention. Increase G--> multiplier effect--> increase real gdp. I know Keynes. Keynes acknowledged positive short term effects of +G, but he also knew the side effects: deadweight loss. Thats why he only said we should use expansionary policy in a recession.
jefeller 4 days ago
@jefeller You're using personal biases to compare two different companies. At one point in our lifetimes, Nokia was the leader in cell phones. I believe it was 2003 when Nokia was at it's peak. Apple...was in the toilet at the time. Competition. If intervention really did destroy capitalism and "invention" since it's been applied for over 200 years, wouldn't Apple still be in the toilet? Of course not.
thedocumentarian 1 day ago
@thedocumentarian Look, I'm just using the iPhone example as a metaphor of "big ideas".
Intervention doesn't kill capitalism, but it hurts the perfectly democratic system that allows you to vote with your dollars.
jefeller 17 hours ago
@jefeller If capitalism lifed the "grinding masses out of poverty", why is it that every time we have a financial crisis due to capitalism, we have more people placed in poverty. FBI reported stated that 80% of the reason for the financial crisis is because of Wall Street. What does Wall Street do? Exercise free market. We practice corporate capitalism way more than capitalism.
FYI: People in America do live in mud huts, look up the word "slum". Read a book,sir.
thedocumentarian 1 week ago
@thedocumentarian
Wall Street finances Capitalism. It is not capitalism itself. Capitalism is an ideal, not a system.
Those who live in slums do not live in mud huts. They may have lower standards of living compared to others in the US, but they still often have access to food, shelter, television, utilities. Do the poor who live in the Nigeria get this treatment? No. They beg or hunt for food. They build houses out of mud and sticks. They have no access to medical treatment & live short lives.
jefeller 1 week ago
@jefeller Wall Street is capitalism. What do you think stocks and bond prices are, simply pretty green and red numbers to make companies look pretty? Get real. Capitalism actually IS an economic system. Talk to ANY economist and they will tell you that it is an economic system. What ideal does this country run on? Feudalism? Consumerism? Free market...ism?
thedocumentarian 5 days ago
@thedocumentarian No, wall street is not capitalism. Wall street could exist in a mercantilist market or some form of socialist market as well.
No. Every economist (including 3 that I know) understands that capitalism is an ideal, not a system. We do not have a capitalist market, its a mixed one. Any degree of government intervention instantly discounts it from a truly capitalist market and pushes it towards the IDEAL of socialism. Remember, we don't have a capitalist market, its a mixed one.
jefeller 5 days ago
@jefeller I don't know what economists you know but the ones that I know are firm that capitalism IS a system. We have a mixed economy dominated by capitalism. If we didn't have capitalism in our economy, we would have the economy and output of 1980's China. Capitalism does include regulation and intervention. It not, we would all be dead. I think you're confusing the general term capitalism with free market capitalism, a specific form of capitalism. Are you sure you know economics?
thedocumentarian 4 days ago
@thedocumentarian No, I am an economics major.
I am trying to teach you that capitalism is an ideal, like socialism. Capitalism is the idea of a perfect non-interventionist marketplace and socialism is the idea of a perfect all-interventionist market. What happens in the real world is somewhere between (mixed).
Venezuela isn't fully socialist, just like NK isn't. It just mostly is, there might be some very limited degree of free market undertakings involved which disqualifies it.
jefeller 4 days ago
@jefeller So? I studied global political economy as an undergrad and am studying public administration as a grad student.
I'm not here to listen to your supposition on a system of economics which you think is purely ideal. Trust me. It's not. Capitalism on a large scale includes market intervention to sustain practices of innovation, protection, and success. In a non-interventionist marketplace, the economy would suffer at the hands of monopolization and unsafe conditions.
thedocumentarian 1 day ago
@thedocumentarian Political economy is a joke. Its just political philosophy with an economic stat when convenient.
Show me one example where a mostly free market needs intervention (besides policing when someone steals money or property)?
Real monopoly has only occurred historically with the assistance of the the largest monopoly of all: government. And as for unsafe conditions, that is impossible in a free market because supply needs demand as much as demand needs supply.
jefeller 17 hours ago
@jefeller Poor people have access to food and shelter because of social programs. Medicaid, food stamps, and public housing. As said before, none of them are perfect because they need MORE regulation. The private sector benefits US Citizens from regulation and so does the public sector. There is no compromise to each other.
I don't know where you got Nigeria into this but it really is comparing apples and oranges. Would living in cardboard houses in the US (people do) be better than mud huts?
thedocumentarian 5 days ago
@thedocumentarian Surely, you don't think I want people living in mud or cardboard huts? Of course we should keep people from starving or having to sleep outside. My point is that our "poor" people are far richer than poor people in other nations such as Nigeria. It results from an increased standard of living from the economic prosperity Capitalism has given us. Our poor people don't have to worry about genocide, malaria, starvation, etc. We don't live in a third world country.
jefeller 5 days ago
@jefeller Well, I used cardboard huts as an example for your use of mud huts in Nigeria. Haha! "Of course we should keep people form starving or having to sleep outside". Now you're contradicting yourself. Poor people in our country shouldn't have to compare themselves with poor people from other country like a competition. You also agree that we do in fact have capitalism. However, it's sad that some third world countries provide universal healthcare and the richest country in the world can't.
thedocumentarian 4 days ago
@thedocumentarian I'm sorry, I just don't know where I contradicted myself. Quote me twice to show me.
