New Michael Moore film says capitalism is evil.

Romantic Heretic said:

I can't say I know a lot about the history of science but it seems to me that the great scientists weren't in competition with anybody. Newton wasn't trying to discover gravity before someone else. Gregor Mendel was just growing peas. Darwin was just looking at birds in the Galapagos and back home amongst pigeon fanciers. Einstein just liked playing with numbers and formula.

Click to expand...

Actually, there has been a great deal of competition in the general field of science, across history. Sometimes, that competition led to bad things--like the suppression of novel (and correct) ideas--and sometimes it led to rapid growth of technology (think "the internet," for example).

You're mistakenly reducing "science" down to just breakthrough theories. That's but a small part of the whole.

Research uses resources: time, money, what have you. To do that research, scientists compete--like all of us--for available resources. Who wins? More often than not, the ones that can achieve results.

The fundamental problem with supposing that science--or anything else--can be advanced without competition as rapidly as it can with competition is that without competition, there is no way to account for the unexpected and the original. Without competition, someone has to decide who gets the resources. And that's limiting. Severely so.

Besides, doesn't competition imply moving towards a goal?

Click to expand...

No. It can, but not as a matter of course.

But there is no goal in science.

Click to expand...

Sorry, wrong again. There can be goals and there often have been. For instance, a goal in the current world of science is finding sustainable sources of energy to replace fossil fuels. You're smart enough--I think--to see how completely you've stepped off the tracks here.

I think it's the financial success in a "capitalist" system, then claiming that "capitalism" is evil, that's bringing on the claims that he's a scam artist and liar. At least that's the way I feel about him. YMMV.

Click to expand...

Then maybe the word we're looking for here is "hypocrite"?

Don said:

Biting the hand that feeds you is always a stupid move, IMO.

Click to expand...

Works for Green Day, too. Though you may not have listened to their last two CD's.

Moore's passionate, and I'm sure he believes he's trying to help. I'm not a big fan, but I'd agree that modern day corporate capitalism, if not evil in and of itself, has wrought a great deal of evil in the world.

Yes, Williebee, hypocrite is probably the proper word. But, like Michael Moore, I feel perfectly justified in taking a word and giving it any meaning I want to, so I'll continue to call him a liar and a scam artist.

And Diana, that's my basic problem with Moore's new movie. If he'd titled it "Crony Capitalism: A Political Love Story" or some other title that spoke truth, I'd have a lot less trouble with the message I think he's trying to impart.

Damning the corporate cronies and then proclaiming that the 545 crooks in DC can be charged with fixing the very problems they have created is disingenious at the very least. Quite frankly, I think it's intentional, and he's a disinformation artist. Then again, the need for "useful idiots" didn't end in 1945. The only thing Moore is trying to help is his pocketbook.

Hey, leave Moore alone. It's been a year or so since his last blatantly-over-the-top-attention-grab. The man's got a family to feed.

Gretad08 said:

Bolding mine.

Man, if only we weren't a capitalist society, he wouldn't have to worry about that stuff anymore and he could go about his business of being the sweet hearted soul that he is.

Click to expand...

I'm guessing he's got no problem supplying his family with the UN-mandated 1500 calories per day minimum. I see absolutely no evidence that he stops at that limit and sends his excess calories to those less advantaged than he.

From the quote earlier about legalized gambling and the Wall Street derivatives,
60 Minutes had a good segment on this on their August 30th show. I imagine it's still
available on CBS's website, though I haven't checked. Going off my horrible memory
on the segment, the legislation that allowed the deregulation that prompted derivatives
back in the marketplace (stopped in the 1920s) was done during the last two months
of Clinton's second term - late in the legislative session. The guy interviewed (can't
remember his name or position as I was preparing dinner/washing dishes) gave a clear
and concise explanation as the beginnings of what lead to the bubble burst that started
with home foreclosures and bankruptcies, eventually leading to bank failures, then takeovers and bailouts. The fault, again I'm doing a little more than paraphrasing here,
began with that legislation and was "helped" along with the blessing of Alan Greenspan. This guy was adamant about Greenspan having as much power (EQUAL) as the President
in getting Congress to pass anything relating to the American economy. Agree or disagree, as personally I don't have the knowledge, but this segment goes with the same lines I've heard (from others, friends and not) that the power of the Federal Reserve is (1) too broad and (2)ill-serving to most Americans.

robeiae said:

Actually, there has been a great deal of competition in the general field of science, across history. Sometimes, that competition led to bad things--like the suppression of novel (and correct) ideas--and sometimes it led to rapid growth of technology (think "the internet," for example).

You're mistakenly reducing "science" down to just breakthrough theories. That's but a small part of the whole.

Research uses resources: time, money, what have you. To do that research, scientists compete--like all of us--for available resources. Who wins? More often than not, the ones that can achieve results.

The fundamental problem with supposing that science--or anything else--can be advanced without competition as rapidly as it can with competition is that without competition, there is no way to account for the unexpected and the original. Without competition, someone has to decide who gets the resources. And that's limiting. Severely so.
No. It can, but not as a matter of course. Sorry, wrong again. There can be goals and there often have been. For instance, a goal in the current world of science is finding sustainable sources of energy to replace fossil fuels. You're smart enough--I think--to see how completely you've stepped off the tracks here.

Click to expand...

Perhaps not completely off the tracks. I will stand by my assertion that a society whose central belief is in competition is one that will soon exclude most of its citizens from the benefits of society. The purpose of competition is to eliminate the losers.

On the rest, I stand corrected. Thanks.

