Michael Moore: Capitalism has proven it's failed

[CG51]

(CNN) -- It has been 20 years since filmmaker Michael Moore took on General Motors in "Roger and Me." He's still sticking it to big business for what he sees as the deliberate shafting of the little guy.

His new film, "Capitalism: A Love Story," opened Wednesday in New York and Los Angeles, California, and opens nationwide next week.

Moore talked with CNN's Larry King about whether capitalism is key to the American dream or the cause of an American nightmare. The following is an edited version of the interview.
Larry King: You describe this movie as the culmination of all the films you've made. Does that mean this is it?

Michael Moore: No. I hope not. It means that, for 20 years, as you said, I've been doing this. I started out by showing people what General Motors was up to and how this was a company that was making a lot of bad decisions and it wasn't good for the company nor for the country. That was 20 years ago.

And since then, I've covered a number of issues and different things. But it all seems to come back to this one issue of "follow the money."

Who's got the money? And whoever has the money has the power. And right now, in America, tonight, Larry, the richest 1 percent have more financial wealth than the bottom 95 percent combined.

Don't Miss


Economic summit comes year after financial meltdown (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/09/23/economic.summit/index.html) ranian leader blames capitalism for crises (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/23/general.assembly.ahmadinejad/index.html)
CNN/Money: Understanding the G20 (http://www.cnn.com/money/2009/09/21/magazines/fortune/stanleybing/g20_pittsburgh.fortune/index.htm)
King: You're in that 1 percent, though?

Moore: I don't think I'm in that 1 percent, but I make documentary films. But I mean, obviously, I do well because my films have done well. But, you know, even if I were, I think it's my responsibility -- my moral duty that if I've done well, that I have to make sure that everybody else.

King: Does well too or has a chance?

Moore: Well, has at least a chance but that -- and that the pie is divided fairly amongst the people and not just a few people get the majority of the loot and everybody else has to struggle for the crumbs.

King: Are you saying capitalism is a failure?

Moore: Yes. Capitalism. Yes. Well, I don't have to say it.
Capitalism, in the last year, has proven that it's failed. All the basic tenets of what we've talked about the free market, about free enterprise and competition just completely fell apart. As soon as they lost, essentially, our money, they came running to the federal government for a bailout -- for welfare, for socialism. And I thought the basic principle of capitalism was that it's a sink-or-swim situation. And those who do well, the cream rises to the top and, you know, those who invest their money wrongly or, you know, don't run their business the right way, then they don't do well.

Watch Moore talk about corporate greed (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2009/09/24/lkl.moore.long.cnn) http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/img/2.0/global/icons/video_icon.gif (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2009/09/24/lkl.moore.long.cnn)

And if you run your business the wrong way, where does it say that you or I or anybody watching this has to bail them out?

I understand why everybody seemed to get behind it, because a lot of people were afraid, because these people down on Wall Street had taken our money and made bets with it. I mean, they essentially created this invisible virtual casino with people's money -- people's pension funds, people's 401(k)s. They took this money and they made bets. And then they made bets on the bets. And then they took out insurance policies on the bets. And then they took out insurance against the insurance -- the credit default swaps.

King: You started filming before Lehman Brothers went belly up.

Moore: Yes.

King: The stock market tanked. Now, how did the events, as it occurred, affect the movie? Did it change gears?

Moore: It didn't change in terms of what I was looking at, but it did, obviously, offer probably the best example of why this is a system that is really corrupt at its core -- corrupt because it doesn't, it isn't run with democratic -- small "d" -- democratic principles. There's no democracy in our economy. You and I and the people watching have no say in how this economy is run. The upper 1 percent, the people down on Wall Street, the corporate executives, they're the people that control this economy.

King: And they don't want to see the economy do well? They don't want to see people...

Moore: Oh, they sure do.

King: Don't they want people to make money so they can buy the products? I mean it's silly if they want people unemployed?

Moore: Oddly enough, yes.

King: Why?

Moore: I'll tell you why. Because your employees are your biggest success. And, as you've noticed in the last few months, as the unemployment rate has gone up, so has the Dow Jones. Now, you'd think, you know, that Wall Street would respond with "Oh, my God, unemployment is going up, you know, this is bad for business." But the reality is, is that Wall Street likes that. They like it when companies fire people because immediately the bottom line is going to show a larger profit.

King: Are you saying the investor is more important than the employee?

Moore: Yes. The investor -- and the investor, these days, they want the short-term, quick profit and they want it now. But in the long-term, here's what happened. When I was on this show 20 years ago, 20 years ago this week, I was here with "Roger and Me".

King: I remember.

Moore: And General Motors, that year, made a profit of $4 billion. And yet they had just laid off another 30,000 people. Now, why would you lay people off when you're making a record profit of $4 billion?

I mean that was totally insane. But they thought, well, you know, we can make a bigger profit. Maybe we can make $4.2 billion if we move those jobs to Mexico. And so they're always, you know, we can make a little bit more money if we do this. By firing those workers, Larry, they got rid of the very people who buy their cars.


http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/09/24/lkl.michael.moore/index.html

[Dominique]

If it's failed so miserably, then I'm sure he'll be handing out FREE tickets, as he wouldn't want to support a system he believes is broken. :roll: Why people continue to listen to his fat ass is beyond me.

[brainplay]

Moore: It didn't change in terms of what I was looking at, but it did, obviously, offer probably the best example of why this is a system that is really corrupt at its core -- corrupt because it doesn't, it isn't run with democratic -- small "d" -- democratic principles. There's no democracy in our economy. You and I and the people watching have no say in how this economy is run.

And that my friends is why he's an oxygen thief. I can't think of a single economy that is a democracy. I can think plenty of economies (like the US) where the economy is governed by the buying and selling trends of everyday Americans. Not as individuals but as a collective society.

No Mr. Moore, the average person has no real interest in becoming involved with the economy when they realize how much time, effort, and RISK they must use when playing in the market. They are more interested in the end product and how cheaply it can be purchased. Those that are interested....well they work on Wall Street or own self sufficient businesses.

[coltfan111]

The biggest failure of capitalism is that it allows even the very poor to get very fat. I guess he doesn't want to share his fate with too many other people,or his cake.

But seriously this guy this guy is painfully hypocritical.

[Mu-Meson]

What a douchebag. He has literally made his fortune through capitalism. I hope he has a heart attack. And soon.

[grogreg]

Communism and socialism is successful? In North Korea? Cuba?

[RICHICOQUI]

Moore say all this crap while he lives in two million dollar homes !! :cantbeli:

[kc135cc]

Communism and socialism is successful? In North Korea? Cuba?
I hope you realize that Communism and Socialism are two different ideas? On the Socialism note, look at Europe, they seem to do just fine with a Social agenda, and free market mixed together. Oh yea, you can judge NK, and Cuba, but guess what, they are still around :cantbeli:.

[Mr.K]

I didn't see any advocation of Communism in Moore's interview.
Capitalism and Market Economy are 2 different concepts.

[TallGuy]

I don't like Moore but I support him on this issue. He isn't against people making some money here and there, he's against corporate greed.
So, don't call him a hypocrite because he makes money off movies.
The almost unregulated free-market destroyed my country, leaving the citizens with decades of debt.

[Zoomie]

I don't like Moore but I support him on this issue. He isn't against people making some money here and there, he's against corporate greed.
So, don't call him a hypocrite because he makes money off movies.
The almost unregulated free-market destroyed my country, leaving the citizens with decades of debt.
Care to elaborate for those of us not in Iceland?