Capitalism and free market ideals revolutionized the world. For the better. That's why you shouldn't disrespect the positive ideals it espouses:
Protection of private property and intellectual property,
Free markets where supply and demand work without interference
Hard work,
Independent and Entrepreneurial spirit,
Risk and Reward,
Invention and Innovation
etc
jefeller 4 days ago
@jefeller You contradiction pertains to your statement of "of course we don't want people without homes". I'd like for your to name a successful non public service that has fed people continuously and housed people without resorting to food pantries and cardboard boxes. Reminds me of Michelle Bachmann.
I agree. Capitalism did revolutionize the world and so did public interest and legislation to use government intervention for the common good in the practice of the SYSTEM that is capitalism..
thedocumentarian 1 day ago
@thedocumentarian Please don't compare me to an imperialist republican.
I'm first trying to show you that taxation is unethical, and then demonstrate why we need it. It might seem backwards to do this, but unless you first gain an understanding of Austrian school economics/philosophy, you can't fully understand capitalism.
You don't have all the facts, please don't be so close minded.
jefeller 17 hours ago
@thedocumentarian The FBI is not a financial or economic entity. The SEC is the organization that polices the financial sector (there are some other smaller ones too).
The business cycle is made more volatile by government messing with it. Government creates bubbles and inflates currency without being able to think rationally on both large and small scales (like a collection of individuals can). Government imposes price ceilings and floors and taxes and regulations which create deadweight loss.
jefeller 1 week ago
@jefeller However, the FBI is federal agency who goes into investigative work on behalf of financial or economic entities.
On the contrary, the business cycle has turned to government TO mess with it. Do you think 2008 was a year of government monetary rewards for banking industries destroying the financial sector? Get real.
Government during the 1950's had more taxes and regulations and the economy BOOMED. Ever heard of the marginal tax rate of 90%? Incomes grew and deficits shrunk.
thedocumentarian 5 days ago
Typo - And yes we can completely boycott one choice through "Capitalism" .......
Sconi71 2 months ago
Wow, I didn't expect this Moore actually gets what the problem is at the beginning of the video - corporatism. But then he looses me, he says he wants power to the people rather than these corporations. YEAH! It's called CAPITALISM it eliminates the ability of corporations to eliminate their competition through government control and make people choose them and allows people to choose other companies that are ethical. IT GIVES TOTAL CONTROL TO THE PEOPLE! So what is he talking about, anyone?
PiercingKnight 2 months ago
@PiercingKnight Actually, Democracy gives control to the people. Corporatism and monopolies, eliminate choice. And yes we can completely boycott one choice if we only have that through "Capitalism", but Democracy is the ultimate ability to control our lives. So in a way Democracy, Corporatism, and Capitalism should exist together but also be in conflict with one another when necessary to balance things.
Sconi71 2 months ago
@Sconi71 Lol Democracy is a form of government we are talking economics here. Domocracy puts people in charge, however, our elected leaders are almost always bought by megabanks and corporations. Allowing government interventionism in economics means megabanks and corporations doing what they want such as eliminating their competition and becoming Gods, and creating corporatism. Capitalism is sort of like direct democracy, it eliminates this problem by putting people in control.
PiercingKnight 1 week ago
@Sconi71 Think about it how many of these corporations and companies are evil remember that movie if corporations are persons then their sociopaths? How many people hate them and would like to choose something else but that something else does not exist because laws put in by the government to help those corporations. I can give you thousand examples just look at raw milk farmers. If you had a choice would you buy from these evil people or would you choose someone else? U have no choice
PiercingKnight 1 week ago
Moore makes over 1000 times the average employee of his movies but he doesn't talk about that. The average would have got about 30k for a year and he got over $22m for the movie and counting depending on royalties. He wants to limit other peoples freedom and income but not his. The old soviet system he talked about only having one car company was that a free market or centrally planned like the system he wants to create? Admit you are a capitalist in the 1% and love it or give the cash away!!!
Freedomnotforced 2 months ago
the funny thing is that capitalists hate the current system as much as michael moore does.
ApocDevTeam 2 months ago
Michael Moore is not credible. The problems we are having with, say, college inflation, is the fact the federal government has made it easy for anyone to get a college loan. That has led to a rise in demand to go to college, and with a rise in demand comes a rise in price. Moore's idea that this can all be fixed through 'tax-funded education' is completely off; that's just shifting the cost to someone else, not lowering it. The federal government has grown too powerful, and must be shrank.
dunkelfier 2 months ago
He makes 500 times more than this kid and he tells him that people shouldn't be making that amount. I got mine you can have yours attitude.
hdstreetbob2009 2 months ago
Michael Moore wants state-controlled natural resources and employee owned businesses made mandatory. Is this not the Webster's definition of Marxism?
