See this film and Moore completely debunked at the link below. Capitalism is not the problem as capitalism is the voluntary exchange of goods and services. We have corporatism today, government is not voluntary.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHLvC1b4ZBk&feature=relmfu
Capitalism and freedom are part of the same thing.
We have indeed corporatism today, exactly. But corporatism is simply the result of capitalism when the latter is left unchecked. The one mathematically leads to the other. Yet implying that socialism can be the solution to capitalism, as Moore does, is absurd. Both systems eventually become totalitarian. In capitalism you get corprotatism, the most extreme form of it occurring now in Chile. Soon even the air that you breath there will be on sale by private companies.
In socialism you end up with full blown communism, where everything is state owned, and all personal freedoms are killed ; a red fascism. These two systems are just two different means for the same end : slavery, either financial or physical. In one case you literally belong to the conglomerates and in the other case you are just a pawn owned by the State. Isn't it ironic that the "free enterprise" system secures real freedom for a select 2-3% of the population?
So the only way to have real freedom for everyone is to implement a new, non representative system where the people have real, not decorative power. One such system is a direct democracy. Another one, that could be combined with DD, is resource based economy systems, or RBEs. These do away with the obsolete monetary system we have been using the last five thousand years or so.
signature start:
The term "suspension of disbelief" was coined by LOLW, the League of Lazy Writers.
Corporatism is not the natural extension of free market capitalism. Corporatism is only formed when powerful business interests lobby the government and gain an advantage over other businesses because of the governments monopoly on coercion and violence to benefit the business and remove competition.
Intellectual property rights, patents, subsidies, taxes etc.
If we had a truly free market there would be no corporatism because there would be no legal system that businesses could abuse to benefit themselves.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A&feature=relmfu
http://board.freedomainradio.com/blogs/freedomain/archive/2008/09/11/book-on-truth-the-tyranny-of-illusion.aspx
Cast iron proof and rational arguments only in those links. I used to be a big believer in government once until my eyes opened. Now I see it for exactly what it is and all the problems (including corporatism) that come with it.
Without government we have no regulations. We see what happens when regulations are decreased.
shareYes, without regulations the free market can work again properly and enforce its own natural regulations that will be free from corruption.
shareYou mean how regulations were relaxed and the banks produced the near recession of 2008? The SEC had to be produced in 1933 due to corruption and we've had to make new regulatory rules conctantly since due to corruption. You see where the country is right now? Deregulations on the banks caused that. Sorry my friend, greed trumps everything. Without regulation we'd have no trees or fish in the ocean.
shareTotally wrong I'm afraid. State school too? The socialists have taught you well.
The crisis is caused by government intervention in the free market because they removed the moral hazard by guarantee the lost money. People would not invest their money with reckless banks unless they knew the government would step in and pay them if the banks lost it.
Oh and its not economically efficient to drain the planet of all the trees and fish, profits are derived from goods over time, its in businesses interests to make the resources last. The only organisation that is killing the planet is the government and because they brainwashed us all in school, we are meant to remain blind to it.
Greed trumps everything, why do you think the government are immune? They are just humans, same as everyone else.
It's quite obvious the government is far from immune.
You appear to be part of the group who do the things that require regulations then cry and whine that government gets in your way. It's a wonderful scam you folks have going. You're so blinded by your hatred of the government that you refuse to see the facts as to why they have to do what they do. You're knowledge of history makes your "state school" comment prove how clueless you really are.
You said, "Oh and its not economically efficient to drain the planet of all the trees and fish"
You figured that out all by your lonesome yet refuse to acknowledge the fact we were quickly driving right off these cliffs until regulations were enacted. You should check out how the rivers and lakes were doing in this country before regulations.
Now if you come back again saying how people have high morals and care about the enviroment over money, then I know you've drank the Entightlement Kool-Aid in one gargantuan gulp.
No they care about money, greed and individuality drive everyone so stop thinking you can make some humans "good" by subjecting them to a collective called "government" which are immune to greed because you have "regulations" and "checks and balances" its laughable. You go on thinking that use of violence can solve the problems of the world, it wont work, it hasn't worked for millennia and it wont work today.