[TallGuy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932009_Icelandic_financial_crisis




These are the ones who are mostly to blame:




Jón Ásgeir Jóhannesson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B3n_%C3%81sgeir_J%C3%B3hannesson) and Jóhannes Jónsson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B3hannes_J%C3%B3nsson), the owners of the Baugur Group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baugur_Group) retail empire, which includes Hamleys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamleys), House of Fraser (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Fraser), The Oasis Centre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oasis_Centre) and a large portion of Iceland’s media. Jón Ásgeir, who had been known as the “popstar businessman” due to his shaggy golden mullett, has become the subject of a satirical video on YouTube set to the theme of the movie The Godfather (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Godfather). In addition, a former mistress later revealed details of his "playboy lifestyle" during a trial that found him guilty of false accounting (which prompted the Baugur Group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baugur_Group) to relocate to the United Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom)).
Lýður Guðmundsson (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=L%C3%BD%C3%B0ur_Gu%C3%B0mundsson&action=edit&redlink=1) and Águst Guðmundsson[164] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932009_Icelandic_financial_crisis#cite_note-163), the frozen food entrepreneurs who were in charge of Kaupthing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaupthing).
Björgólfur Thor Björgólfsson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B6rg%C3%B3lfur_Thor_Bj%C3%B6rg%C3%B3lfsson) and Björgólfur Guðmundsson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B6rg%C3%B3lfur_Gu%C3%B0mundsson), the shipping and brewing moguls who owned Landsbanki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landsbanki).[136] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932009_Icelandic_financial_crisis#cite_note-bankinginquiry-135)[165] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932009_Icelandic_financial_crisis#cite_note-164)

Reportedly, all of those under scrutiny are now rarely seen in public and some have apparently left the country. They are also reportedly the subjects of an ongoing investigation to determine if any of their business practices warrant criminal prosecution.[136] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932009_Icelandic_financial_crisis#cite_note-bankinginquiry-135)

[3rdMillhouse]

Communism on the other side is fvcking big win, just look a North Korean. Richest country in the word. Actually capitalism is such a big fail that Michael Moore has gotten rich out of selling garbage.

[maw]

he's correct. capitalism in it's current incarnation has failed. the free market is a myth.
he documentary will provoke discussion and analysis. for that i welcome his participation.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I'll reserve judgment on his film until after I've seen it. I call them "films" because his previous movies haven't been documentaries by any standard that I'm aware of. But he does make some good points in the interview, and it's pretty evident to everybody that there's a problem with the system. I'm especially interested to see how he explores the investor vs the consumer - I think that's a huge problem we've got right now - the requirement for immediate gratification at the expense of long term stability. We'll see I guess.

[maw]

Communism and socialism is successful? In North Korea? Cuba?

what does capitalism have to political ideologies? my point is that capitalism does not equal democracy.

[3rdMillhouse]

free market is a reality, but people fail to grasp that fact that free market survives even the strongest of nations and its institutions, and it may bankrupt those nations in the proccess, just for the heck of it, it's a wild uncontrollable force, must be regulated but not asphixiated

[Albatross]

Idiot. If people are out of work they can't spend money, which makes companies more money. We want people employed, if they are unemployed it drags the consumer confidence down and taxes up because we are forced into social spending.

I really can't stand that ****ing guy.

[TallGuy]

^^
They would most likely still be employed if the CEOs wouldn't make so much money.

[Nano]

Michael Moore needs to read up and understand what Capitalism actually is. What has been going on throughout much of our history is not Capitalism it's cronyism in the form of one government order or another. Today we call it "capitalism" because it is synonymous with another falsehood of our time democracy being the preferred form government. The only thing Moore has manged to convince and prove to me of is that democracy as a form of government is a failure.


Nano: Democracy has proven it's failed
-The majority has voted time and time again crooks, liars , murderers and the ethically suspect to office.
-The majority voted in all the current and previous group of underachievers in everything, but in getting themselves and their friends set for life.
-The majority has limited the right to self defense in all places by placing limits on the second amendment gun ownership and CCW.
-The majority wanted something for nothing. State governments bleeding red like Hitler went to town on the Jews in Hollywood.
-The majority who think capitalism is to blame and not their government and most importantly themselves for buying houses too good to be true and spending free money(credit cards)like it's going out of style.
-The majority who wanted to be rescued by the government after 911. We got Iraq and Afghanistan with no end in sight.
-The majority who care little about those dying, but make note of all the nice things the money in Iraq and Afghanistan could have been spent on.
-The majority who want to live the "American dream", but don't want to work for it and rather get bailed out time and time again towards that dream.
-The majority who voted in the current set of cocksucking leaders last time around and if trends stay true will continue to vote in the same type of majority cocksuckers
-The majority who continue with the farce of social programs because they the majority benefit while the hard working are left with the bills.
-The majority who loath Madoff's ponzi scheme yet time and time again fight to maintain the largest ponzi scheme and social ill in human history continue. Social Security.

The list can go on and on mostly permutations of the above in one form or another.

[maw]

I'll reserve judgment on his film until after I've seen it. I call them "films" because his previous movies haven't been documentaries by any standard that I'm aware of. But he does make some good points in the interview, and it's pretty evident to everybody that there's a problem with the system. I'm especially interested to see how he explores the investor vs the consumer - I think that's a huge problem we've got right now - the requirement for immediate gratification at the expense of long term stability. We'll see I guess.

2Sheds, did you see that canadian documentary "the corporation" (it's on google video)? there were a couple of genuinely big thoughts behind it and i'd be interested in your thoughts.

[maw]

free market is a reality, but people fail to grasp that fact that free market survives even the strongest of nations and its institutions, and it may bankrupt those nations in the proccess, just for the heck of it, it's a wild uncontrollable force, must be regulated but not asphixiated

i think i disagree. specifically, the notion of a free market economy doesn't really exist. well not in america at least. what we have currently is a system where business that are politically marginalized are given tough love and told survival of the fittest is the best thing for the market. on the other hand if you're big enough to buy political influence you can get all sorts of concessions. the extreme case of this is in the fortune 100 where something like (i can get the exact numbers) 70 have received federal funds directly and 20 or 30 would not exist today had the federal government not bailed them out. so if you're chase bank and you make some bad deals in argentina (1980's), uncle sam will step in with tax payer funds. everyone else is told to cowboy up.

i don't believe moore is advocating communism, just a discussion or an increased awareness of its glaring problems. capitalism needs to be reformed and money in politics need to be reformed. without both we're fcuked.

btw, i'm not sure if everyone on this board knows this; but for all the fuss and bail out money goldman sachs paid just $14 million in taxes last year.

[m.i.t]

"Michael Moore: Capitalism has proven it's failed "
What is your suggestion Mr.Moore ? Communism ?
l saw it .worse than 100 times capitalism.

[TallGuy]

Goldman Sachs also used 10 billion dollars of bailout money for executive bonuses....

[TallGuy]

"Michael Moore: Capitalism has proven it's failed "
What is your suggestion Mr.Moore ? Communism ?
l saw it .worse than 100 times capitalism.
Both communism and pure capitalism are bad. It's best to be in the middle.