Histonia 2 months ago
You said it yourself Moore, your representative is not representing you.... Because we have large ceos being appointed by politician's because they were given a campaign contribution. Notice how he doesn't want to blame the government at all
darkma1ice 2 months ago
@darkma1ice Exactly. Campaign contributors. Like.... Michael Moore. haha
Histonia 2 months ago
America wasn't supposed to be, and shouldn't be a democracy, Michael Liar.
RealLiveDebates 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
China is a paradise for all the world's poor. Long live socialism!
100% of Chinese people own their own land and property. Because we had the revolution. 60 years ago, 300 landowners owned 90% of China's family land, 4 family owns 90% of China's wealth. 400 million Chinese people hungry and cold. So we revolution. Thanks to our leader Chairman Mao, let us live a life today. Looking back now, we cried.
TWpigcomeback 3 months ago
How many shady, corrupt politicians does it take for the American people to realize that government is not looking out for you? They are looking for your votes and after that, they'll rob you blind. Government healthcare, social security, welfare, etc. is all an enormous failure. Wake up!
13RC101 4 months ago
@13RC101 Lol the majority of the people don't even care to vote what makes you think they will care about what the goverment does, they wont until the nation collapses.
9753241860hb 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
People wish to take no responsibility at all for the way things are. Point and blame is the motto (gov't, corporations, etc etc).
Everything we consume is because we choose to consume it. Nothing is "forced" upon us, even though we like to believe so, therefore allowing us not to take responsibility for our own actions. It is sad how " keeping up with the Jones' " seems to be such a high priority in our lives.
People will never admit to this... that is, until they are forced to.
miasma1616 4 months ago
People wish to take no responsibility at all for the way things are. Point and blame is the motto (gov't, corporations, etc etc).
Everything we consume is because we choose to consume it. Nothing is "forced" upon us, even though we like to believe so, therefore allowing us not to take responsibility for our own actions. It is sad how " keeping up with the Jones' " seems to be such a high priority in our lives.
People will never admit to this... that is, until they are forced to.
miasma1616 4 months ago
@miasma1616 Bravo, bravo! Glad to see SOMEONE here gets it! Culture is why the world is falling apart. We have abandoned virtue in pursuit of self interest. Self interest is not "evil" as MM would imply... but balance has been lost. We must restore the virtue that made us great, including (but not only) the United States.
Histonia 2 months ago
What do you mean "gets him to admit"? I'm pretty sure Michael Moore has never claimed that we have 'pure capitalism.' Its the PURSUIT of pure capitalism that gives us corporatism.
eirefrance 5 months ago
@eirefrance Free market capitalism, as taught by Friedman, discourages corporatism and oligopoly of every kind. Especially governmental/quasi-mili monopolies (like the power/energy industry). The focus is on small business and when those business reach an inexpandable limit, goods must rise in quality while lowering in price, creating a top-down paradox. The kind seen in the rail/shipping industry.
Histonia 2 months ago
@eirefrance Of course, this was in the context of the existing market. In the absence of the stock market and the system of bidding on perpetual growth, there would be, in effect, no such thing as a non-expandable industry/business... unless of course people stop making babies.
Histonia 2 months ago
The people do have say....They're consumers you idiot!
BaldyV 5 months ago 2
a.) Michael Moore doesn't know what "democracy" is. America is not and never has been a democracy. Constitutional Republic. True democracy discourages inovation and positive change. He lives in the illusion that people are economically created equal.
b) If everyone in a company has a say, who exactly starts new businesses?
c) This idealism may sell books and films... but it has little practical application in the real world.
Histonia 5 months ago 3
@Histonia
b) The world is full of worker-owned businesses. I ran one myself for 6 years.
eirefrance 5 months ago
@eirefrance Right. But employee-shares are not a method of democracy... because everyone does not own an equal share. The exception is very small businesses which are nothing more than partnerships (unless filed as corps) and not the type of corporation MM is talking about. I worked at ACIPCO (14,000 employees) for 4 years which is employee owned. I had a boss, who had a boss who had a boss... each with more of a say than I. If MM ever worked in these places, he'd know how crazy his ideas are.
Histonia 4 months ago
@eirefrance This type of democracy among vast enterprises (and to an extent, small businesses) deeply discourages hard-work, innovation and entrepreneurship. Throughout history, the few have made ground-breaking discoveries. Not the masses. There's a reason companies are structured the way they are. If MM had listened to Dr. Milton Freidman years ago, he may have learned something about how capitalism ACTUALLY works not how he (the guy never interested) THINKS it works.
Histonia 4 months ago
@Histonia If you watched Moore's movie Capitalism, you would see evidence to the contrary. In fact, you may find out that Friedman's vision of how he THINKS capitalism works is just as skewed as Moore's. The difference is really that Moore evidence to prove his point, while Friedman uses rhetoric.
eirefrance 2 months ago
@eirefrance You've pointed out the very problem with this generation. No one wants evidence because it reflects culture. WE are all part of the problem. Without much digging, you can find that Friedman was a professor, statistician and Presidential (economic) advisor for more than 30 years. His evidence is overwhelming. Michael Moore has yet to define "capitalism". He confuses it with "corporatism". Two concepts which are polar opposite. He's an entertainer, not an educator.