State school is brainwashing, government is an evil institution and violence does not solve the worlds problems. Its really that simple!
I need to find out where you get the idea I think government is immune to greed. The greed by government is obscene but cutting essential programs is not the answer. And I really need to find out why you think I think violence solves problems. I never said that and totally disagree with that. Then you have this state school bias. You honestly sound like an entightled person saying anyone who's parents can't afford private schooling for their children is an idiot. You also assume people who go to state schools cannot make decisions on their own and gobble up anything that's told to them. That's a very dangerous stance to take. It's also very self serving and pompous.
share[deleted]
"You mean how regulations were relaxed and the banks produced the near recession of 2008?"
I get that you're hopelessly indoctrinated, but how do you get "regulations were relaxed" from the government forcing banks to give out hefty loans to people who were incapable of repaying them?
by - pul-sharpe on Wed Oct 24 2012 10:48:29
Yes, without regulations the free market can work again properly and enforce its own natural regulations that will be free from corruption.
How'd that work out for us after the sub prime mortgage crisis?
Sub prime was caused by the government forcing its will on the banks and removing the moral hazard of the banks depositors.
shareRegulations are only part of the problem. the other part of the equation is competitiveness. We Americans cannot compete with foreign labor. We cannot live on $10/day. We need to equalize that with tariffs on imports. Otherwise, we're going to all be working min. wage jobs selling products that are manufactured elsewhere. USA cannot survive being a service-based economy. And that is slowly what we are becoming.
My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.
Regulations are only part of the problem. the other part of the equation is competitiveness. We Americans cannot compete with foreign labor. We cannot live on $10/day. We need to equalize that with tariffs on imports. Otherwise, we're going to all be working min. wage jobs selling products that are manufactured elsewhere. USA cannot survive being a service-based economy. And that is slowly what we are becoming.
As much as I'd love to cut the military budget by 80% and make weapons manufacturers use their factories and ingenuity to improve the American way of life, I still don't see them being able to compete with factories who make products at a much lower labor cost. We need tariffs to discourage foreign-made products and to re-establish manufacturing in the U.S. on a grand scale.
maybe the weapons manufacturers can get us started on the next boom (maybe green technology?).
My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.
Korios
Sadly your wise words seems to have fallen on very deaf ears.
Sigh :(
I'm sorry gents, but a tarrif on, say cameras would make it hard for most people, since there are no American manufacturers of comparable size that could take up the shortfall that would be induced by such tarrifs. The way I've said it should be done is, to be brutally frank, the only way to get it done; a 'Buy American '-only move like this would only pis off the average American, and the bill would be quickly repealed.
Best for the U.S. government to offer incentives to the behemoths of the military-industrial complex to stop making the junk that they do and just start to make cameras/MP3 players/other consumer electronics, or for it to set up state-owned companies ('crown corporations' as we know them here in Canada) that can do the same thing, as in China and during the Soviet era in Russia.
Why would the government have to pick up the slack instead of a private American manufacturer who sees a window of opportunity opening up to manufacture and distribute goods at a lower rate than what Americans would be paying for imports?
I can understand you want the military-industrial complex to fall (or at least weaken). But stating that's the only way it could work is for the Government to stop buying tanks and force factories to build TV sets is ridiculous.
Would it piss off Americans? Yeah. It would be an end to all those cheap clothes they can pick up at WalMart, manufactured by $4/Day laborers in foreign countries. But it would open up job opportunities in the U.S. that would ultimately serve to strengthen the workforce and create a demand for workers thereby increasing the monetary value of employees. I think in the long run it would be far more beneficial to run, at minimum, 30% tariffs as opposed to the 1.2% we have now.
Unless the goal is to bring us down to a competitive wage with third-world countries.
My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.
When I said that tariffs would be harmful, I mean that they'd be harmful for certain products like consumer electronics and cameras (most of all of the cameras made now come from Japanese and South Korean companies, with the rest coming from Germany.) People are not going to like paying more for Japanese, Korean, and German cameras simply because they're being forced to 'buy American or else'-they're going to want them regardless of where they're made (for now). Creating an equivilient American consumer electronics industry as good as that of Japan's and South Korea's will take time (RCA and Zenith, as I said, are gone and are just in-name-only divisions of foreign companies that license the trademark to make products with the name of both companies.) Clothing I'm not too worried about, but consumer electronics being more expensive would start a revolt of letter writing that would eventually get the tariffs killed in the House & the Senate.
