MovieChat Forums > Capitalism: A Love Story (2009) Discussion > Comment on the capitalist system

Comment on the capitalist system

posted 14 years ago by neo-environmentalist
7 replies | jump to latest

I quite liked this film, however I am only too aware of the political message it portrays instead of seeking real ways of countering the damage that has already been done and preventing it from continuing.

Anyhow, what it comes down to for me is that due to technological advances and standard of living, that old school values of working and being rewarded for it are over. What do I mean? The scene where they are at the bread factory...the place is running smoothly, it's a nice neat production line. Where this system upsets the apple cart is that it is too efficient, it looks nice and clean...therefore you don't need to hire a cleaner, or at least give them any more hours than what is necessary. The efficiency has made jobs redundant. Think about technological advances, these were made to 'make life easier' - One piece of technology is the automated dish machine found in many kitchens - It saves you time and effort, now imagine the commercial dishwashers in restaurants, bars, clubs, etc - Once upon a time people would have been hired to wash them manually, now businesses need only put money into a machine upfront and say goodbye to staff and the associated requirements of paying them and keeping them happy (if they were lucky).

Think about tablet PC's like the iPad, they have ebooks available to them. If these catch on you might have reason to worry about your job if you physically move books around, stack them on shelves or sell them at a physical store. They will be cheaper for reasons that should be obvious.

These are a few examples. Are people really willing to work to have money, to spend more, on things they can get cheaper and don't have to work so hard for?

I'm not much of a consumer, and honestly speaking here...if I owned my house outright, had solar panels for the little power I consume, and could manage a small edible garden...the only thing that would keep me at work is land tax.

What if everyone decides that work isn't what identifies them? Or what happens when there are too many people and there simply isn't work for them because everything anyone could ever need (and more) is catered for them by the existing workforce...isn't this exactly what we are experiencing now, or are at least getting a taste of?

[–] LuccaBrasi 14 years ago

The Good Ol' U.S of friendly fire and illiterate presidents does it again...In the nation awards they win the top spot this year in three categories.

1.Fattest nation on Earth
2.Most military friendly fire incidents on allies(Esp on us Brits)for 8th year running.
3.Last but not least,they get a lifetime achievement award for screwing the world economy up for the second time since 1929.

[–] gabby_bm 14 years ago

Neo, I've considered this myself. I believe we are definitely coming into harder times as businesses realize that they don't need as many employees to get the job done. We have entirely too many people looking for work that no longer exists. The computer field has reached a saturation point and we don't really have a new "bubble" to create jobs.

It seems that in the USA, the primary work people are doing is service-related. plumbing, automotive, restaurant, daycare, etc. It would appear that the only way to get a job is to do the work that was formerly performed by husbands and wives.

What would happen to the economy if people started learning and doing these things for themselves again? What would happen if people abandoned the idea of needing this and needing that? Our economy's only salvation has been the ignorance, fashion, fatigue and laziness of its citizens.

I would imagine one way to get everything back on track would be to eliminate the two-income household. Keeping one parent at home would not only open up about 35 million new jobs, but also raise the monetary value of the worker to the employer.

We never did adjust for the influx of housewives into the workforce. We got a reprieve with the computer and internet boom, but that bubble has burst and now we're paying the piper.

"Fail" is not a noun. It's a verb. "Failing" or "failure" works well.

[–] LuccaBrasi 14 years ago

What - gabby_bm....Are you seriously trying to say that the current economic crisis is because of an "influx of housewives into the workforce"??? That's just nuts!! It was cased by the United States housing market correction and US housing bubble where greedy ass bankers screwed up sub prime mortgages worth countless billions ,even trillions as well as a few other contributing factors but it has nothing to do with more women in the work force .The economy was relatively fine (compared to now) in the eighties and 90s when more women than any time in history were in work.The recent recession is officially the longest recession since World War II but google 'late 2000s Recession' and it will tell you the REAL reasons for the recent economic crisis.