Gretad08 said:

According to a new Michael Moore film, capitalism is evil.

http://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSTRE5850F320090906

So, is it?

Are banks evil?

Click to expand...

What the hell is capitalism, anyway? The word has so many connotations and so much baggage that it can be used to mean anything depending on the speaker and his agenda.

Furthermore, Michael Moore probably neglects to mention that whenever big business has screwed over individuals, it has done so with the tacit blessing of the US government. The government says, time and time again, "Trust us to regulate the market" -- and betrays us time and time again.

Is what we have in the US really, truly capitalism though? Not corporatism at all?

darkprincealain said:

Is what we have in the US really, truly capitalism though? Not corporatism at all?

Click to expand...

Corporatism.

darkprincealain said:

Is what we have in the US really, truly capitalism though? Not corporatism at all?

Click to expand...

It sure as hell isn't the sort of laissez-faire capitalism Ayn Rand upheld as an "unknown ideal". How could it be, with the Federal Reserve manipulating the dollar and federal, state, and municipal governments acting as a "silent partner" and wetting their beaks?

Well from reading Robeiae, I'm puzzled. I'm really leaning towards MG's position above. So, if we are corporatist, I have another question. How can Michael Moore make a movie about something he's never experienced... oh. wait.

He's just doing the same thing as those on the particularly polarized TV channels do. Being a mouthpiece for some ideal, and drumming up a lot of righteous indignation. Bad form, IMO.

darkprincealain said:

Is what we have in the US really, truly capitalism though? Not corporatism at all?

Click to expand...

We have a winner!

I've heard it called "Crony Capitalism," and referred to as "the Politics of Pull." In any event, it has nothing to do with free markets and everything to do with politicians working hand in hand with "businessmen" to give the average citizen "the business."

Organizations created as legal fictions by government and protected from competition by barriers to entry created by government can't justifiably be called "free markets," that's for sure.

darkprincealain said:

He's just doing the same thing as those on the particularly polarized TV channels do. Being a mouthpiece for some ideal, and drumming up a lot of righteous indignation. Bad form, IMO.

Click to expand...

Have a cookie. You deserve it for realizing that Michael Moore is little more than a demagogue for the left-wing -- just as the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, and Savage are right-wing demagogues.

Don said:

Organizations created as legal fictions by government and protected from competition by barriers to entry created by government can't justifiably be called "free markets," that's for sure.

Click to expand...

Damn straight. As far as I'm concerned, corporations as we know them have nothing to do with capitalism, but are relics from the age of mercantilism. They are bastions of government-granted privilege. If the government actually gave a damn about individuals and free enterprise, they would sharply constrain the privileges accorded to corporations, and find a way to make it possible to sue corporations that did not involve treating the corporation as though it were a "person".

Michael Moore is a victim of his own success. And his own thought process. Bear with me...

Seriously, I thought he had some very good points in ROGER & ME, and in BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE. I didn't agree with everything he said, but I thought it was good that someone was saying it...you know, the whole, marketplace of ideas being open for debate kind of thing.

I thought the same thing about FARENHEIT 9/11. I agreed with less of what he had to say, but was happy that someone felt they could step up and disagree, and raise the issue to a level of public debate that is important in our society. Again, thought he was getting way off the wagon here with logic, but was okay with him raising the issues.

SICK-o scared the crap out of me. Literally. I'm terrified to lose my benefits. I've had fights with insurance companies about stuff that's supposed to be covered. Did he maybe go over the top? Sure he did. That's how he makes his points. You better believe I'm paying attention to the health care reform stuff, though. He got my attention to an otherwise hard-to-get-attention issue. I give him props for that, even if I don't buy all of what he said.

I seriously question the idea of this movie. I'd watch it, sure. I don't believe you can have an opinion on something until you've seen it. But it sounds to me like he's starting to believe his own propoganda. And with as successful as he is, no one's smacking him down, so the crazy just keeps on building.

As writers, we have one thing that we can use judiciously to make ourselves clearer, our points stronger, and our egos in check. It's the delete key. Apparently he's missing his.

Don said:

I think it's the financial success in a "capitalist" system, then claiming that "capitalism" is evil, that's bringing on the claims that he's a scam artist and liar. At least that's the way I feel about him. YMMV.

Biting the hand that feeds you is always a stupid move, IMO.

Click to expand...

What he said.

Williebee said:

Then maybe the word we're looking for here is "hypocrite"?

Click to expand...

And him too.

I keep wondering why so many people refer to the United States of America as a democracy. We are not a democracy, we are a Republic. The framers of our constitution were quite explicit about democracy; they thought it was a disaster. I also wonder about laissez faire, about which the framers were once again explicit. Government needs to keep its long nose out of private enterprise, or more disaster will ensue. Just sayin'.

Pilot said:

I keep wondering why so many people refer to the United States of America as a democracy. We are not a democracy, we are a Republic.

Click to expand...

Actually, we haven't been a republic for a long time. We're an empire ruled by an oligarchy that still pays lip service to the country's republican origins.

MGraybosch said:

Actually, we haven't been a republic for a long time. We're an empire ruled by an oligarchy that still pays lip service to the country's republican origins.

Click to expand...

Can't argue with that too much. Sad part is, we keep voting those clowns into office. Can anybody say, "Wake up, America"?

Pilot said:

Can't argue with that too much. Sad part is, we keep voting those clowns into office. Can anybody say, "Wake up, America"?

Click to expand...

I've been trying to get America to wake up and smell the napalm for years. I'm probably doing it wrong, though.