[Mordoror]

it is funny to see how because it comes from unloved personn some decent arguments are discarded

are the bank failed and the whole economic system actually in service (1981-2008 capitalism) failed last year ? : yes
was it saved with public money ? : yes
are they ****ing still acting with us and our money like if we were nothing but just deep pockets and a cheap stupid labour force : yes
does the system could survive if it is not reformed : personnaly i don't think so (and i am just expecting the next fall/crack/catastroph) because the system is made in such a way that banks play with virtual money, without strong controls and on short term

this capitalism is a failure
now if another capitalism rises (making 5% of profit on long term investment instead of 20% on short term, having credit/shares:values that reflects the true value of a company and not an artificial positive or negative value and with a control of the market like it exists in every company (basically which means that wealth/profit producing companies in an intelligent way should be rewarded, the others should be punished) it could be a better kind of capitalism

(and no it is not socialism/communism....for our fellow american members, when the gov keeps an eye on a private activity with rules to be followed doesn't mean that tehy are state owned ..... it is like the driving code : you have rules that allow everybody to drive safely, if you don't follow the rules you will be fined but it doesn't say where and when and with which car you have to drive)

[Geezah]

^^
They would most likely still be employed if the CEOs wouldn't make so much money.

And I've never worked for a poor man...........

[brainplay]

Both communism and pure capitalism are bad. It's best to be in the middle.

Incorrect. The middle makes you feel all nice and content but its destined to fail.

Capitalism is awesome. But it has risks involved. Yes, in this day and age we don't like that big nasty word called "risk". The CEO's took some huge risks playing the market and failing to see what a run on credit could do or how fast the media could cause a wildfire of panic leading speculators to grab and run. Credit is what got us in this mess, and it affected capitalist, socialist, and communist markets across the board.

Communism in its purest form is supposed to be utopia. Unfortunately for its founders, humans don't like being sheep and there will always be those who want more for themselves. Greed is nothing to be ashamed of. Trying to make a better life for yourself is greed. No way around that. Trying to put limits on it or moral justification (as if his immoral way of portraying things makes him a champion of morality) is asinine and prohibitive to growth.

Moore has this weird hair up his butt that thinks that the average man should live in a "fair" world where everything is balanced and greed is punished. And governance is the enforcement of this balance for the greater good. Sounds great on paper, until a nice Civil Patrol officer tells you to pick up that can.

[Mordoror]

Capitalism is awesome. But like it has risks involved.everybody understands what risk is
and yes it is worthy to take some risk
but with your own money and your own position
CEOs in failing banks are still wining a lot of money (with golden parachutes, shares and because they are very very often members of administrating counsils of other banks or companie)

so basically they have taken risks with other's money and houses and work without risking anything from their side
if they won they won, if they lose the others lose but they still won
that's the problem

it's kinda like if you gaive 500 $ to a unknown guy to play in casino. The guy' plays 450 $
if he wins he gives you the gain and keep a part (50 $ + a percentage)
if he loses you lose all the 500 $ but he keeps 50 bucks for himself
honestly said like that would go give 500 bucks ?? (of course the probabilities to win are higher that in casino but you get the idea ....)

[TallGuy]

so basically they have taken risks with other's money and houses and work wihtout risking anything from their side
if they won they won, if they lose the others lose but they still won
that's the problem

That is exactly what happened here.

The rich get good deals from banks, multi-million dollar debts are written off etc.
If regular people miss a few mortgage payments, they lose their homes. How is this fair?
At the present, about 50% of families can't make ends meet and the number is growing.

[SBL]

If regular people miss a few mortgage payments, they lose their homes. How is this fair?

Depends. How much of that is attributable to poor decision-making?

[TallGuy]

Before the crisis, people had good jobs and could afford the payments. After the bank collapse, a lot of people lost their jobs and the payments doubled and tripled, because our inflation-indexed mortgage system.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

You know, a lot of the reason behind our recent troubles here in the US (and maybe Europe too) -isn't the failure of capitalism. It's more of a failure of nationalism, or community or patriotism I guess. It's the baby-boomer "me-first" ethos. The top 1% - the people who make businesses go, and who reap the huge rewards - found a way to make even more money. They moved all their labor offshore. This was possible because other money-making opportunities arose here at home due to the real-estate bubble. Those jobs left but were replaced by other jobs..so we didn't much care.

The service and building industries exploded because we all had so much disposable income, and mortgages/2nd/3rd mortgages were easy to get. Of course the rules governing these loans were also made up by the top 1%.

Well, everything was dandy unit housing crashed - then all our net worth went away, and with it our disposable income, the service sector and building. We're left standing here with not much to do, lots of unemployment, and just figured out that all our jobs are elsewhere.

So to me, that would be far bigger and better subject for Moore to have covered - rather than to simply chalk it up to a failure of capitalism. It's a failure to tie our capitalism to our own nation - our top 1% are still raking in the money, but they no longer employ their neighbors in order to do it.

[Zoomie]

Before the crisis, people had good jobs and could afford the payments. After the bank collapse, a lot of people lost their jobs and the payments doubled and tripled, because our inflation-indexed mortgage system.
Not true, a lot of people grossly over-inflated their annual earned income, and didn't read the fine print on ARMs.

[Mordoror]

Not true, a lot of people grossly over-inflated their annual earned income, and didn't read the fine print on ARMs.

right

on the other hand who offered to no solvable people cheap credit (with very fine prints about credit conditions)
in other words who did agressive marketing, not taking in account that some people would be unable to pay ?
who even lied about what was in the ARMs ?

banks

of course a lot of people acted not wisely lured by false promises
but it is too easy and very hypocrytic to point the customers
the credit system was made up by the banks
they knew that a large percentage of people will not be able to fullfil their payment in case of increasing rate of credit

they only bet that this increase will not occur soon
and yes indeed it took 6 years to begin to increase
but it was obvious that one day or another this will happen and it is dishonest to discard banks responsabilities in that

[Moose]

Not true, a lot of people grossly over-inflated their annual earned income, and didn't read the fine print on ARMs.

He was talking about Iseland not the USA.

[Zoomie]

right

on the other hand who offered to no solvable people cheap credit (with very fine prints about credit conditions)
in other words who did agressive marketing, not taking in account that some people would be unable to pay ?
who even lied about what was in the ARMs ?

banks

of course a lot of people acted not wisely lured by false promises
but it is too easy and very hypocrytic to point the customers
the credit system was made up by the banks
they knew that a large percentage of people will not be able to fullfil their payment in case of increasing rate of credit

they only bet that this increase will not occur soon
and yes indeed it took 6 years to begin to increase
but it was obvious that one day or another this will happen and it is dishonest to discard banks responsabilities in that
That's like blaming the cigarette makers for getting you hooked on smoking. Who took the initiative? Who asked for the loans? Who signed on the dotted line? Sure, the banks were enablers, but people need to GROW UP and take responsibilities for their actions as well.

[Sashko]

Communism on the other side is fvcking big win, just look a North Korean. Richest country in the word. Actually capitalism is such a big fail that Michael Moore has gotten rich out of selling garbage.


Don't mix personality cults and communism. Only semi-true-communism that ever happened anywhere was Soviet Union during NEP (and it had strong elements from free market economy).

I'm not defending communism or Mr.Moore btw, just a small correction p-)

[notherhen40]

If it's failed so miserably, then I'm sure he'll be handing out FREE tickets, as he wouldn't want to support a system he believes is broken. :roll: Why people continue to listen to his fat ass is beyond me.

Because he is right...unfortunately. Capitalism is dead, or if not needs to be. There is nothing about fairness, openness of competition, accountability, or self governance in what you may view as a free market. I personally would like to see the great american dream crumble like a piece of cracker..not because it is a flaky system of corruptness and greed, but because of the embarrassment it has caused because of the image of the fat, greedy AMerikan politician comes to mind.

In my version of America, these mega-corporate mergers would have never been allowed to happen, period. Once your business becomes only so big, thats it. Period. Then, after the business becomes big, then it would have to split back into smaller units again. All laws banning monopolies would be strictly enforced...not over looked and changed, which is what happened during the last 75 or so years since the great depression.

