MIchael Moore on "Capitalism: A Love Story"

[Godzie1]

I loved when he showed the 60's when everything was great. I was just a child then but if I knew what would happen in the future? I put the 60s on ice never to move on to this society from hell & Greed!

[rachelmartin1977]

capitalism has trancended into the age of corporate feudalism. essentially we have gone backwards

[rachelmartin1977]

capitalism has trancended into the age of corportae feudalism. essentially we have gone backwards

[emforty2]

we are in a recession but there is no shortage of food housing land manpower clothing resources gasoline talent

and theres actually plenty of Money but only a few have them have it

[Gideon359]

@emforty2 we are temporarily borrowing all this from china

[raqafella1]

You don't have to necessarily agree with everything Michael suggests, but you could take into consideration the main focus; the deceitful manipulation of systems at the expense of "the poeple." You have to take in consideration the huge gap between the middle-class and the wealthy. Also, take note of the pattern of abandoned towns. This is more than just a documentary.

[negotiator84]

totally agree with you!!

PEACE

[raqafella1]

Whether or not Michael buys stocks is irrelevant to the real issue. If what you say is true about him buying stocks than it is hypocritical. But your problem or disagreement with Michael is insignificant to the ISSUE that is affecting the whole country.

[XXXamiraliXXX]

what does he mean a new economic system?the economy is either controled by the state(socialism) or by the Bourgeoisie(capitalism).Isnt it?

[raqafella1]

No. Not necessarily. There are not only 2 forms. Michael is suggesting that we economists should get together to come up with a new system that will work for our country. There is a close-mindedness evident that there are only those 2 choices. Capitalism or the way it is being run, is obviously not working for us and that is reflected by the mass of Americans losing this fight.

[17R3W]

He would argue not,

He would argue you could have some hybrid of the two, then again, he doesn't seem to hate Capitalism as it was in the 1950's and 1960's.

[smackme420]

This is Mike at his best America! Take notice! A New documentary will be out in a few days called, "DO AS I SAY"(not as I do). Mike is yelling, " I have NEVER bought a single share of stock and yet, he bought HALLIBUTRON stock during this murderous rampage we are still engaged in! This doc. is very well done and Mike is confronted with this. What does our hero do? Calls the police on the film-maker! What a FRAUD! What a LIAR! What a HYPOCRITE! Making money on the very Americans he says he loves

[smackme420]

FRAUD! LIAR! HYPOCRITE! What a disappointment you are Mike. Folks, a new documentary will be released very soon called, "DO AS I SAY"(not as I do) While bashing that ass-hole bush, Mike is quietly buying HALLIBURTON Stock! Dollars through death and destruction ay Mike? You are right about one thing, in the end, the truth always comes out! WHAT A LIAR! WHAT A FRAUD! WHAT A HYPOCRITE! Making money off of the very Americans you say you care so much about! SHAME ON YOU! America, take notice!

[teemuruskeepaa]

Michael found it repulsive to talk about his thoughts from the point on when the interviewer asked about it. Michael gestured that hey, that's not a decent question, as if he couldn't be made to open up with such a line of questioning. Maybe Michael thought the host was joyless, too formal

[jrwannabe01]

I worked on Wall Street and I can tell you, Bernie M. was just the tip of an iceberg... a poster boy to invoke emotion and take focus off the core problem; that has become wide-spread cancer.

America will not recover from the precedence of policy set forth from 1981. Kill 10,000 jobs, erase fundamentals to increase one quarter's dividend by 10 basis points.

Here today, 2009, there are no underlining fundamentals to the US Economy. We will work at Walmart, until the bitter end.

It is over.

[TainaAtheist1]

An Opus, I'm sure. MM has always been on target. The masses have been behind, uneducated.

His medium may be our cure.

Thank you, Michael Moore.

.