Histonia 2 months ago
Comment removed
Histonia 2 months ago
@Histonia No, YOU define capitalism as different from corporatism. Capitalism is a system whereby trade and industry are run for profit. That, in no way, differentiates it from corporatism. Corporatism is simply a subset of capitalism. You can't really accuse Moore of trying to redefine capitalism to suit your ideology when that's exactly what you're doing. Moore, in fact, never claims to define capitalism. He simply points out it's flaws.
eirefrance 2 months ago
@eirefrance Corporatism is a system where individuals rely mostly on big businesses (corps) for their most basic needs. This is Marxist in nature... not capitalistic. Again, polar. Corporatism is not even close to free-market capitalism. Corporatism is made possible because of governments who are bought out by large businesses.... a concept foreign to free-market capitalists.
Histonia 2 months ago
@Histonia Capitalism is "system whereby trade and industry are run for profit."
Capitalistic means to run something for profit. No more, no less. Does corporatism operate by having trade and industry run for profit?
eirefrance 2 months ago
@eirefrance Corporations, themselves, run for profit. But not the concept of corporatism. The difference is who controls what. In capitalism, corporations would always be allowed to fail. I.e. bank bailouts are illegal.
Histonia 2 months ago
@Histonia Did the bank bailouts allow the banks to increase their profits?
eirefrance 2 months ago
@eirefrance The bailouts shouldn't have... but then again, they shouldn't have happened. But they did increase profit according to share holders. In reality, the banks' equity fell so greatly, I don't think they truly increased profit on a long term scale. That didn't stop the CEOs from writing and cashing their own checks.
Histonia 2 months ago
@eirefrance Friedman didn't base his analysis strictly on opinion (which is exactly what MM has done). He based his research off of thousands of years of empirical evidence. In his classes, he discussed the Roman free-market as well as the American colonial free-market. I have watched the movie, by MM, and he is largely confused about a number of topics. Having never produced a commodity (himself), it's no surprise he (MM) doesn't know what he's talking about.
Histonia 2 months ago
@Histonia Using the Roman empire and colonial America as examples of a "free" market just shows how hard he is trying to prove his point by selectively choosing evidence. Friedman was brilliant at arguing; but you can't argue an apple into an orange. Both of those economies had varieties of market controls and taxes that affected their economies just like our regulation does.
eirefrance 2 months ago
@eirefrance Sure, but adding/subtracting controls is not the same as overhaul. Moore is not asking for reform. If he were, he wouldn't be viewed the way he is. Friedman had little to prove when the two met... being MM was a kid with little experience. The chips were stacked highly in MF's favor. Again... 30+ years as an administrator, educator and scholar. I know who I'd rather believe.
Histonia 2 months ago
@Histonia And I don't look to Moore for policy, but that doesn't change the value of his message. All he does is bring sunlight to abuses committed by the powerful. Just because the powerful use the ideology of free markets to give themselves the ability to commit these abuses doesn't put him in opposition to "capitalism" (and I've never heard him say that it does) it puts him opposition to abuse of power.
eirefrance 2 months ago
@Histonia You can call that muckraking if you want, or attacking the job creators, or whatever else you want. Moore never says "I'm an economist", he uses his platform to expose abuse of power. Maybe you should consider why exposing abuses of power seems to put him at odds with you? What is about your philosophy that you find yourself defending injustice and abuse?
eirefrance 2 months ago
@eirefrance I agree with the exposing Michael wants to accomplish. I'm all for it! But not under the banner of "capitalism". If he educated himself more on what some of these terms meant, he'd only be a more powerful orator.
Histonia 2 months ago
@Histonia Perhaps. However, I think what Moore is doing is pointing out that under the guise of capitalism, these abuses happen. Which is true. It's the same thing Naomi Klein does. Maybe they are barking up the wrong tree, but they both have evidence to back up their claims. So, the question is, if they are not wrong, how come? Where is the weak link between rhetoric and reality?
eirefrance 2 months ago
@eirefrance Virtue, my friend. Virtue is the missing link. Our currently weakened condition is more a cultural phenomenon than simply a fiscal one. Everyone is pointing fingers at everyone except themselves. When everyone is fighting each other, guess who always comes out on top? The guy (company) with the most resources... unless the rule of law is upheld. Which can not happen when the benefit to power is so great as it is today. You and I (and everyone else) made these corps what they are.
Histonia 2 months ago
@Histonia People have been claiming that virtue has disappeared since Cato's time (speaking of ancient Rome). Maybe that's so, maybe it's not that simple. But, if it is that simple, we've been told that greed is a virtue for some time now. Maybe telling people one of the original cardinal sins is a virtue helped?
eirefrance 2 months ago
@eirefrance I'm only talking about one virtue: integrity. This culture of blaming instead of doing has to end. If we are mad that corporations get rich by destroying us, we should stop buying their product and working in their stores/factories. No laws necessary. Just stop buying/working. Supply and demand will right the situation. People want to blame others for being greedy while they're sitting at a drive-thru holding an iPhone in a Ford.