[Mordoror]

That's like blaming the cigarette makers for getting you hooked on smoking.
Not exactly
your comparison may have been right 30 years ago when smoking was cool
actually everybody knows that smoking is bad and so if you choose to smoke you know the consequences. Given how where formulated the ARMs and all legal papers to be fullfiled i rather see this as a massive fraud... especially when you are focusing on poor uneducated or badly educated people you drow under 80 pages of legal text (awkward to read and subject to interpretation) with very very fine lines that nobody cares to read because technically (in form and meaning) unreadable
Who took the initiative?
on this issue it was the banks
as i said the marketing was agressive (the more mortgage the bank was selling the more money she was making)
moreover the security systems were by-passed allowing people who normally would have been refused to be accepted
who by-passed the credit securities : the banks
why : the more mortgage the bank was selling the more ..... you get it
Who asked for the loans? Who signed on the dotted line? Sure, the banks were enablers, but people need to GROW UP and take responsibilities for their actions as well.

anyway i agree on the as well
but if somebody sells you crappy but cheap car telling you it is a good buy and that after 50 miles the car falls apart, who would you blame naturally (with some rights here) : the seller
same thing with this whole mess

.......................................................

[brainplay]

everybody understands what risk is
and yes it is worthy to take some risk
but with your own money and your own position
CEOs in failing banks are still wining a lot of money (with golden parachutes, shares and because they are very very often members of administrating counsils of other banks or companie)

so basically they have taken risks with other's money and houses and work without risking anything from their side
if they won they won, if they lose the others lose but they still won
that's the problem

it's kinda like if you gaive 500 $ to a unknown guy to play in casino. The guy' plays 450 $
if he wins he gives you the gain and keep a part (50 $ + a percentage)
if he loses you lose all the 500 $ but he keeps 50 bucks for himself
honestly said like that would go give 500 bucks ?? (of course the probabilities to win are higher that in casino but you get the idea ....)

Umm, it is their own money. Those golden parachutes are whats left over from their own shares. Most high ranking CEO's make their most profit from stock options in the company. If you look at some of the highest paid CEO types the report will almost always list those in there. If the company caves so does their profit. We see them walking away 1 million bucks from their bonus shares. They see 12 million shrunk down to 1 million. Thats enough to deflate anyone's pecker.

And then there's the other problem. They had the right to use everyone else's money as they saw fit. Anytime we invest or heck put money in a bank we sign papers upon opening the account allowing the owners to use this money. That's how banks profit, not from ATM fees. How else did you think banks survive?

There's always a catch. Playing ignorant is just naive. Failure to research who you're giving your money lies right with the individual.


In my version of America, these mega-corporate mergers would have never been allowed to happen, period. Once your business becomes only so big, thats it. Period. Then, after the business becomes big, then it would have to split back into smaller units again.

Congradulations! You just stifled American market and industrial growth...forever.

[toki]

So to me, that would be far bigger and better subject for Moore to have covered - rather than to simply chalk it up to a failure of capitalism. It's a failure to tie our capitalism to our own nation - our top 1% are still raking in the money, but they no longer employ their neighbors in order to do it.

I think Moore can only sensationalize the little a filmmaker can know about macro- and microeconomics. I'd would rather ask a professor in those subjects.

In your thought, you put blame on globalization, i'd say "we" are still the winners of it. I think the real problem is promoting and selling wealth that doesn't exist at the time of purchase, only on paper. Wanna house? here... Creating a huge credit bubble. That is something that can be handled in the future without calling out communism.

[notherhen40]

hey 2sheds....you forgot to mention of the dismantling of our industrial base over the years, shipping our factories over seas to get all that cheap labor. I mean, who wants to pay an american factory worker $7.25 an hour to assemble micro-chips, when you can get the Indians and the Chinese to do it for 3 dollars a day..Its like pay a over payed union worker $35-$40 an hour to assemble the product here, and have all your parts out sourced to other countries, and then slap a made in america logo on it...we do not make anything from scratch, unless its a massive amount of BS...and part of the reason the capitalism approach stopped working...nationalism and patriotism were killed by the big fat greedy american businessman and politician

[toki]

2sheds, i'm not sure if nationalized capitalism is still capitalism. It's protectionnism and counters competition. It's... national... socialism.. lol (seriously, a bit) p-)

Example: We are export world champion, mainly because you buy our cars. Stop doing it and buy american... but don't use foreign suppliers to build your cars. Ouch, result: Expensive cars with little selection available. And due to missing competition the quality will lack behind.

[Mordoror]

@brainplay


Umm, it is their own money.


hum yes and no
it is somewhat true but not if you take in account the side consequences (job decrease, companies failure that have a domino effect by making the smaller subcontractors failure affecting the whole economy and directly or indirectly your and my money)


We see them walking away 1 million bucks from their bonus shares. They see 12 million shrunk down to 1 million. Thats enough to deflate anyone's pecker.


cry me a river
OMG they wouldn't be able to buy a yacht this year
well it can wait next year, can't it ?
it is just a period with less champagne/caviar and ferrari

on the other hand people losing their jobs and house are a bit more in sh^it


They had the right to use everyone else's money as they saw fit.

that's here where we basically agree but also disagree
the people who put a money in bank for quick and high profit (15-20% year) should know that it is a risky business
for me no problem : you play, you win, you lose it is your money .....and it is your responsability

the problem is that the system is so complex and interconnected that even if you have put that money on low or no risk investment (2-3%) which is guaranteed because it is not risky then if the bank collapses because of the high risk activity the low risk bank account holders lose in the same way

and of course i am not even talking about the side effects on companies so jobs so families
imagine that you have your account in a bank A
this bank is quite well and remain well
but the company in which you are working is hold (directly or indirectly) by bank B
bank B collapses ... so do your company and so do your job....without any guilt of your side

that's the problem and without stronger safety procedures it will happen again and again

[seraosha]

I personally would like to see the great american dream crumble like a piece of cracker..not because it is a flaky system of corruptness and greed, but because of the embarrassment it has caused because of the image of the fat, greedy AMerikan politician comes to mind.

I personally look forward to you being diagnosed with testicular cancer.
Fat, greedy politicians cross all national borders...but if you are ashamed to be an American, you have my heartfelt support to go choose somewhere else to live. I'll stay here and try and fix it.

This dream is worth fighting for.

[XShipRider]

Oh yea, you can judge NK, and Cuba, but guess what, they are still around .

There's a reason dictators last so long... They control all the guns, the speech, the press, etc. Give the masses guns and see how long their Utopian system holds up.

[brainplay]

hey 2sheds....you forgot to mention of the dismantling of our industrial base over the years, shipping our factories over seas to get all that cheap labor. I mean, who wants to pay an american factory worker $7.25 an hour to assemble micro-chips, when you can get the Indians and the Chinese to do it for 3 dollars a day..Its like pay a over payed union worker $35-$40 an hour to assemble the product here, and have all your parts out sourced to other countries, and then slap a made in america logo on it...we do not make anything from scratch, unless its a massive amount of BS...and part of the reason the capitalism approach stopped working...nationalism and patriotism were killed by the big fat greedy american businessman and politician


Umm, actually automation kills more jobs than shipping them overseas. The overseas thing is only sustainable if it requires human interaction. The fact is that like cars, micro-chips are made with robots at $0.25 an hour. Once the technology becomes available the labor gets shipped back here and automated where a much smaller number of humans is needed to guarantee quality control and maintenance. Low education labor job pools are starting to dry up.

