Let me preface this by saying that I don't think Moore is against capitalism inasmuch as he is against its perverted form we see today. But I also think he wants to pervert it himself with the inclusion of a more encompassing social agenda. Myself, I think whatever social programs we use should be geared toward a more productive society and population, rather than just sustaining a population. And in that, we should all be working together toward that common goal to the benefit of everyone, economically, socially and with a primary focus on freedom and independence. That being said, let's continue:
The family who lost their farm: I'm pretty sure it was mentioned that the farm had been in the family for 40 years. So why wasn't it paid off already? Or how did the family manage to accumulate so much debt that the house went into foreclosure?
It probably WAS paid off and those guys took out a loan on the house to play around with and defaulted on the loan. There's nothing inherently wrong with their situation. They thought it was a good way to get some spending cash or working capital and it went bad for them. They either lost their income, accumulated too much debt, poorly anticipated their future income/expenses or in the words of Marcia Brady, something suddenly came up. Their story of failure is nothing new. Free people fail all the time.
Why are so many people unwilling to move to a city or state where gainful employment can be found? Why stay in Detroit? Or Flint?
There is something to b said for connections and networking. Moving out of state without family or friends to lean on can be scary and have devastating results. Also, it's more expensive to move than to stay. It always astounded me that renters can't make their rent, but can somehow afford to move when evicted. But to stay in a ghost town makes little sense, I agree.
What's wrong with taking a lesser job? Or two? Why is it better to sit in an empty building with a group of people demanding money that is "owed" to them?
If welfare pays you $800/mo and McDonalds pays you $800/mo it's a wash. I actually took home more in unemployment last year than I did on the job. Still, that's not for everyone. I'd much rather trade labor for income than jump through the hoops of government agencies. I've been working since i got my first paper route at 9 years old. Being on unemployment was the first time in 35 years I'd ever gotten a "paid vacation". And considering that I paid enough taxes over that time, I didn't feel that I was "leeching", but just getting some of it back. But no, there is absolutely nothing wrong with taking a lesser job or two. It's IS however impractical if the cost of childcare exceeds the income.
The woman who's husband died and his former employer had a life insurance policy on him (and was paid thousands)....but she didn't? Why not? And why is it so insulting and horrifying that they took the initiative that she didn't? If neither the company NOR her were paid, how is that better for her?
Frankly, I've never seen the problem with that. It's not like Wal*Mart is killing off their employees to collect the insurance money. And why this widow would think she deserves some of that money is beyond me. That would be like Ford demanding some of your auto insurance settlement because they manufactured the car that enabled you to get the settlement.
Why are companies and employers beholden to their employees? If the company feels it's in their best interest to outsource and shut down the factory, or simply fire or lay off X number of people, for whatever reason, why the feeling of betrayal? Why the indignance, the bitterness, the shaking of the fist, and so little action or effort to find work elsewhere?
It's an emotional response. Spending 8+ hours a day on the job creates a bond- a kind of relationship to that job and a sense of identity. Of course, the CEO's don't have that level of attachment to the people. It's a business and their primary focus is the bottom line. That's their job.
Now, if an employee makes certain sacrifices in compensation (i.e. "invests") in order to help that company succeed, only to have that company say "thanks and f^ck you" then I can understand those feelings of betrayal and a sense of being owed.
But I think, in the end, it's a matter of depression over having lost one's sense of identity when losing their job. Especially when their work experience is so specialized that it fails to transfer well into other businesses (like a windshield installer), these people don't really know how and have no ambition to "start over".
Since when does anyone have the RIGHT to a job? Why not just allow people to make their own choices, to be as happy or as miserable, as employed or as unemployed, as rich or as poor as they want?
They don't. But they also don't have the capital, resources, knowledge or ambition to function any other way. They've been trained and conditioned to go to school and then find a job. Unfortunately, very few people have been indoctrinated in how to create their own job.
The CEO of a bread company who paid himself no more than his own employees, resulting in a generously paid staff: That's very nice, but isn't it Capitalism that allows him to have that choice? Is Moore implying that other companies should actually be FORCED to do the same?
I'm not sure if Moore was implying that it be forced, inasmuch as he was encouraging this kind of business model. And for a small company, that might work out just fine as long as the employees are well-educated in how business actually works. But when employees can't even see themselves as part of the free market system of supply-and-demand, but rather "entitled" to what their business earns, this becomes a major problem. And in such a business model, what kind of voice/leverage does a janitor have against 30 other people who see their work as more valuable than a toilet-scrubber?
I guess my overall question is: Is forced compassion REALLY the best thing for this country?
More than that, is forced compassion really the best thing for the human species? I think it's important to gauge the downsides against the upsides.
If we kill the foodstamp program, less food will be bought. Less jobs in food manufacturing will be available. Food will cost more after the initial surplus is consumed.