Histonia 2 months ago
@Histonia A) Since when is intellectual property not considered a commodity?
B) By that metric, what commodity did Friedman produce?
eirefrance 2 months ago
@eirefrance A lot of instruments the United States military still uses today. He practiced what he preached and worked in a factory for about 15 years... the last 3 of which he ran it.
Histonia 2 months ago
@Histonia Interesting, I didn't know that.
eirefrance 2 months ago
@eirefrance Intellectual property would be a secondary good.... the metal used to make the cameras MM films with is a commodity.
Histonia 2 months ago
@Histonia There may be a specific label you're going for here, but copyrights and patents can be bought and sold like anything else. In that sense, intellectual property is a commodity like anything else. Certainly, noone would claim that Steve Jobs never produced anything, and his work was all intellectual.
eirefrance 2 months ago
@eirefrance Except Jobs produced goods and services... and didn't preach anti-capitalism. The point against Michael was that he has yet to produce a tangible. He comments on a number of issues related to those producing but, even in that venture, has misrepresented much of the terminology. How can someone who's never produced a tangible be an expert? He makes a lot of good points, but what I think is intentional misdirection makes his work tilt toward propaganda rather than education.
Histonia 2 months ago
@Histonia His movies have provided millions of jobs and billions in revenue. Film crew, film company executives, movie theaters owners and employees, concessions producers, DVD producers, truckers and shipping companies, retail, etc... That's quite a tangible.
eirefrance 2 months ago
@eirefrance You're straying from the argument on an "economic" level. A "job" is not a tangible. A loaf of bread is a tangible. Most of those jobs would exist with or without his films. His ideas counter the system which gives companies the ability to provide everyone with a loaf of bread at the most reasonable price... while seeking to provide his product under the same system. Without some form of capitalism, you wouldn't have seen "Capitalism" haha
Histonia 2 months ago
@Histonia "Without some form of capitalism, you wouldn't have seen "Capitalism" haha"
EXACTLY!!! And I'm pretty certain Michael Moore knows that, too.
eirefrance 2 months ago
@eirefrance In other words, MM says what he does to sell copies... not to help people (in my opinion) which is the very thing he accuses corporations of doing. In order to be the change, he has to show the viewers how THEY TOO are responsible for much of what has gone wrong.
Histonia 2 months ago
@Histonia Perhaps. You're assuming a motivation here. He often finishes his films with suggestions for improvements. Having heard him speak once, I can say that he focused his message on A) solutions and B) trying to get the crowd to understand that this isnt us vs. them in a battle of ideologies but rather that we all live here and a better country is better for everyone. I am certain he says what he believes, which is probably why he is so popular, because he's genuine.
eirefrance 2 months ago
@eirefrance Have you seen his house(s), car(s), etc? The motive is not too subtle. If there weren't money in it, he wouldn't be doing it. I.e. Capitalism. The ironies are endless.
Histonia 2 months ago
@Histonia A) Do you think that the profit motive negates integrity in all situations?
B) When has Moore ever suggested that people should not profit from their work?
eirefrance 2 months ago
@eirefrance a) No. I do not. In fact, it never has too. b) Every time he gives examples like the one in Milton Friedman's class (Ford Pinto). He likes to argue numbers... instead of principle; until those principles are turned toward him and the average person. A sound principle doesn't change because of the number of people involved (corporation). There's no doubt he has a lot of good ideas. I only take issue with how he presents them.
Histonia 2 months ago
@Histonia Okay. Well, that's fair. Then let's discuss the issues and not make Moore out to be a strawman.
eirefrance 2 months ago
@eirefrance I'm down to talk about any and every issue. But I'll stop harping on MM when he stops mistreating and misrepresenting fact in order to push a film, book, message, etc. It often causes more harm than good. Kids today don't know what to believe because those with power will say anything for personal gain... MM included.
Histonia 2 months ago
@Histonia But he doesn't misrepresent facts. Go through Capitalism and show me the facts he misrepresents. Does he misrepresent Dr. Jonas Salk giving away his vaccine for free? Does he misrepresent the message of Christ as not in line with a profit motive? Does he misrepresent the Citibank memos?
He DOES NOT misrepresent facts. At worst, you could say he mislabels what capitalism is, but we've already established that you also mislabel capitalism.
eirefrance 2 months ago
@eirefrance This is where I have to ask: Did YOU actually watch the movie "Capitalism: A love story"? A kid who passed 6th grade social studies could tell you more about how capitalism works. He places superior emphasis on collectivism. That's NOT capitalism. It's corporatism. I think every grievance he has is legitimate... but he takes a tactic that will lead, ultimately, to the destruction of the working man.... in simliar fashion to today's unions. Round and round, we go :)
Histonia 2 months ago
@Histonia Yes, I watched it. And rewatched it when we started having this discussion. Rather than telling me "Any 6th grader can figure it out" and telling me the definition of capitalism has been redefined to fit your ideological needs, point out what he gets wrong. I gave a few examples above. Feel free to provide your own.
eirefrance 2 months ago
@eirefrance Capitalism, in its most broad definition, is the economic system that gives the most buying power to those with the most capital and those with the most resources the most selling power. In free trade, one's ability to buy and sell is only effected by what he/she owns. The element missing from MM's argument is the principle of private ownership. Though some sociologists argue that motive, not profit, drives people, the only tangible form of labor/resource measurement is currency.