[Lemonz]

Both communism and pure capitalism are bad. It's best to be in the middle.



what a ignorant and naive statement.

[Mackie]

free market is a reality, ...

rofl
In HongHong maybe.
Protectionism is reality.

[Virus]

Michael Moore needs to read up and understand what Capitalism actually is. What has been going on throughout much of our history is not Capitalism it's cronyism in the form of one government order or another. Today we call it "capitalism" because it is synonymous with another falsehood of our time democracy being the preferred form government. The only thing Moore has manged to convince and prove to me of is that democracy as a form of government is a failure.


Nano: Democracy has proven it's failed
-The majority has voted time and time again crooks, liars , murderers and the ethically suspect to office.
-The majority voted in all the current and previous group of underachievers in everything, but in getting themselves and their friends set for life.
-The majority has limited the right to self defense in all places by placing limits on the second amendment gun ownership and CCW.
-The majority wanted something for nothing. State governments bleeding red like Hitler went to town on the Jews in Hollywood.
-The majority who think capitalism is to blame and not their government and most importantly themselves for buying houses too good to be true and spending free money(credit cards)like it's going out of style.
-The majority who wanted to be rescued by the government after 911. We got Iraq and Afghanistan with no end in sight.
-The majority who care little about those dying, but make note of all the nice things the money in Iraq and Afghanistan could have been spent on.
-The majority who want to live the "American dream", but don't want to work for it and rather get bailed out time and time again towards that dream.
-The majority who voted in the current set of cocksucking leaders last time around and if trends stay true will continue to vote in the same type of majority cocksuckers
-The majority who continue with the farce of social programs because they the majority benefit while the hard working are left with the bills.
-The majority who loath Madoff's ponzi scheme yet time and time again fight to maintain the largest ponzi scheme and social ill in human history continue. Social Security.

The list can go on and on mostly permutations of the above in one form or another.

I see where you are going with this...the majority is retarded.

[LEB101]

this guy is what we call hear a khanzeer or a pig

[eskachig]

Umm, it is their own money.When they're perfectly aware that the government will bail them out in case of a screw up they aren't gambling with just their own money any longer. The rest of us are hedging their risks.


Congradulations! You just stifled American market and industrial growth...forever.Did you miss the point of the trust busting era? A successful business that is able to become so large that it can squeeze out its competitors from the market completely... stifles market and growth. This is why mergers between large companies are reviewed before they are allowed to happen - a larger business may be more efficient when it has to compete on equal terms, but allowing a monopoly to be created is not in the best interests of anyone but the owners.

[3rdMillhouse]

Don't mix personality cults and communism. Only semi-true-communism that ever happened anywhere was Soviet Union during NEP (and it had strong elements from free market economy).

I'm not defending communism or Mr.Moore btw, just a small correction p-)

Yeah yeah yeah, communists always give me that same old talk.

They always claim that the type of political administration-system that occurred in the soviet Union, its repulics and those Stalinist republics throughout Asia and Central America shouldn't really be called communism, just because it didn't follow by the letter what Marx said.

It's like exempting catholic church from their blame in the inquisition just because it was a heavily corrupted institution and a far cry from what the original christians organized themselves to be.

[brainplay]

When they're perfectly aware that the government will bail them out in case of a screw up they aren't gambling with just their own money any longer. The rest of us are hedging their risks.

Since when did they know the government was going to bail them out? I kind of remember there were these little Congressional meetings and a whole lot of Exec/CEO's wringing their hands in panic. I remember alot of people saying "let them burn".


Did you miss the point of the trust busting era? A successful business that is able to become so large that it can squeeze out its competitors from the market completely... stifles market and growth. This is why mergers between large companies are reviewed before they are allowed to happen - a larger business may be more efficient when it has to compete on equal terms, but allowing a monopoly to be created is not in the best interests of anyone but the owners.

Monopoly protection is one thing. Wanting to put caps on a business and having it broken apart at a certain point is a whole different ballgame.

[Lemonz]

the commie hippies in the states and in Europe will always use the "no true Scotsman" arguemnt when it comes to to the Soviet Union and Cuba.

[notherhen40]

Umm, actually automation kills more jobs than shipping them overseas. The overseas thing is only sustainable if it requires human interaction. The fact is that like cars, micro-chips are made with robots at $0.25 an hour. Once the technology becomes available the labor gets shipped back here and automated where a much smaller number of humans is needed to guarantee quality control and maintenance. Low education labor job pools are starting to dry up.

That is true. how ever you still need people to make the machines that build the machines. And when you ship those manufacturing jobs over seas, that takes away from work here at home. And no, low education jobs are not beginning to dry up, they just moved to a different climate.

[PanzerMaster]

Guys,

There is something between North Korea-level-communism and unregulated-abusive-capitalism (BTW read Hollis and mine post on a thread about Gen. Smedley Butler in Mil. History and Tactics sub-Board).

"That something" is a market economy, regulated, where there is a LOWER limit on a people wealth but no UPPER limit.

I have no problem with people getting rich, I have problem if that cause other people getting poorer, losing jobs, house, health care (at least in the healthcare-anomaly that is USA)

But I suppose that US Cold-Era propaganda is sometime ingrained in the DNA of many. Paraphrasing our mod Hollis... many people don't know difference between "rehumatism" and "socialism"... but is so good to yell it at someone that dare to criticize the "American Dream".

[StinkyStreet]

Communism and socialism is successful? In North Korea? Cuba?

Exactly, Moore is clueless the only reason he sold so many books was because of the unpopularity of George Bush. Any of that commie crap he says is BS.

[Mr.K]

There's a reason dictators last so long... They control all the guns, the speech, the press, etc. Give the masses guns and see how long their Utopian system holds up.

I'd rather live in Cuba than in Somalia.

To all the Michael Moore bashers, where in the interview do you see "communism is the way" being mentioned?

[Mordoror]

Guys,

There is something between North Korea-level-communism and unregulated-abusive-capitalism (BTW read Hollis and mine post on a thread about Gen. Smedley Butler in Mil. History and Tactics sub-Board).

"That something" is a market economy, regulated, where there is a LOWER limit on a people wealth but no UPPER limit.

I have no problem with people getting rich, I have problem if that cause other people getting poorer, losing jobs, house, health care (at least in the healthcare-anomaly that is USA)

But I suppose that US Cold-Era propaganda is sometime ingrained in the DNA of many. Paraphrasing our mod Hollis... many people don't know difference between "rehumatism" and "socialism"... but is so good to yell it at someone that dare to criticize the "American Dream".


QFT !!!!
a good post at least (and that enlights the difference of perception between Europe and USA
Hell When Mitterand was elected in 1981, we were classified in Reagan's administration as possible communist beachhead in Europe :cantbeli:)

[Rossdobby]

The fat man is right everytime he makes a movie. He is also right about our system it simply doesnt work and it doesn't go along with the values of americans. Do you wanna know why Canada wasnt really effected by the recession? Because our system is mixed more so then the US there is much more government oversight and when the government oversee's everything it is much easier to inject the money into the right places. Like right now my small town has seen more construction this year than any other year and most of you will laugh at that but I live in the fastest growing town in Canada and the recession has not slowed us down.

Yes America your system is broken instead of fighhting with each other you should compromise and work together and maybe you will come out of this. Michael might not be 100% right but its fair to say he has a better idea then most of you.