[hapspir]

Yes, Mr. Moore, there are a few people in America with vast amounts of wealth. Is that supposed to make us angry? Not me. I don't consider another person's wealth to be a threat. What's mine is mine. What's theirs is theirs. And if you're complaining about transportation, I suggest you work to dissolve the Department of Transportation. I would say they've been blowing a ton of our money with little to show for it. Give the innovators a little room to innovate.

[mrbadguysan]

Well, thank Sweet Jesus we've got Jet-Fueled geniuses like you in America!

A pack of assholes gets obscenely rich playing a game "Heads I Win, Tails You Lose" with Investor, Shareholder, Pensioner, and eventually Taxpayer (That's you dummy) money...

instead you piss and moan about Moore and DoT, the world's best selling documentary film maker and the Department of the Government you've probably interacted with the most, respectively.

Please, for the love of all that's good, keep voting!

[hapspir]

"A pack of assholes gets obscenely rich playing a game "Heads I Win, Tails You Lose" with Investor, Shareholder, Pensioner, and eventually Taxpayer (That's you dummy) money..."

That's why I would prefer that nobody be forced to pay taxes anymore. If taxes were 100% voluntary, the govt would be forced to actually do a good job in order to attract revenue. I think in such a scenario the federal budget would shrink to 3-5% of its current size, which is plenty. Goodbye corporate welfare.

[serfdomthwart]

Excellent idea. It seems some Michael Moore fans have a problem with the idea of people keeping the money they earn and spending the money they earn, themselves. They seem to prefer government do the spending.

My question, if the government we have now is doing a horrible job of spending our money for us, would another government do a better job?

Is it just a matter of finding the "right people" to spend our money?

[hapspir]

"if the government is doing a horrible job of spending our money for us, would another government do a better job?"

No. The job the govt is doing shouldn't be attempted by any govt. Our economy has 300 million moving parts. It cannot be managed by a central committee.

"Is it just a matter of finding the "right people" to spend our money?"

No. That would be as pointless as finding the right tree sloth to star in the next James Bond movie.

[serfdomthwart]

These questions weren't directed at you, in particualr. I put them up, in general, to those on here who seem to have a problem with letting people keep the money they earn. These questions are in a way rhetorical.

Thanks anyway for your input.

[Taobert]

serf, we need health care, thanks. oh btw, GW expanded government with Homeland security, something we don't even need, have a nice day!

[serfdomthwart]

People that want health care should be able to buy health care. But the last thing we need is government-run health care. What we need is to get rid of government-mandates that force you to buy services you won't use or want. We also need to get rid of insurance companies and let the market work. Insurance companies exist because of gov't bills. Let the price mechanism function. People don't even know how much medical services cost. It's no wonder insurance companies charge any price they want.

[epa9975]

Michael Moore is a good man.

[serfdomthwart]

In what sense?

[epa9975]

He cares about average people, and he's dedicated his life to trying to make things better for them. Why did I get a thumbs down?

[serfdomthwart]

I see. I think, though, however genuine his desire to better the lives of the ordinary man, his methods are the wrong ones. He is a strong advocate for more government involvement in the economy and peoples' lives. This is, precisely, the root of our problems.

You got a thumbs down because someone gave you a thumbs down.

P.S. It wasn't me. I wanted to hear your response to my question. I might now give you a thumbs down.

[epa9975]

You've seen his movies? Watched him speak in interviews? And that's all you take away? That he wants more government control?

I don't get that he's advocating for anything specific, just more fairness.

[serfdomthwart]

I have seen his movies, watched him speak in interviews, and caught a glimpse of him once on the street; it was a "big" glimpse I must say.

Of course, to make his films commercially successful he adds humor and satire to them. But, the general solution to the problems we face, in his view, is more government involvement, e.g. in Sicko: the solution the health care problem is complete government control of health care; in this film and in interviews: the solution is "guarantees" by government.

[crustychi666]

oh yeah, and what's your solution to ending the healthcare problem for the millions of americans who cant afford the insurance that I'm assuming you have?