Histonia 2 months ago
@Histonia Okay, you've provided a definition of capitalism that I can agree with (although ownership is decided on and controlled by the state-the first failure in pretending trade is "free"). Now, at what point in the movie Capitalism does MM miss the "element of private ownership?"
eirefrance 2 months ago
@eirefrance The very nature of capitalism: it doesn't rely on government. We need currency... but a truly capitalistic society would have no fed. The gov't would only print money; not determine its value. Capitalism was first used to put an end to feudalism... the system of appropriating buying/selling power with blood lines and natural (supposedly, devine) nobility. MM's whole perspective, that people are naturally (economically) equal, misses this principle... as seen in this youtube video.
Histonia 2 months ago
@eirefrance This can evolve into corporatism if unchecked by the market (not government). Gov't doesn't make anything. It only redistributes, under these conditions. In capitalism the emphasis is on the market (and therefore, goods and services) as opposed to MM's proposed system, where laborers (not suppliers or demand-ers, if you will) decide the outcomes. In simple terms: those who have nothing to gain or lose make the rules. This sounds noble but is unrealistic in terms of output.
Histonia 2 months ago
@Histonia "Gov't doesn't make anything"
Wrong, govt determines ownership and protects it, allowing people the freedom to profit from their venture.
eirefrance 2 months ago
@eirefrance Economically speaking, the gov't does not "make" any product or service from money/labor/resource it generates on its own. If it does, it is, by definition, not a government. It is a business. The primary source of revenue being: tax. If the government ever buys, sells, builds, subsidizes, lends, grants or borrows, it is with money you and I gave it. Not money it (they), personally, owns. Therefore, gov't takes from some and gives to others. It does not generate anything.
Histonia 2 months ago
@eirefrance In America, the government SHOULD NEVER determine ownership. Gov't is only meant to protect ownership. Because WE pay for that service. Citizens are not customers. We are share holders.
Histonia 2 months ago
@Histonia "In America, the government SHOULD NEVER determine ownership."
Okay, I'm going to try a different tact. Just to warn you, this is an exercise is proving that corporatism is a form of capitalism. I tell you this so you don't think I'm trying to spring one on you and so that you have the opportunity to respond to each point I make.
eirefrance 2 months ago
@Histonia So, to begin with.
In capitalism, profit is the motive. Morals or ethics MAY play a role in the profit-seeking enterprise of the capitalist, but it is possible to profit in a capitalist system while ignoring ethics.
Is this true?
eirefrance 2 months ago
@eirefrance It is possible to [get away with] ignoring ethics (as it is possible in any economic system) for a short while. In the long run, ethics can only be ignored for as long as the buyer (demand) allows these actions to continue by supporting (buying from) an unethical supplier (company). If neither buyer nor seller (supply/demand) recognizes/practices a standard code of ethics, the person(s) most abundant in knowledge and/or resources progress(es) while crippling the other.
Histonia 2 months ago
@Histonia You're presuming that the customers have full knowledge of the ethical decisions and behavior of the company. You're also presuming the seller isn't looking to make short term gains. Or that the customers are the ones being treated unethically. The history of conflict diamonds is an example. The victims of the unethical behavior had no means to affect the market.
eirefrance 2 months ago
Comment removed
Histonia 2 months ago
@Histonia DeBeers, since I mentioned diamonds. One could argue that the meat industry engages in unethical practices, since science has helped us understand how animals feel pain and boredom. But that's beside the point; you agree that simply engaging in unethical behavior does not preclude someone from the rolls of capitalists, right?
eirefrance 2 months ago
@eirefrance Our deviation from capitalism since WWII has allowed corporations to buy votes and get paid in gov't bills. We haven't had real capitalism since the industrial revolution. We have some (distorted) form of it. Hence, the massive protesting and whatnot. At the moment (only) of the infraction, yes, I agree. But we've yet to go into WHO exactly is responsible for maintaining the free-market system. But the sake of argument, my answer is: yes.
Histonia 2 months ago
@eirefrance It is possible for people to stop buying diamonds from DeBeers/packaged meat. But consumers have ignored this version of "ethics". In our society, people have generally accepted that it's ok to buy DeBeers and packaged meat. So... given those rules, no one is being cheated. A instance of corporatism would be, if someone tried to raise cattle for meat and couldn't because corporations lobbied strict laws (via PETA) written so only they could raise cattle... wait. That's happening! lol
Histonia 2 months ago
@Histonia No one is being cheated....except the animals who are penned into small cages, pumped with hormones, spend their entire lives in great discomfort and are tortured at the end. Or the people raped and murdered by the African insurgency that can only afford to operate because they sold diamonds to DeBeers. Basically, ethical behavior is broader than cheating customers. Do you agree?
eirefrance 2 months ago
@eirefrance Not in an economic context. If we were arguing cultural deference, I'd say yes. If African countries had free markets who were aware and agreed with this rationale, they would stop this behavior. Likewise, in the meat processing business in the U.S. These "atrocities" (in quotes because I don't fully agree in both cases) are possible in any society; but less frequent in free markets. This assertion converts economic thinking to cultural... which is the bigger issue, I think. Culture.