[–] gabby_bm 14 years ago

No, I'm saying it's a contributing factor. Just as the housing bubble is a contributing factor. Just as manufacturing jobs moving overseas is a factor..and so on.

Of course the 80's and 90's economy was fine. That's what I explained. The computer/internet boom of the 80's and 90s kept people working, offered jobs to college graduates and essentially granted our economy a reprieve. Reagan didn't turn the economy around. Reagan got lucky being the president during one of the greatest technological booms which saved the U.S. for another 20 years. Where would our economy have been in the 80's without the personal and business computer?

I don't think the bursting housing bubble is the main reason why the economy tanked. Panic prompted by irresponsible and alarmist journalists is what did that. Sell Sell SELL!
I concur that the housing bubble was a factor. But anyone who takes out a $400,000 mortgage on a 2 bedroom house, hoping to flip it for $450K is a major contributor to that demise. And I'm not going to blame the bank for that any more than I would support bailing them out when they repossess the same property that is now only worth half that.

"Fail" is not a noun. It's a verb. "Failing" or "failure" works well.

[–] LuccaBrasi 14 years ago

I'll tell you what.If you haven't seen M.Moore's Capitalism:A love story ,watch it .If you have, watch it again.Now I don't like Moore at all but I totally agree with the stuff he says in that doc....He shows who's fault the recession was.It was the Bankers fault primarily and to a slightly lesser extent, greedy politicians linked too closely (sometimes illegally) to wall street.Jeez man, it was even called "the sub prime mortgage crisis" before it became "the recession".The whole thing stemmed from corrupt bankers and consumer abuses in the mortgage banking sector...You said "I don't think the bursting housing bubble is the main reason the economy tanked" Of course it is!! Its a matter of public record, not opinion but Fact!!! And alarmist journalists??? Honestly they came in and started running the story long after the crisis started ,(also public record).These bankers had been selling big mortgages and credit to the middle classes and others who couldn't afford it for years.It just finally caught up with them when people were defaulting on payments and losing they're houses all over the place...
I know that the housing bubble wasn't the only reason for this economic meltdown,but it WAS the biggest reason and the catalyst...I'm a 3rd year business student and although that doesn't make me a big authority on the subject,it does mean that I have to learn about all this stuff at Uni....1 or 2 of my professors would be a little worried if I didn't know what caused the biggest and longest recession since the 2nd world war....Man,I never write blog's this long on internet comment pages...Thanks if you've actually managed to read this whole thing Lol.

[–] anthony-burton 14 years ago

@Gabby_bm Whilst i will concur that the journalists contributed to the panic by constantly discussing recession in the build up to and during the crisis, but they did not cause it. My girlfriend works for investment bankers who were talking about the crash in absolute terms about a year before it happened. What there were doing was unsustainable and they knew it. They talked about it with each other, with friends, some of whom were journalists, or journalists asked... It was not a big secret, it was inevitable.

The questions you are asking shouldn't be who caused it but why, and was it engineered? Because the bankers caused this 100%

Yesterday I couldn't spell engineer. Now I are one.

[–] gabby_bm 14 years ago

I'm certainly no economist. And definitely not conspiracy-minded. But it would make sense to destroy the housing bubble as it was inflating far beyond sustainable means. It had to be crashed. Yes, it pretty much screwed people who had bought a house in the last ten years, but it's also dropping housing back down to a marketable price, both in purchase as well as rental.

It wouldn't surprise me if the bailout had already been planned out years before the crash. I'm just not sure if they had anticipated the whole economy to tank along with it, ill-prepared for people to scrap their 401k's and pull out of the market as hard and fast as they did. I'm sure they expected a drop of maybe 20-25% (which would have been about right), but not to see the Dow drop by 40% creating a "crisis"- a run on the bank, so to speak.

And perhaps that's where the journalists came in and scared the market down further than anticipated?

"Fail" is not a noun. It's a verb. "Failing" or "failure" works well.