Capitalism: A Love Story (New Michael Moore Documentary)

I hate Michael Moore. Films like Sicko made me feel I don't live in the country with the best health care.

This film will probably reinforce my feelings of being a disposable pawn.

That reminds me. I have to tell my wife to pay for the mortgage on our first home that we can't sell.
 
Well Capitalism seemed to work out ok so far for Michael Moore.

And let's not forget that when a business is mismanaged and fails it closes, that's Capitalism The government is the one who gave all those business the bailout money to keep going, do you think they were realistically not going to take the money? The problem isn't capitalism, the problem is a large government who has a "Daddy know best" mentality when it comes to spending tax payer dollars and that's why our national debt and inflation are rising so fast. The answer is never a large government. They can't manage the post office, social security, medicare and a half dozen other things successfully, I don't know why anyone would want the government in charge of health care or anything else. I could barely trust them to use money towards free clincs for the uninsured but I'm sure they'd fuck that up to.

To quote Milton Friedman
There are four ways in which you can spend money. You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch out what you’re doing, and you try to get the most for your money. Then you can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I’m not so careful about the content of the present, but I’m very careful about the cost. Then, I can spend somebody else’s money on myself. And if I spend somebody else’s money on myself, then I’m sure going to have a good lunch! Finally, I can spend somebody else’s money on somebody else. And if I spend somebody else’s money on somebody else, I’m not concerned about how much it is, and I’m not concerned about what I get. And that’s government. And that’s close to 40% of our national income.
 
[quote name='jputahraptor']Well Capitalism seemed to work out ok so far for Michael Moore.

And let's not forget that when a business is mismanaged and fails it closes, that's Capitalism The government is the one who gave all those business the bailout money to keep going, do you think they were realistically not going to take the money? The problem isn't capitalism, the problem is a large government who has a "Daddy know best" mentality when it comes to spending tax payer dollars and that's why our national debt and inflation are rising so fast. The answer is never a large government. They can't manage the post office, social security, medicare and a half dozen other things successfully, I don't know why anyone would want the government in charge of health care or anything else. I could barely trust them to use money towards free clincs for the uninsured but I'm sure they'd fuck that up to.
[/QUOTE]


I thought the reason the post office was loosing money was due to it becoming an outdated service that needs to be in place even though less people are using it, not really the gov'ts fault. Medicare I thought was bad because the big pharm. companies got it so the gov't cant negotiate prices unlike the VA and other countries do. While that is the gov'ts fault for not having enough balls, doesn't look like big pharm has our back either.
 
[quote name='jputahraptor']The government is the one who gave all those business the bailout money to keep going, do you think they were realistically not going to take the money?[/quote]
Who is running the PRIVATE bank? The capitalists.
Whose in charge of the government? The capitalists.
Does it make sense for those with capital to defend their capital at all costs? Of course.
The problem isn't capitalism, the problem is a large government who has a "Daddy know best" mentality when it comes to spending tax payer dollars and that's why our national debt and inflation are rising so fast. The answer is never a large government.
Click to expand...
Who is running the PRIVATE bank? The capitalists.
Whose in charge of the government? The capitalists.
Does it make sense for those with capital to defend their capital at all costs? Of course.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how what capital is doing to protect itself isn't an obviously capitalistic move.
 
Couple of things

#1 Moore is most definitely being a hypocrite as he profitted and continues to profit from Capitalism. If he donated all the money he made from the movies, interviews, etc, to charity, it would be a different story. A better title would have been Bailouts: Capitalism Gone Wrong or the like.

#2 it looks interesting and might actually be a Michael Moore movie I enjoy, thought I'd never say that outside of Canadian Bacon. In the trailer I see he is railing on Bush, the current Congress, but where is Obama? While Bush started the bailout process, Obama has spent much more money than bush ever did on bailouts. So to exclude him would make this "documentary" extremely biased, though I expect that from Moore anyway.

#3 it underscores current issues. If the CBO has no friggin clue where the bailout money went, why are we trusting these people with our healthcare monies? Private industry can run amok, but our government right now is even worse IMO.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Who is running the PRIVATE bank? The capitalists.
Whose in charge of the government? The capitalists.
Does it make sense for those with capital to defend their capital at all costs? Of course.