Histonia 2 months ago
@eirefrance For the sake of argument, I'll say yes... so we can move on :)
Histonia 2 months ago
@Histonia Ok, moving on, then. You seemed to imply that capitalism is about producing tangible objects, right? But I think you would agree that it's really about selling something people want. So, for instance, if I have a skill that is particularly useful to someone who wishes to pay for it, I would be operating within a capitalist system. Even if my particular skill is not necessarily tangible such as military expertise or software encryption.
eirefrance 2 months ago
Comment removed
Histonia 2 months ago
@eirefrance Yes. Tangibles are what the system is based upon as some are necessary for human survival. Not to imply non-tangibles are not also necessary. As a broad term, capitalism allows those with money (capital) to decide what they wish to buy/sell/invest in, no matter social status/rank/share. This can not be used with any form of gov't except one which allows exclusive, individual property ownership and representation in the governing body (the reason we are a constutional republic).
Histonia 2 months ago
@Histonia Okay, so if someone has a particular "skill" to sell, it could take the form of an idea, right? So, if I write a book or a song or write some software, this is my book, song or software to sell as I see fit, correct?
eirefrance 2 months ago
@eirefrance Sorry for grammatical/spelling errors. I've only recently awaken.
Histonia 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@eirefrance If unethical behavior effects a customer, he/she will know at some point. If this effects workers, they will know at some point. I can't think of a single instance where a company has gotten away with unethical behavior for decades and survived. The seller is always looking for short term gains. But an economic system has to provide short term, intermediate and long term gains to be useful for any extended period of time.
Histonia 2 months ago
@Histonia Or, put another way, if a business engages in unethical behavior and the market punishes the business, would the business still be considered capitalist during the time that they engaged in unethical practices?
eirefrance 2 months ago
@eirefrance Being that a capitalist is simply one with capital looking to invest, yes they would be considered a capitalist at the time of the action. But an economic system, as you know, generally works with flows as time is a constant. So would that person/company be a capitalist? Sure. But if allowed to continue malpractice under a presumed standard code of ethics (for buyer/seller) while profiting, he/she/they is not operating in a capitalistic system... but a form of plutocracy.
Histonia 2 months ago
Comment removed
Histonia 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@eirefrance As this applies to my own economy (don't know if you live here) some one/company could not ignore ethics for any extended period of time, profit and be a free-market capitalist (which is why we have deviated from capitalism in America). The FMC's gave America all the great things we're known for. The (immoral) corporations are ripping it apart.
Histonia 2 months ago
Comment removed
Histonia 2 months ago
@eirefrance This is a huge problem in American culture. Most have ignored their own role in society in pursuit of "the dream". Therefore, they have given undue power to government/corps which caused imbalance. Naturally, the rich keep getting richer. The focus in capitalism is localization as pertains to supply/demand. In Marxist theory, it is generalization which has never worked for an extended period of time. Hence, Russia/China converting, over time, to some variant of free trade.
Histonia 2 months ago
@eirefrance I haven't redefined capitalism, though. I've only defined it as it has been since the phrase was first used in the 16th century. I haven't gone into any certain type of capitalism. Only it's most basic definition from the most broad scope... capital-ism. Supply and demand is not simply an element of such. It's the cornerstone and very nature of human being. The greater the reward, the harder people tend to work.
Histonia 2 months ago
"Democracy in the workplace. That you would actually own and run the place were you work"
Now that is great! Actually this is an anarchistic idea. That is how it should be! That is the only way! Thanks Michael Moore for speaking out so clearly.
As we are talking movies. Dare to watch: The Women of Brukman"
EvocatusNL 6 months ago
He "doesn't want to get into labels" because then he'd have to admit that he's lying in order to push his agenda and sell his books.
He didn't answer the question at all, except for admitting that he has mislabeled his book.
And he's also wrong about us not having any say in the way things are run. We vote with our dollars in a free market. You don't have to shop at Wal-mart, you can go to Target. Also, what does he think stock options are but people owning part of the company? MORON.
will032167 6 months ago 4
@will032167 THIS!!!! I was going to write this. However you beat me too it. :)
Leapsic 6 months ago
wow, I am seeing so many keynesians, viewing this thread. please look at this video to help you change your perspective.
watch?v=8C4gRRk2i-M
Blizeful 6 months ago
So what? work at Taco Hell if you have too..........then follow your dream when you have enough saved up!!!
MrMfloor 6 months ago
Democracy applied to the economy? Sounds like a free market to me. The only thing missing is government force.
