It was all going so well until the last sentence: "[the corporate finance] sector is in complete crisis because of the broader deregulation of financial markets."
I agree, money and the state should not mix, but the moment this documentary suggested that banking collapse was a result of the free market and not governments socialising risk while privatising gain it undermined its credibility.
Would you say that the stances the political parties take on many of the "social issues" in the USA are also related to the investment theory? For example, would the Republican party being anti-abortion or the Democrats being pro-gun control have anything to do with their corporate sponsors or do you think those stances are just ways to appeal to blocks of the population (like religious voters, etc.)?
Exactly, those issues have nothing to do with what really matters to their corporate sponsors. Corporations simply care about how the different parties will affect their bottom line. As Ferguson mentions later in the documentary, it amounts to different PR strategies to manipulate the population. Those investing more money on propaganda usually win.
You say so by fiat, so it must be true and everything else pseudoscience. of course, as an enthusiastic supporter of wage slavery, you understandably would like everyone to believe that no other system is less oppressive.
I wonder how Thomas Ferguson's theory of competing blocks of investors weighs in on the issue of health care.
As corporate media coverage demonstrates quite clearly, at least one section of big business opposes Obama's health care reform. The same is true of the Republican party.
Yet, Obama is still attempting to implement it. If we postulate the correctness of the Investment Theory, then there are only two possibilities I can think of:
A) Obama's proposals run contrary to business interests
and are the product of zeal, hence are an exception to or illustrate the malleability of the Investment Theory.
Or
B) There is a section of the business community represented by the Democrats which DOES want health care reform (perhaps because the poor health care in America is harming business), whilst the other section backing the Republicans doesn't.
Oh, and I should probably add that I find this interesting because my understanding is that corporations are overwhelmingly opposed to health care reforms, so I thought that option A) was more likely.
I'm not American, though, so it might be that I haven't judged corporations attitudes to reform correctly.
First of all, Obama's proposed healthcare reform is shamefully pro-health insurance industry and pro-big pharma. There are way more sensible proposals in congress right now which comes close to being a single-payer system and the admin has flatly rejected them.
Second, there are sectors of industry that is supportive of some kind of reform, mainly labor intensive sectors, as it would lower their burden on providing healthcare for their workers.
Ah, I see. I wasn't sure of all of the details of the proposals and was under the impression that it was moving more towards a tax-funded system.
If it's pro-pharmaceutical and health insurance companies, then it makes much more sense and stands to reason that these are the companies financing Obama.
Interesting to see two blocks of investors so vehemently opposed. Seems to be some real conflict in the upper echelons of the social ladder.
The current plan in the senate is similar to one that was implemented here where I live in liberal Massachusetts, crafted and signed into law by.... Mitt Romney, then Republican Governor of MA, who later ran for the GOP nomination for president. During the primaries he denounced his own plan. It was pretty funny to see.
BTW it was a huge gift for the insurance industry, provided a new captive market that is partly subsidized, while it had very limited effect in reducing the cost.
I think B sounds right. I know that in the UAW healthcare demands are strenuous for business, which might explain why healthcare is emerging as a dominant issue. Just look at which companies invested in the Obama campaign.
You should check out "brendanmcooney". He makes very accessible videos explaining capitalism, using lots of cartoon clips, especially in his newer stuff. One of my favorite channels, along with this one.
It was all going so well until the last sentence: "[the corporate finance] sector is in complete crisis because of the broader deregulation of financial markets."
I agree, money and the state should not mix, but the moment this documentary suggested that banking collapse was a result of the free market and not governments socialising risk while privatising gain it undermined its credibility.
Adlasyn 1 year ago
Would you say that the stances the political parties take on many of the "social issues" in the USA are also related to the investment theory? For example, would the Republican party being anti-abortion or the Democrats being pro-gun control have anything to do with their corporate sponsors or do you think those stances are just ways to appeal to blocks of the population (like religious voters, etc.)?
juliaisafilmbuff123 2 years ago
@juliaisafilmbuff123
Exactly, those issues have nothing to do with what really matters to their corporate sponsors. Corporations simply care about how the different parties will affect their bottom line. As Ferguson mentions later in the documentary, it amounts to different PR strategies to manipulate the population. Those investing more money on propaganda usually win.
mr1001nights 2 years ago
Fantastic Documentary.
Mjhavok 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
why does chomsky say "uhm" and stutter so much? Isn't he a linguistics professor lol
OntologicalQuandary 2 years ago
the funny thing about this pseudo theory of social anarchism is that unionization would result in hierarchical systems
OntologicalQuandary 2 years ago
You say so by fiat, so it must be true and everything else pseudoscience. of course, as an enthusiastic supporter of wage slavery, you understandably would like everyone to believe that no other system is less oppressive.
mr1001nights 2 years ago
I wonder how Thomas Ferguson's theory of competing blocks of investors weighs in on the issue of health care.
As corporate media coverage demonstrates quite clearly, at least one section of big business opposes Obama's health care reform. The same is true of the Republican party.
Yet, Obama is still attempting to implement it. If we postulate the correctness of the Investment Theory, then there are only two possibilities I can think of:
A) Obama's proposals run contrary to business interests
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
and are the product of zeal, hence are an exception to or illustrate the malleability of the Investment Theory.
Or
B) There is a section of the business community represented by the Democrats which DOES want health care reform (perhaps because the poor health care in America is harming business), whilst the other section backing the Republicans doesn't.
Thoughts, anyone?
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
Oh, and I should probably add that I find this interesting because my understanding is that corporations are overwhelmingly opposed to health care reforms, so I thought that option A) was more likely.
I'm not American, though, so it might be that I haven't judged corporations attitudes to reform correctly.
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
First of all, Obama's proposed healthcare reform is shamefully pro-health insurance industry and pro-big pharma. There are way more sensible proposals in congress right now which comes close to being a single-payer system and the admin has flatly rejected them.
Second, there are sectors of industry that is supportive of some kind of reform, mainly labor intensive sectors, as it would lower their burden on providing healthcare for their workers.
The investment theory works perfect in this case
Chomskyan 2 years ago 7
Ah, I see. I wasn't sure of all of the details of the proposals and was under the impression that it was moving more towards a tax-funded system.
If it's pro-pharmaceutical and health insurance companies, then it makes much more sense and stands to reason that these are the companies financing Obama.
Interesting to see two blocks of investors so vehemently opposed. Seems to be some real conflict in the upper echelons of the social ladder.
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
The current plan in the senate is similar to one that was implemented here where I live in liberal Massachusetts, crafted and signed into law by.... Mitt Romney, then Republican Governor of MA, who later ran for the GOP nomination for president. During the primaries he denounced his own plan. It was pretty funny to see.
BTW it was a huge gift for the insurance industry, provided a new captive market that is partly subsidized, while it had very limited effect in reducing the cost.
Chomskyan 2 years ago 3
Just watch the documentary. It explains that.
mr1001nights 2 years ago
I think B sounds right. I know that in the UAW healthcare demands are strenuous for business, which might explain why healthcare is emerging as a dominant issue. Just look at which companies invested in the Obama campaign.
wilburnforce 2 years ago
Haha, I have to love the cartoons used as analogies. I take it you have a large Disney collection, no?
juliaisafilmbuff123 2 years ago
You should check out "brendanmcooney". He makes very accessible videos explaining capitalism, using lots of cartoon clips, especially in his newer stuff. One of my favorite channels, along with this one.
NamelessCommenter 2 years ago 5