Best thing to do, as I've said before? Convince certain large American companies (those making all of the death-dealing stuff) to retool and make consumer goods like cameras, cellphones, TV sets, MP3 players, DVD players/recorders, etc., by way of financial enticements (something that Michael Moore said the government should have forced GM, Ford and Chrysler to do as far as making high-speed rail locomotives was concerned two years ago.) That's the way to do it, without pissing off the average person with regard to consumer electronics and the like.
That sounds a lot more sedate and workable than the previous post I responded to.
I do wonder how such a transition could take place with little-to-no interruption in availability or cost-impact. I think big-box stores might also be instrumental in getting it set up in order to get their specific store brand on the merchandise.
I think there would still be the import of certain components in other countries, though assembly of those components and packaging would function well here. Hell, we're not chimpanzees. There could even be kits sold that the consumer assembles for themselves like so much Ikea furniture.
My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.
Nobody in the movie implied that the socialism was the solution, you completely missed the point. Right at the end Moore says that capitalism should be replaced by democracy, a real one where the will of the people could not be overrun by the corporate lobby.
One thing is very clear, the way things are headed right now is to disaster in the social plan, the economical plan and most of all in the environmental plan. And all this is driven by the excessive greed of the capitalist mentality. If things will not change somehow all will end very badly and foe everyone.
Just hear the final word of James Cameron in the documentary Titanic the final word.
"Nobody in the movie implied that the socialism was the solution, you completely missed the point. Right at the end Moore says that capitalism should be replaced by democracy"
Because Moore, like all socialists, is trying to form a false dichotomy between Capitalism/Democracy and a false synonymity with Socialist/Democracy (which is an outright contradiction on it's head).
Try to pay attention.
Socialism and democracy have a lot more in common than you think. (Much more in common than a democracy and a republic.)
shareBS. most of western europe is socialistic yet none evolved into communism. & if it weren't for police & military, eastern europe would've never become communistic, either.
shareYa. Capitalism is the problem. Slave wages are the problem. 50% of people are on free school lunches. So, I don't believe you one bit.
shareCapitalism, what a joke. The great free enterprise dream. Anybody can start a business and become a millionaire. Sounds good in theory. But what went wrong. Corporations become greedy. Shareholders want better returns. I do not live in America, thank god. Where I live we have a national health system. We have free hospital. We have unemployment benefits that you can live on. We have 4 weeks paid annual leave + leave loading. On average our working people earn twice the wage of Americans doing the same job. We have maternity leave for new mothers. We get penalty rates to work O/T and weekends. We have free education. Our wage system is linked to the inflation rate, so inflation and productivity gains are built into the wage rises. This is made possible by sharing the great wealth of our nation, not just leaving it in the hands of multi-national corporations. And they squeal like pigs. Always talking about taking their investments elsewhere.
Right wing governments over the years have done their best to destroy organised unions (just like in America). America is the most evil country on the planet. The military have deliberately targeted civilians ever since WW2.
The US Military destroys a country, and then US corporations rebuild it. What a great system. If there is a hell, that where America is heading.
[deleted]
Australia, mate.
Where we still have democracy. Where we still care about the elderly and the less fortunate. Where the top 1% do not control politics. You are welcome to join us anytime.
"You are welcome to join us anytime."
Nah, I'll stick to the real world. The whole, "Freedom is Slavery" argument from you genocide-crazed socialist tyrants who, by the way, have killed and exploited far, far, FAR more people than the American gov in the past century, even going by the stats you obviously pulled out of your ass) never really appealed to me.
You elected George Bush TWICE! About the stupidest bastard ever to take charge of a country! This is what happens if you give democracy to idiots!
You dont give a crap about the rest of the world, yet when something happens to you, it’s an atrocious crime. Self righteous bastards.
15% of Americans are on FOOD STAMPS. WTF
Take the blinkers off.