[XShipRider]

The fat man is right everytime he makes a movie. He is also right about our system it simply doesnt work and it doesn't go along with the values of americans. Do you wanna know why Canada wasnt really effected by the recession? Because our system is mixed more so then the US there is much more government oversight and when the government oversee's everything it is much easier to inject the money into the right places. Like right now my small town has seen more construction this year than any other year and most of you will laugh at that but I live in the fastest growing town in Canada and the recession has not slowed us down.

Yes America your system is broken instead of fighhting with each other you should compromise and work together and maybe you will come out of this. Michael might not be 100% right but its fair to say he has a better idea then most of you.


Government regulation was partially responsible for the current debacle.

[MaverickCowboy]

Government regulation was partially responsible for the current debacle.

I love it when Canadians think they are superior.
They are more left than American, "we care more about people"
your system is "broken" be more liek "us".

I'm leavin this thread. the sudden influx of leftists, socialists and marxists and Chicom's has made this forum a headache.

[eskachig]

Government regulation was partially responsible for the current debacle.How so? It's deregulation of the financial industry, and lax enforcement of existing laws that got us into this mess.

[MaverickCowboy]

How so? It's deregulation of the financial industry, and lax enforcement of existing laws that got us into this mess.

Source please.

[Rossdobby]

Government regulation was partially responsible for the current debacle.

Not really it was quite the opposite your government turned a blind eye on companies Like GM and let them run a course of complete self-destruction. Then when there bankrupt you save them? Your government put billions into failing institutions.

Im not saying you should be like Canada Im saying you should think like canada in certain aspects. Your gov't should have invested that trillion or two into creating better infastructure like Schools or hospitals or even roads. You didn't though and thats why Canadian infastructure is so much better then american. Everytime we hit a recession we invest as much money into ourselves were we can create jobs and better services.

You maybe critical on what Im saying but Im right

[eskachig]

the commie hippies in the states and in Europe will always use the "no true Scotsman" arguemnt when it comes to to the Soviet Union and Cuba.And conservative loonies will always use false dichotomies, pretending that we have to make a choice between laissez faire free for all or communist dictatorship.

Even though Michael Moore is incredibly irritating he has a good point - every time America flirts with unconstrained capitalism it comes out bad for us. But instead of trying to find a balance people are always screaming "communism."

[eskachig]

Source please.
Here is one example:

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA), also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, (Pub.L. 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338, enacted November 12, 1999) is an act of the 106th United States Congress (1999-2001) which repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, opening up the market among banking companies, securities companies and insurance companies. The Glass-Steagall Act prohibited any one institution from acting as any combination of an investment bank, a commercial bank, and/or an insurance company.
...
Contrary to Phil Gramm's claim that "GLB didn't deregulate anything" (see Defense), the GLB Act that he co-authored explicitly exempted security-based swap agreements (a derivative financial product based on another security's value or performance) from regulation by the SEC Commission by amending the Securities Act of 1933, Section 2A, and similarly the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Section 3A, to read, in part:[27] [28]
1. The definition of "security" in section 2(a)(1) does not include any security-based swap agreement (as defined in section 206B of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act [15 USCS § 78c note]).
2. The Commission is prohibited from registering, or requiring, recommending, or suggesting, the registration under this title of any security-based swap agreement[.] ...
3. The Commission is prohibited from ... promulgating, interpreting, or enforcing rules; or ... issuing orders of general applicability; ... as prophylactic measures against fraud, manipulation, or insider trading with respect to any security-based swap agreement[.]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act

For example, the AIG debacle simply could not have happened under the old rules because it wouldn't have been allowed to act as an insurance company and an investment bank at the same time, nor were swap agreements exempt from SEC. It's as if in 1933 people had an unusually sober perspective on the dangers of unregulated financial services industry.


The Glass-Steagall Act was enacted after the Great Depression. It separated commercial banks and investment banks, in part to avoid potential conflicts of interest between the lending activities of the former and rating activities of the latter. Economist Joseph Stiglitz criticized the repeal of the Act. He called its repeal the "culmination of a $300 million lobbying effort by the banking and financial services industries...spearheaded in Congress by Senator Phil Gramm." He believes it contributed to this crisis because the risk-taking culture of investment banking dominated the more conservative commercial banking culture, leading to increased levels of risk-taking and leverage during the boom period.

Also:


In testimony before Congress both the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Alan Greenspan conceded failure in allowing the self-regulation of investment banks.
...
In 1982, Congress passed the Alternative Mortgage Transactions Parity Act (AMTPA), which allowed non-federally chartered housing creditors to write adjustable-rate mortgages. Among the new mortgage loan types created and gaining in popularity in the early 1980s were adjustable-rate, option adjustable-rate, balloon-payment and interest-only mortgages. These new loan types are credited with replacing the long standing practice of banks making conventional fixed-rate, amortizing mortgages. Among the criticisms of banking industry deregulation that contributed to the savings and loan crisis was that Congress failed to enact regulations that would have prevented exploitations by these loan types. Subsequent widespread abuses of predatory lending occurred with the use of adjustable-rate mortgages.[104][105][106] Approximately 80% of subprime mortgages are adjustable-rate mortgages.[107]
...
A 2004 U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) decision related to the net capital rule allowed USA investment banks to issue substantially more debt, which was then used to purchase MBS. Over 2004-07, the top five US investment banks each significantly increased their financial leverage (see diagram), which increased their vulnerability to the declining value of MBSs
...
In the years leading up to the crisis, the top four U.S. depository banks moved an estimated $5.2 trillion in assets and liabilities off-balance sheet into special purpose vehicles or other entities in the shadow banking system. This enabled them to essentially bypass existing regulations regarding minimum capital ratios, thereby increasing leverage and profits during the boom but increasing losses during the crisis.
...
Martin Wolf wrote in June 2009: "...an enormous part of what banks did in the early part of this decade – the off-balance-sheet vehicles, the derivatives and the 'shadow banking system' itself – was to find a way round regulation."
...
In a June 2008 speech, U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, then President of the NY Federal Reserve Bank, placed significant blame for the freezing of credit markets on a "run" on the entities in the "parallel" banking system, also called the shadow banking system. These entities became critical to the credit markets underpinning the financial system, but were not subject to the same regulatory controls.
...
Nobel laureate Paul Krugman described the run on the shadow banking system as the "core of what happened" to cause the crisis. "As the shadow banking system expanded to rival or even surpass conventional banking in importance, politicians and government officials should have realized that they were re-creating the kind of financial vulnerability that made the Great Depression possible--and they should have responded by extending regulations and the financial safety net to cover these new institutions. Influential figures should have proclaimed a simple rule: anything that does what a bank does, anything that has to be rescued in crises the way banks are, should be regulated like a bank." He referred to this lack of controls as "malign neglect."[154]


The government made lots of bad moves that lead to this mess, but "too much oversight" isn't among them. There was a consistent pattern of relaxing previous restrictions, which were put in place to keep the financial industry reigned in. What is worse, some of the incentives the government offered only encouraged risk taking behavior.

[Rossdobby]

I am with you on that fact that this mess wasn't caused by one factor it was the combination of bad policies, Greedy CEO's, Corrupt officials, Bankrupcties due to medical bills(60% off all) and easy lending to people who were tricked into thinking they could afford it.

Truth is this meltdown brought forward the most important issues facing Americans. Your healthcare is a huge reason why its so damn bad. Not to mention the massive spending by the bush administration. I know the Obama administration is just as guilty but I believe that they were playing with the hand dealt to them and to switch strategies in the middle of the event could have made it alot worse.

What should happen?
Complete overhual of the banking system no more easy money for those who cannot truly afford it. If you don't have healthcare for what ever reason there should be a government option to stop so many pointless bankruptcies.