If we kill welfare, crime goes up, homelessness goes up, rents go down, foreclosures occur, less goods are bought, jobs will be lost.
It's not that I do or don't advocate these programs, but I DO advocate a change in how these systems function. They are designed for sustenance, but not advancement, improvement or even mobility. I think it is here that the system needs the most work. People need an avenue for improvement.
But at the same time, the jobs just aren't there. If it weren't for all the useless crap we buy and subscribe to, the job market would be even worse.
Just taking the food industry into consideration, can you imagine if people started bringing lunches to work, cooking at home more, stopped going to coffee stands and ate less junk food? I think our economy and by default, our society would crumble!
"Atlas Shrugged- Part 2"- Coming in 2012! --The saga continues!
reply
share
Quanfa
13 years ago
"is forced compassion really the best thing for the human species? I think it's important to gauge the downsides against the upsides.
If we kill the foodstamp program, less food will be bought. Less jobs in food manufacturing will be available. Food will cost more after the initial surplus is consumed.
If we kill welfare, crime goes up, homelessness goes up, rents go down, foreclosures occur, less goods are bought, jobs will be lost.
It's not that I do or don't advocate these programs, but I DO advocate a change in how these systems function. They are designed for sustenance, but not advancement, improvement or even mobility. I think it is here that the system needs the most work. People need an avenue for improvement.
But at the same time, the jobs just aren't there. If it weren't for all the useless crap we buy and subscribe to, the job market would be even worse.
Just taking the food industry into consideration, can you imagine if people started bringing lunches to work, cooking at home more, stopped going to coffee stands and ate less junk food? I think our economy and by default, our society would crumble!"
It should be obvious to anyone that observes economics that the economy works when people buy things. People laughed at Bush when he said people need to go shopping after 9-11, but he was right. The economy works on people buying and selling things - it could be a service or a product. But we're not really slaves to junk as it may appear. If no one bought candy there wouldn't be candy stores, true, but that only means the people that work in the candy store need to do something different. It's as if there's a certain amount of money per person living in a given country and that amount of money needs to be circulating to keep things going. But no profession and no product, be it junk food or smart phones, are necessary and the economy would not collapse if those things went away. That is unless the people who work at those stores just throw their hands up in the air and do nothing if they were made redundant.
I also disagree with your point about getting rid of welfare causing crime. People who commit crimes aren't doing it for rent money and food any more than bums on the street are saving up to buy a sandwich. The only thing welfare does is trap people in a perpetual state of need - then the household that relies on it grows up thinking that's how things are supposed to work. Of course they don't have a lot of extra money so the oldest teenager in the house who wants a lot of things (as seen in music, tv and movies - he's "entitled" to them) - so he steals it. But this is ultimately the fault of the parent, not the government, not even entertainment showing a horrible example of consumer greed. Still, if anything the welfare state helps crime, it certainly doesn't prevent it.
Human beings are not biologically conditioned to have everything handed to them. From the moment a baby takes his first breath he has to work at survival, even with help from the mother. And parents are taught that children have to learn how to fend for themselves, otherwise they never learn and are helpless without the parents.
Citizens of a country are the same way. But the mistake, I feel, a lot of people make in America is the assumption that the "down and out" are innately down and out and without assistance from someone, they're likely to revert to a primitive state and go knock off a 7-11. People who are treated as children act like children. But you don't fix an obese child by giving him ice cream and cake for breakfast even if that's what he wants!
However, a single mother, the truly disabled (not obese or a manic depressive), and the elderly are different cases entirely.
reply
share
gabby_bm
13 years ago
If no one bought candy there wouldn't be candy stores, true, but that only means the people that work in the candy store need to do something different
Isn't there a bit more trickling than just at the retail level? If people stop buying candy bars, retailers are out, manufacturers are down, suppliers are down, shippers are down, wrapper manufacturers are down, All of which have their OWN networks of suppliers, shippers, etc. Granted, some might be able to absorb the loss or redirect their attentions to other opportunities, but in the end, there is a trickle-down effect when the public stops buying and starts cutting back.
It's as if there's a certain amount of money per person living in a given country and that amount of money needs to be circulating to keep things going. But no profession and no product, be it junk food or smart phones, are necessary and the economy would not collapse if those things went away. That is unless the people who work at those stores just throw their hands up in the air and do nothing if they were made redundant.
But what if there IS nothing to absorb the workforce, which is what I am proposing. It's not like the old days when a citizen could go to an apple orchard and pick fruit for a living. Those jobs are taken by a cheaper-than-legal workforce or machinery these days.
Unfortunately for the job market, the stockholders' short-range profits have overshadowed longevity, productivity and community. And half the time, the community is stabbing manufacturers in the back with codes, laws and taxes. It's no wonder they look elsewhere and outsource for cheaper labor, if not move their entire operations out of country.