[serfdomthwart]

How about competition? Let the price mechanism work-just how lots of other service-providers compete for your business. What's stopping this is intermediaries between patients and doctors, a.k.a. insurance companies. People don't even know how much the services they're buying cost. How can they "shop around" like they do for everything else? Check the bills and mandates Congress has passed (ALREADY) regarding medical services. These bills pretty much created this mess. You like going ot the DMV?

[teemuruskeepaa]

The elite does not argue for competition, price-mechanism, free choice and people's needs. Only amateur politicians like yourself do. Capitalism is forced upon the people because it brings benefits for the rich.

[serfdomthwart]

You're right. The elite argue for bailouts of their companies and legalized plunder. They use the coercive power of government to their benefit. This is only possible because there is, in the first place, a powerful government for them to overtake. In any situation, the rich will overtake whatever government there is. This is true throughout history. This is why we shouldn't have a government so powerful that can cause so much harm when bought.

[serfdomthwart]

You're right when you say that the elite don't argue for capitalism. They argue for corporatism, which is in large part what we have in the U.S. So why, then, do you say capitalism is forced upon the people and brings benefits to the rich? Corporatism brings benefits to the rich. Not capitalism. Capitalism cannot be forced on people since it's people pursuing their own separate interests. They spend their own money and set their own prices. There is little "forcing" involved.

[teemuruskeepaa]

Anthony Giddens's theory of power talks about voluntarism. People are socialized into accepting things that are harmful to their needs and they do it happily. That's because the elite controls the policy and decision making. People can't control their economies or culture because they don't any say in the process. Instead they assume that what they get is inevitable. Forcing Capitalist economic system is the same thing. Especially if you understand how biased it is.

[serfdomthwart]

I do agree that we are currently in bad shape. I don't agree, however, that the solution is more government involvement. Too much government involvement is the problem. We need to move in the opposite direction: far less gov't involvement.

I don't think it's very fair to tax people's earnings from them and then for the gov't to spend it. Government doesn't have all the answers. Government doesn't know what's best for us. You know what's best for you--not gov't.

In this spirit I oppose Moore.

[crustychi666]

what you are saying helps is exactly what put us in the problem we are in now.

I think we can agree then that the bailouts were a TOTAL WASTE of government money that could've been speent on something more worthwhile? after all that was all taxpayer money...

[serfdomthwart]

What exactly are you referring to? What solution do you suggest, specifically?

I think the bailout money would have been better spent by letting people keep their own money. Do you have something against people keeping and spending/saving the money that's theirs and they earned? This would be far better than any "stimulus" government can come up with.

[srsps3]

what you are doing is just and noble, I applaud you, but lose the red cap and shorts, thats why the yanks laugh at you so much, it is sad that you are their only hope, and you dress like an idiot.

[Budapestkick]

I judge people by the content of their character, not by the content of their wardrobes.

[serfdomthwart]

I don't think attacking an economic system that we haven't had in America for 100 years and attributing our present problems to it noble or just. I think it is misleading and fools the people that are going to watch his movie. In his movie, he attacks capitalism. There is one problem: we haven't had capitalism in America for a long time. What we have is corporatism.

There is no economic arrangement more noble and just than people freely pursuing their own separate interests, i.e. free markets.

[serfdomthwart]

Michael More advocates more government involvement in the economy and in the everyday activities of people. Our problems stem, precisely, from too much government involvement. Even more government involvement, then, will not cure our ills but will only compound them and make them far worse.

If Michale Moore genuinely believes more government involvement will fix our problems, then he is mislead. If he believes otherwise and still promotes more government involvement, then he is an evil man.

[crustychi666]

like he even says in the fucking film above- he does not advocate socialism like you are pointing towards, rather a reform of the current system.

[serfdomthwart]

I said Michael Moore advocates more government involvement, which he does. I didn't say he advocates it, explicitly, in this film.

If you're interested, do some research on him. You'll find that his solutions to problems are, to a great extent, greater government involvement. I guess it's just a matter of finding the "right people" to make all thee decisions for people.