No more Credit default swaps that led to this mess and it can only make things worse.

Do not bail out any companies the idea of the capitalist system is to fix itself.

[eskachig]

Yeah yeah yeah, communists always give me that same old talk.

They always claim that the type of political administration-system that occurred in the soviet Union, its repulics and those Stalinist republics throughout Asia and Central America shouldn't really be called communism, just because it didn't follow by the letter what Marx said.

It's like exempting catholic church from their blame in the inquisition just because it was a heavily corrupted institution and a far cry from what the original christians organized themselves to be.
It's actually a pretty apt analogy - even though the Catholic Church went through a corrupt and brutal period doesn't mean that Christianity as a religion is irrevocably tied with violence. A lot of people at the time realized that the Catholic Church no longer followed Christian ideals, which is how the Protestant movement got started.

Same thing with communism - it (and socialism even less so) is not irrevocably tied to Stalinism, nor can USSR be described as a communist nation regardless of what ideology it professed.

I don't even believe that communism is possible, desirable, or efficient until we live in some sort of a post scarcity society. But it's strange to pretend that communism and democracy are somehow mutually exclusive, and that common ownership of resources automatically equals gulags and summary executions.

[Flagg]

As far as Michael Moore goes, he is either implementing an effective insurgency against the system that produced him by using the system against itself, or he is the ultimate capitalist, with a never ending supply of half-truth shock populist inventory to sell to the sheep.

Michael Moore would easily be one of the most success capitalists alive today.......His Return On Equity would make Nike, Coca-Cola, Exxon-Mobil, Monsanto, and General Dynamics look like amateurs in comparison.

What we need now is someone of Winston Churchill's stature to remind us that capitalism(well regulated) is the least bad option we've got.....just like democracy(functioning properly).

At the moment, we are experiencing neither.

At the moment, and likely going forward, we DON'T need to fear people using populist fire stoking to increase their bank balances(like Michael Moore), we DO need to fear people with enough brains, malignancy, and total lack of morals/ethics to stoke populist fires to increase their power base.

Just have a look at this thread, and others like it here....lots of anger and resentment simply waiting to be harnessed/focused in a particular direction.

You've all seen the posts of folks here having lost their jobs, or friends/family losing jobs, coming under increasing financial stress.

You've all seen the increasing perception of political/social fracture with heathcare reform, financial bailouts, etc.

I call it the "fatcat index".

The first time I heard the word fatcat was in the 70's during the gloomy Carter years.

It kinda went away for a while, until I heard it from a lady in the "Roger and Me" movie :)

It kinda went away again because we were all busy making millions investing in Pets.com, Boo.com, and buying ****ty little trailers park homes in the Vegas Exerbs for $1.2 million.

Then we started hearing the "fatcat" word again....about 2 years ago it was a whisper, now it's a dull roar.

There always have been, and always will be, rich folks.

Their money(or anyone without debt) buys them freedom...freedom to escape

Take Maryland's recent efforts to soak millionaires, it failed miserably because the millionaires simply moved....the higher taxes rsulted in far less revenue from that demographic.

And that leaves the VAST majority of folks living in often self-imposed debtor's prisons to carry the bag.

IF a populist(a savvy POWER focused Michael Moore) manages to gain a significant power base I think the end result will be catastrophic.

People will demand a "mulligan" to get out from under often self-imposed and suffocating debt or to maintain their artificially inflated lifestyle.

But if the debt shackles are removed, what kind of shackles will government insist on replacing them with?

I'm certainly not a subject matter expert of healthcare and finance reform, but I think I can carry my end of a constructive discussion OK.

But I have to say I am quite frankly disgusted at the ignorance displayed by some in this thread and on this forum when it relates to these topics.

Some historically repeated perspective:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1893

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_Poverty_in_California_movement

It has all happened before, it is all happening now,m and it will all happen again(if we are "lucky").

We all thought we were too smart to have to remember the mistakes of the past.

Take some time to form your own educated opinions, rather than being lazy sh!ts and parroting what the TV tells you too.

[Damian90]

I wan't to say something. Only my own observations from my country.

Poland is post socialist country, all of you saying that socialism is good should see Poland in late 80's and 90's, you would change thinking on socialism or communism, and think about other things, Poland were not limited by embargo's, we were not under concrete heads goverment like NK or Cuba, but our economy was in really bad shape thanks to that "great" Socialism/Communism + of course a ****ing big credit taken by one wise guy.

You no, over first years are great, but when socialism is growingh and growingh, well earlier or later economy will be in bad shape.

So socialism is not good solution.

This is my point of view.

[eskachig]

Since when did they know the government was going to bail them out? I kind of remember there were these little Congressional meetings and a whole lot of Exec/CEO's wringing their hands in panic. I remember alot of people saying "let them burn".We always bail them out, every time, and don't think that the fellows in charge are ignorant of history. The financial industry isn't like just any other - no other sector of the economy has the same destabilizing potential. In any sort of a crisis the government is always forced to step in because sitting back and letting the industry learn its lesson can easily mean the end of a nation. All that "let them burn" talk was just that - and when it comes to people that mattered nobody even pretended it was an option.

Monopoly protection is one thing. Wanting to put caps on a business and having it broken apart at a certain point is a whole different ballgame.It's actually one and the same. The reasons why some companies aren't allowed to merge, and may even be broken up stem from the desire to keep the economy more competitive. The situation you are describing is the current reality - once a company grows to a certain size (meaning, becomes massively dominant in its market) the govt will step in a break it up to make sure that the sector remains competitive. Otherwise the bohemoth, even though it can squeeze out its competitors in the short term, will become inefficient (after all, it doesn't need to be), but can still put up massive barriers that won't allow a potentially more efficient competitor to enter the market. For the consumers this situation typically translates to paying higher prices for inferior product.

[eskachig]

You no, over first years are great, but when socialism is growingh and growingh, well earlier or later economy will be in bad shape.

So socialism is not good solution.Socialism does not equal a badly managed state economy. Europe is full of nations that are doing quite well despite having a decidedly socialist bent. Nationalized health care, government paid education, higher taxes on the wealthy, social safety net, stricter business regulation - none of that precludes having a competitive market economy or a decent living standard.

[Damian90]

I ask, you live in state with socialism economy or in post socialism state? Theory is one, real life is second. And I talking about real socialism, not that utopia.

[MaverickCowboy]

Socialism does not equal a badly managed state economy. Europe is full of nations that are doing quite well despite having a decidedly socialist bent. Nationalized health care, government paid education, higher taxes on the wealthy, social safety net, stricter business regulation - none of that precludes having a competitive market economy or a decent living standard.

I see a pattern, the people who have been through socialism, and live with the ****, me , that guy from poland. are shrugged off. but the people who NEVER have had hardship in socialism promote the **** out of it completely disregarding others PERSONAL experiences.

too all those mentioned. you're retarded and blindly following a Impossible Utopian society.

[Mr.K]

Why are we talking about socialism. It's like the only argument you can come up with when "free maket capitalism" is criticized is " Yeah, well communism is worse"


I see a pattern, the people who have been through socialism, and live with the ****, me , that guy from poland. are shrugged off. but the people who NEVER have had hardship in socialism promote the **** out of it completely disregarding others PERSONAL experiences.

too all those mentioned. you're retarded and blindly following a Impossible Utopian society.

And the people that have a hard time in "capitalism" promote "socialism", it's a two way street buddy.

[eskachig]

As far as Michael Moore goes, he is either implementing an effective insurgency against the system that produced him by using the system against itself, or he is the ultimate capitalist, with a never ending supply of half-truth shock populist inventory to sell to the sheep.