I also disagree with your point about getting rid of welfare causing crime. People who commit crimes aren't doing it for rent money and food any more than bums on the street are saving up to buy a sandwich. The only thing welfare does is trap people in a perpetual state of need - then the household that relies on it grows up thinking that's how things are supposed to work.
I didn't intend for that to be definitive. I think I said it can or may increase crime rates, which I believe it very well could. I absolutely agree that our present welfare system is worthless. It is geared for sustenance. It does nothing to "cure the disease", so to speak.
But take away sustenance and what will happen? What will a hungry person do to put a morsel in their mouth? Will they steal? Beg? Die?
Does our society and our business community welcome the under-educated and inexperienced? How well does being a welfare mom transfer to the workplace? We simply don't have enough work for everyone, and not everyone is skilled, educated or persuasive enough to create their own job or market their own product (not that our government is relaxed enough to allow them to do that anyway).
Human beings are not biologically conditioned to have everything handed to them. From the moment a baby takes his first breath he has to work at survival, even with help from the mother. And parents are taught that children have to learn how to fend for themselves, otherwise they never learn and are helpless without the parents.
And how can we intercept those who are crappy parents? Or self-absorbed? or just ill-equipped to pass on these positive elements of character? I think we can both agree there is an ongoing perpetuity leading to generation after generation of those who have hopelessness as a role model. Hell, I'd be impressed if we could intercept the perpetuity that's been leading to more and more people talking during movies!
Is there a workable solution to stopping this "welfare legacy" without making millions of people hungry and homeless in the process. I hardly think THAT would be conducive to a solution. At least not for decades. And what kind of social environment would that create in the process?
One possible solution is to initiate the philosophy that if you're on the public teet, you are essentially governed by The People. That there would be certain hoops and behaviors to follow in order to get your monthly stipend. These would include the academics of your children, following through with training, education and application for employment, etc.
It's amazing how motivated a person can be when "free" becomes a real pain in the butt.
However, a single mother, the truly disabled (not obese or a manic depressive), and the elderly are different cases entirely.
I have said in the past, that if the poor, hungry, aged and infirm are so damned important to the majority of Americans, why did it become necessary to impose that "charity" and force people to support them? It's either important enough to support it by choice, or it's not important.
"Atlas Shrugged- Part 2"- Coming in 2012! --The saga continues!
reply
share
Quanfa
13 years ago
"...If people stop buying candy bars, retailers are out, manufacturers are down, suppliers are down, shippers are down, wrapper manufacturers are down, All of which have their OWN networks of suppliers, shippers, etc. Granted, some might be able to absorb the loss or redirect their attentions to other opportunities, but in the end, there is a trickle-down effect when the public stops buying and starts cutting back."
I agree that if everyone literally stopped buying anything at all - the economy would certainly suffer. But in your example I think you're looking at it totally on the surface. Lots of industries have died out over time and everyone from the retailer to the plastic manufacturer have survived because they've essentially moved on to something different. This has happened recently in the newspaper and magazine industry. But there is always something because the public never stops buying, they just change what they buy.
But it's interesting to speculate on what would really happen to America on the whole if people stopped buying so much, and I mean everyone. Industry would certainly drop, people would be jobless, etc. But I wonder also if the influx of immigrants would also halt and even reverse? And I say that because all economists that I've ever read, when they talk of America's problems, either societal or economic, have concluded that the one thing you can point to as an indicator of American prosperity is the amount of people that will do just about anything to be here.
Your comment on charity by choice is how things used to be in America before the government got involved. It was churches that contributed the most charity in their communities. Even today, to answer your question about what the truly hungry would do - I can tell you exactly what they would do - they would go to a food bank or a soup kitchen. But I don't know about completely relying on the charity of others when it comes to people like the elderly or single mothers. I'd like to think that yes, they would completely be taken care of by their neighborhood churches, and I think if push came to shove they probably would, but I don't know. I'll admit I don't have an answer for that.
reply
share
gabby_bm
13 years ago
And so it's that great unknown that brought us to the point we're at now- fear. Wasn't it FDR who said, "we have nothing to fear but fear, itself"? And yet, it is our fear of "what's to become of ______ when we take away ______?" (Fill in the blanks with whatever social ills that plague us).
More often than not, there has been an advancing technology to replace the previous one. Newspapers are replaced by the internet, LPs are replaced with CDs and eventually iPods, books replaced with Kindles, etc. But we're also behind the 8-ball as there is a stall in market booms. We were saved in the 80's with computers (The job market boomed for those who had computer training). The 90's boomed with the internet. and the 00's boomed with cell phones.
I'm hoping that "green technology" is going to be the boom of the 10's, but it seems to be lagging in appeal and market strength so far. Maybe it will be something else. Who can tell.
What would happen if people decided to stop going out to restaurants to eat because it's unnecessary, frivolous and expensive? What could absorb THAT kind of exodus? I wonder.
"Atlas Shrugged- Part 2"- Coming in 2012! --The saga continues!
reply
share