Oyaji291 7 months ago
@Oyaji291 the freemarket is not democratic. the economy runs based on investment which comes from owners of private stock. their investment determines the livelihood of others. people sell their labor for another to accumulate more stock. something more democratic would have workers playing a part in investment and the general output of the industry they labor in.
mcshobe2008 6 months ago
@mcshobe2008 Fair enough.
Oyaji291 6 months ago
@mcshobe2008 Though I would venture to say that if the majority of a company's investors were to pull out and it collapsed, it almost has a democratic penage(sp?) to it. Though not literally.
Oyaji291 6 months ago
Capitalism is democratic, you and I vote when we visit the stores and we buy what we want.
Zailang 7 months ago
@Zailang that argument can be used for maybe the commercial aspects of our society but beyond that it does not work. it is undemocratic because people's ability to make a living (workers) are subjected to the will of investors with private stock whos interests are based on expected profits. Resource allocation is left up to a tiny tiny percent of the population --if those aspects were democratized we would be moving in what i think is a better direction.
mcshobe2008 6 months ago
I want to say as a hypothesis: Capitalism perhaps facilitates corporatism more so than any other form of Government. I would rather see people looking for solutions in governance rather than pointing out the bad. A focus on a solution would help... after all "a pound of prevention is worth a ton of cure".... Congressman and officials have to go through tons of documentation. I love michael to draw up a well rounded document solution because he makes some awesome points! I'll help you Michael.
brahud 7 months ago
@brahud The solutions need to be looked at in the economic system itself for the reasons you say: Capitalism facilitates corporatism. Powerful Corp. then utilize the state to further their own ends. From the late 19th ce till the New Deal business sought gov regulation to kill competition. Later they used the state for deregulation. small example. The point is that the state (and army) is under control of corporate influence because capitalism is a system that concentrates wealth in few hands.
mcshobe2008 6 months ago
Corporatism is a direct result of unfettered, deregulated, free-market capitalism. Because as Karl Popper said "If the government does not intervene and try to control the markets, other shady organisations, such as trusts, multi-national predators and political extremes, will." If you let the markets run amok, there is nothing stopping them from banding together to create monopolies, infiltrating government to pass favourable laws and crushing the middle- and working-class.
atosafi1 7 months ago
Well take the other end of that. What makes you think a government that intervenes will be one that hasn't already been infiltrated by special interests and corporations? Yes the possibility of government and corporate collusion is always there, but I don't think the level of government involvement in the private sector really affects that. The only solution is to make government as small as possible to minimize the inevitable effect of when government is infiltrated.
takadi 7 months ago 8
@takadi If government, which is created by and for the people, loses our confidence and if we crush it - then our lives will be dominated entirely by the mighty corporate interests. Government is the only intermediary institution between unsecure, powerless citizens and irresponsible, uninterested corporations. If you have an entirely free market with no government intervention to even the playing field, then all competitors will be killed off and 3-4 immensely powerful corporations will be left
atosafi1 7 months ago
When you talk about an "entirely" free market, you are referring to a market anarchy, which has never existed in human history. Also, there is no evidence of correlation between the level of market freedom and the power of corporations over people . Corporations have been ruling over the people since the beginning of civilization regardless of free markets. They are able to do so because they have thugs to do their bidding. It just so happens that government is the most effective at this.
takadi 7 months ago 7
@takadi The dream is over for us........the constitution is a joke to these gov. officials. We might as well just become Europe if you all want to be like Europe. Here's the problem with Europe-especially France-We Americans are subsidizing(spelling) the French with their military protection so that they can pay for everyone's health insurance. It will soon collapse because the system can't handle that either. Also, France imports cheap labor from Moslum countries for the rich elite-like us
MrMfloor 6 months ago
@MrMfloor I find it utterly hilarious how a small select economic elite has brainwashed an entire nation into relying on them as opposed to a democratically elected body by invoking knee jerk patrotism ... I think you deserve your own fate and relish its advance. I have to purchase car insurance and find it utterly infuriating how much I get ripped off, if I had to do the same for medical insurance I think I'd just leave the country
alsdaftable 6 months ago
@MrMfloor I agree the french are too socialist for they're own good, they rely on government subsidies to support failing business. Defense spending is pointless though,we have nuclear weapons, nobody will ever again provoke war, terrorism is the the last bastion of the defiant but you can't stave off terrorist with gunships
alsdaftable 6 months ago
@alsdaftable we rely on government subsidies to support business. not only the bank bailout. the entire high tech industry was built through government support... by providing plants, subsidies, and BUYING the product. the guarantee a market to aid investment.Thats what defense spending is and that is why it is used. It provides demand in an economy. That has been its function since WW2. The national defense highway act suburbanized america... same with aviation industry.
mcshobe2008 6 months ago
@mcshobe2008 I think we're relatively on the same page... although I'm assuming that when you refer to defense spending you mean the portion of it that is used for developing prototypes, product development etc all of which I'm of course in favour of. This is a small portion of what constitutes defense spending though.
alsdaftable 6 months ago
@alsdaftable i
i dont know