"Slave wages are the problem."
Oh boy, here we go with this *beep*
Right. Because an honest day's work for an honest day's pay is "slavery", while being routinely robbed by an authoritarian government on the basis that the state owns you through some imaginary "social contract" is democratic utopia. Uh huh.
how do you define "honest day's pay"?
What should you be entitled to buy after 1 day of toil?
a person's time and energy is worth exactly what a person is willing to exchange for it. The secret is finding that person who thinks it's more valuable than you do.
All i know is that sitting on my butt doing nothing, I couldn;t find a buyer. I actually had to go out and offer my time, knowledge, experience and services in order to attach a monetary value to it.
I can also say that Michael Moore's time and energy was worth less than minimum wage to me. To watch this film I paid about $3.50/hr.
And then I fired his ass.
(but I'm open to rehiring him)
"De gustibus non disputandum est"
#3
Indeed but if you reduce choice and opportunity you'll be amazed at how little most will offer themselves for.
A living wage, rather than a legal minimum is a concept that seems to be forgotten by most free marketeers
Why pay $10 for a burger when you can get one for $2?
We ALL take advantage of a bargain. Why pay a livable wage when people are willing to work for peanuts?
I'm all for a livable wage, as long as it doesn't increase the cost of living.
Good luck with that.
"De gustibus non disputandum est"
#3
So - I think the real question here is: what type of system do you propose and what grounds do you have to justify it? Surely we are our brother's keeper, aren't we? Isn't this what this movie was all about? That capitalism is the ultimate evil because it promotes selfishness? And that the United States was founded as a Christian nation and that means capitalism must be eradicated?
shareI think we need to ask ourselves that in a civilized, governed society should we guarantee those things that are inherent rights to the human species?
I believe a man has an inherent right to a piece of the planet he lives on. I believe a man has an inherent right to build a shelter on that land. And I believe a man has an inherent right to plant seeds on that land. Man has an inherent right to exploit the services or resources of animals on his land.
I believe a man has an inherent right to access reasonably clean water.
I believe a man has a right to defend these things.
these are the basic rights of man's survival and these should be guaranteed to and by all citizens of a civilized, governed society. And, as guaranteed and protected by the government, they are non-relinquishable
Once these needs are met, Capitalism is a natural evolution that grows from that. Trade develops, marriage and family expands holdings and commerce encourages growth.
I firmly believe that if we address these inherent rights- the right for a man to support himself on the planet on which he lives, without being contingent on the energies of another person (i.e. renting property, buying groceries) that many of our problems will work themselves out.
My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.
The standard (layman's) reply to this is: "this all sounds great - in theory. But you're talking fantasy here."
The real issue raised in this movie is that capitalism is inherently immoral (and therefore evil) because it's based on selfishness and we can't have that, since our lives should obviously be lived for others - and the OP hasn't addressed that.
Well, yeah it probably is a bit of fantasy. But it sure would free up a lot of time and money to accomplish other things. It might even encourage adoption and lower abortion rates
So how does one address the immorality of selflessness? (or more precisely, the confiscation of time and resources to supply others with their selflessness)
My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.
Freedom of whom? Of the capital?
share[deleted]
OP is correct, this movie is communist garbage. Michael Moore is also a hypocrite like most leftists. The fact that this s hit gets over a 7 rating shows you how stupid people are (especially teenagers).
share"OP is correct, this movie is communist garbage. Michael Moore is also a hypocrite like most leftists. The fact that this s hit gets over a 7 rating shows you how stupid people are (especially teenagers)."
The communist card. Classic rightie scare tactic with zero support of the argument. People are stupid? I can agree with that to an extent except what you're saying here is that people are stupid for getting another viewpoint. I guess I do understand your fear as different viewpoints and knowledge are bad for your M.O. I have a feeling your favorite two words are, "Trust me".
"Apes don't read philosophy." "Yes they do, Otto. They just don't understand it."
[deleted]
So true...
shareAnd I will counter that with this film and Moore are totally supported by Adam's Smith's conclusions in the ling below:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Wealth-Nations-Bantam-Classics/dp/0553585975