Michael Moore would easily be one of the most success capitalists alive today.......His Return On Equity would make Nike, Coca-Cola, Exxon-Mobil, Monsanto, and General Dynamics look like amateurs in comparison.Absolutely. But it's not like he's saying that making money and being successful is a bad thing, nor is he moving American jobs offshore to make a larger profit or accepting billions of taxpayer dollars to stay afloat. For what it's worth, his brand of capitalism fits well with his stated idea of how capitalism is supposed to be - if his movies don't sell he'll simply be forced to go out of business and that's all there is to it.


What we need now is someone of Winston Churchill's stature to remind us that capitalism(well regulated) is the least bad option we've got.....just like democracy(functioning properly).Agree 100%. And, from what I saw in the Letterman interview Moore does as well. The whole issue is about the matter of what exactly "well regulated" means.


At the moment, and likely going forward, we DON'T need to fear people using populist fire stoking to increase their bank balances(like Michael Moore), we DO need to fear people with enough brains, malignancy, and total lack of morals/ethics to stoke populist fires to increase their power base.

Just have a look at this thread, and others like it here....lots of anger and resentment simply waiting to be harnessed/focused in a particular direction.
We also need for people to be aware of how big business and financial industry function, because when we're not worked up in poorly understood populist rage we like to sit back and pretend everything is groovy. A lot of the anger you see in this thread really is justified - problem is the timing. I feel like when times are tough we have too much to be productive, and when times are good we have too little to be vigilant.


There always have been, and always will be, rich folks.True, but the question is just how rich, and just how powerful the money makes them. Unequal distribution of wealth is not bad in itself, but when it becomes outrageous the rest of society suffers. A nation where regular people are doing badly but the rich just keep getting richer is a powder keg.

Note that when everyone is doing well people aren't bothered by the fact that some bank CEO got a ten million dollar bonus. It's not about the mere existence of the wealthy, it's the (semi-justified) feeling that they got everyone else into **** but don't have to face the consequences.


It has all happened before, it is all happening now,m and it will all happen again(if we are "lucky").

We all thought we were too smart to have to remember the mistakes of the past.Unrestrained capitalism is one of those mistakes as well

[Damian90]

And the people that have a hard time in "capitalism" promote "socialism", it's a two way street buddy.

Capitalism is like natural system, it gives you two equal chances, you can be on top, or end in the hole full of ****.

Socialism autmatically destroy economy, you are from Russia? You should remember what was USSR and later Russian Federation shape in 90's.

[eskachig]

I ask, you live in state with socialism economy or in post socialism state? Theory is one, real life is second. And I talking about real socialism, not that utopia.


I see a pattern, the people who have been through socialism, and live with the ****, me , that guy from poland. are shrugged off. but the people who NEVER have had hardship in socialism promote the **** out of it completely disregarding others PERSONAL experiences.

too all those mentioned. you're retarded and blindly following a Impossible Utopian society.
I was in Moscow through the collapse of USSR and the nightmare of the early 90's, thank you very much.

I don't really see where you think I'm advocating a planned economy here, I specifically listed the sort of socialist policies I think are generally beneficial for a society - and they are something that citizens of Sweden, Norway, Netherlands, etc take for granted. You're making me out to be some sort of a crazy extremist because I think that some of our NATO allies have a few things figured out better than us.


Capitalism is like natural system, it gives you two equal chances, you can be on top, or end in the hole full of ****.It's much more complicated than that. An unregulated capitalist system often results in an entrenched upper class with no social mobility(what two equal chances?), inefficient industries due to collusion/monopolies/etc - and boom/bust fluctuations. All of this and more has happened, and America had its fill a long time ago. Which is why business is now regulated in all sorts of fashion - it takes work to keep the system running smoothly. Capitalism is a wonderful force, but it has to be kept in check to be useful.

This is the kind of thing that can happen if you simply leave people alone:

Trusts were large business entities that largely succeeded in controlling a market, essentially becoming a monopoly. The term became common in the late 19th century, when a system of trusts controlled much of the economy of the United States. In 1898, President William McKinley launched the "saw-busting" era when he appointed the U.S. Industrial Commission on Trusts, which interrogated Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, Charles M. Schwab, and other industrial titans. The report of the Industrial Commission was seized upon by Theodore Roosevelt, who became known as a "Trust-Regulator," dissolving 44 trusts during his two terms as president. The "Trust Buster" name is probably more suited for Roosevelt's successor, William Howard Taft, who brought an end to 90 trusts in one term. Although Taft may have done more to control the trusts while in office, Roosevelt retains the nickname because he was the pioneer of trust-busting.

Capitalism is not automatically super-efficient, for the same reason that communism doesn't work. People are ****s.


Socialism autmatically destroy economy, you are from Russia? You should remember what was USSR and later Russian Federation shape in 90's.Oh I remember. Where exactly do I advocate that we should adopt USSR's economic policies? Socialism is a very broad spectrum, and Socialism policies do not automatically equal economic ruin or Western Europe would not be what it is now.

This is all off topic anyhow, I was just responding to common misconceptions. While I think many socialist policies are beneficial they have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

[Damian90]

But any kind of socialism lead to planned economy, to dictatorship, look how great were idea's of Marks, and now, it's a shame that someone don't kill that idiot.

Give socialists/communists oportunity to take full control, they take it and you loose your freedom.

In my opinion, generaly, all left wing parties, leftiest, hippies organisations, also nazi type socialist parties and organisastions, etc. should be delegalised.

This is not good fot society.

[eskachig]

But any kind of socialism lead to planned economy, to dictatorship, look how great were idea's of Marks, and now, it's a shame that someone don't kill that idiot.

Give socialists/communists oportunity to take full control, they take it and you loose your freedom.Christ do you even understand what socialism is? Why are you under some impression that Socialism is some monolithic philosophy?


Social democrats propose selective nationalisation of key national industries in mixed economies, while maintaining private ownership of capital and private business enterprise. Social democrats also promote tax-funded welfare programs and regulation of markets. Many social democrats, particularly in European welfare states, refer to themselves as socialists, introducing a degree of ambiguity to the understanding of what the term means. Libertarian socialism (including social anarchism and libertarian Marxism) rejects state control and ownership of the economy altogether and advocates direct collective ownership of the means of production via co-operative workers' councils and workplace democracy.

There are many kinds of socialists, virtually every nation (including US) maintains some socialist policies, and many successful European nations are run along socialist ideas. No, universal health care, free education, and welfare is not an automatic slippery slope to a planned economy.



In my opinion, generaly, all left wing parties, leftiest, hippies organisations, also nazi type socialist parties and organisastions, etc. should be delegalised.

This is not good fot society.Banning a point of view is not good for society.

[John1980]

If it's failed so miserably, then I'm sure he'll be handing out FREE tickets, as he wouldn't want to support a system he believes is broken. :roll: Why people continue to listen to his fat ass is beyond me.

Not saying it isnt failed, but Mike here failed for sure, you cannot make a film like this and then not make it available for free. :cantbeli:

Cheers.

[Flagg]

In as few words as possible, this quote below perfectly describes my biggest fears in regards to the enormity of what we are facing around the world.


"When the people lose faith, they do not then believe in nothing. They believe in anything."

[Ought Six]

What we have in America is not capitialism. It is corporatism (aka economic fascism).

[Fargin]

Moore mentioned Elizabeth Warren in an interview about Capitalism and Sicko and I found a couple of lectures with her on youtube. Found her every interesting.