Who is running the PRIVATE bank? The capitalists.
Whose in charge of the government? The capitalists.
Does it make sense for those with capital to defend their capital at all costs? Of course.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how what capital is doing to protect itself isn't an obviously capitalistic move.[/QUOTE]

Congress voted for the bailout and it was passed with legislation by Bush, Obama, and others. The money that was given to these corporations was taxpayer dollars. Last I check, Fortune 500 companies don't pay there employees with tax payer money. The policiticans who voted to give them the money may have been influenced by special interests groups in which case, that is the source of the problem. It's a dream, but politicians shouldn't be allowed to take any kind of payments or gifts from any person or organization. That is where corruption begins, with those who are bribed and ignore their civic duties to uphold the interests of the people who elected them into office. Whatever capitalists you think run the banks and government are where the problem lies, not in the overall system. And since any legislation and decisions have to go through Congress, there's your problem, that is not how government was created to make decisions.

Government is the problem. It seeks to regulate everything we do, and is inefficient as hell. It absorbs to much money and wastes to much more to the point where the country as a whole and down to the state level is all deeply in debt. If the government were a business, it would have failed long ago. It doesn't earn the money it gets from taxpayers and therefore has no respect for it. Look at the money Obama is spending to bring back the economy, millions are going to bullshit things that taxpayers have no interests in. Taxes are to high and there's to many taxes. You can mock those tea rallies a few months back, but you have to wonder where all this money goes. Since my teen when I began to take an interest in politics, the government continues to push the envelope of how much control they have. From wiretappings, to have a stake in the car I drive, my job, and health insurance it's pretty scary and goes beyond the job description of what the governments purpose is.

Anyone who thinks the government will actually improve health care by taking it over and taking away competition has not taken an economics class. Think about what would happen if one game developer took over all the others ones or had a stake in them all. Do you think the overall quality of games and variety will improve or not? Do you think overall costs would ever change? You wouldn't have any choice in the matter and the developer wouldn't care because you would have no choice in the matter and no say in what gets made. Games aren't life or death like health care but without competition there is no incentive to make a better product.
 
[quote name='jputahraptor']Anyone who thinks the government will actually improve health care by taking it over and taking away competition has not taken an economics class.[/QUOTE]

Kenneth Arrow, Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz.

Those are just the Big Kahunas Nobel prize winners off the top of my head.

The only thing competition means in the context of the US Healthcare system is how little can be paid out by insurance companies and how many unprofitable people can be excluded and gotten away with.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Kenneth Arrow, Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz.

Those are just the Big Kahunas Nobel prize winners off the top of my head.

The only thing competition means in the context of the US Healthcare system is how little can be paid out by insurance companies and how many unprofitable people can be excluded and gotten away with.[/QUOTE]


Well, since I'm not even sure Congress knows what's in the healthcare plan (because nobody had time to read it) I think it would be a little naive and on par with what I've heard and read about, that the plan would have some degree of at least rationing if we are going to add 47 million people who now have insurance cards. If a doctor can treat on average, 5 people an hour for 40 hours a week (200 people a week) , I hope Obama has some health care doctor training to accomodate all these extra people.

I gotta be honest, I really like the idea I heard proposed of free clinics, I know this is slightly off topic here but why do we have to do anything with the health care providers we have now. I have known quite a few people who have had very serious health issues, my father has cancer, and yet all these people got there treatment, young or old, major or minor treatments. Now yes they all had health insurance but they got there treatment. With the influx of all these uninsured, doesn't anyone think that this will make it harder to get an appolntment. I admit, free clinics may not be as classy as a regular doctor but these are still certified nurses and doctors who will be able to spot and treat most problems. If all these people can't afford health insurance, then they will have to settle for it, but it would give them something. Why can't the government do that? Unless they want to have control, which they do. There is no reason for the government to make all the people with health insurance have to adjust to the long wait times and increased cost burden to accomodate those who are uninsured. It is the Christian thing to help these people, and believe me I am all for helping them, but I can't justify taking food out of my hungry kids mouths so someone elses kids can eat, or them not getting an appointment even though I work hard and pay a lot of money now for health insurance.
 
[quote name='Ruined']
#2 it looks interesting and might actually be a Michael Moore movie I enjoy, thought I'd never say that outside of Canadian Bacon. [/QUOTE]
While I take nearly all of Michael Moore's movies with a gigantic grain of salt, you should really check out Roger & Me. That movie is great, maybe because it was so early in his career.
 
[quote name='jputahraptor']Well, since I'm not even sure Congress knows what's in the healthcare plan (because nobody had time to read it) I think it would be a little naive and on par with what I've heard and read about, that the plan would have some degree of at least rationing if we are going to add 47 million people who now have insurance cards. If a doctor can treat on average, 5 people an hour for 40 hours a week (200 people a week) , I hope Obama has some health care doctor training to accomodate all these extra people.

I gotta be honest, I really like the idea I heard proposed of free clinics, I know this is slightly off topic here but why do we have to do anything with the health care providers we have now. I have known quite a few people who have had very serious health issues, my father has cancer, and yet all these people got there treatment, young or old, major or minor treatments. Now yes they all had health insurance but they got there treatment. With the influx of all these uninsured, doesn't anyone think that this will make it harder to get an appolntment. I admit, free clinics may not be as classy as a regular doctor but these are still certified nurses and doctors who will be able to spot and treat most problems. If all these people can't afford health insurance, then they will have to settle for it, but it would give them something. Why can't the government do that? Unless they want to have control, which they do. There is no reason for the government to make all the people with health insurance have to adjust to the long wait times and increased cost burden to accomodate those who are uninsured. It is the Christian thing to help these people, and believe me I am all for helping them, but I can't justify taking food out of my hungry kids mouths so someone elses kids can eat, or them not getting an appointment even though I work hard and pay a lot of money now for health insurance.[/QUOTE]
So basically those without insurance should be treated like second class citizens.
 
Michael Moore railing on capitalism is about as absurd as John Lennon telling people to "Imagine No Possessions". I don't exactly see Michael Moore out there doing good deeds, donating tons of money and time to anything charitable, I just see him out there every day biting the hand that feeds him. Let's see how many of these movies he'd be allowed to make in China or North Korea.
 
[quote name='Ruined']Couple of things

#1 Moore is most definitely being a hypocrite as he profitted and continues to profit from Capitalism. If he donated all the money he made from the movies, interviews, etc, to charity, it would be a different story. A better title would have been Bailouts: Capitalism Gone Wrong or the like.[/quote]

I wouldn't focus so heavily on the title of the movie. It seems like you're extrapolating the title and making presumptions about the thesis of the movie; that is, you're assuming Michael Moore is anti-capitalism. Which is a straw man and an absurdity.

I've seen many variations of the above argument made for well over a decade. Michael Moore is wealthy and therefore he can't criticize _______ and/or rally for the "common man." It's a rather foolish argument to suggest that someone who becomes successful at what they do is no longer qualified to do what they do precisely because they happen to be good at what they do. It's absolute nonsense, actually.

Truthfully, I don't get the logic. The best I can come up with is full of silly holes: it starts with "Michael Moore hates America" and ends with "but America has been good to his checkbook." Only a fool would genuinely believe the former, and only a fool would deny the latter. But since we can't satisfy both parts of the argument, then everything above in your point #1 loses argumentative relevance.

#2 it looks interesting and might actually be a Michael Moore movie I enjoy, thought I'd never say that outside of Canadian Bacon. In the trailer I see he is railing on Bush, the current Congress, but where is Obama? While Bush started the bailout process, Obama has spent much more money than bush ever did on bailouts. So to exclude him would make this "documentary" extremely biased, though I expect that from Moore anyway.
Click to expand...

1) Dude, it's a trailer.
2) Canadian Bacon was good, wasn't it? Totally forgot about that one.
 
just from the trailer I can see the fallacy in Moore's argument....

people incorrectly think there's a limit on wealth* (or on labor) and think that if someone else has $$, it means they don't (or vice versa). In fact, everyone in society is becoming more wealthy- that's why better computers, for example, are more affordable and accessible to a greater number of people now than they were 10 years ago. Trying to bring down big businesses, CEOs, etc. on the grounds of the amount of money they produce is ridiculous- no one would ever do business with the company / the CEO would not remain employed if they did not produce at least an equivalent service. think about it people. Now, the one issue Moore could be claiming when talking to politicians which needs to be addressed is how government subsidizes only incur more costs to the tax payer - but I don't think the fat bastard is smart enough to know it.


*see zero-sum fallacy
 
Another person who sets up their own argument, claiming it to be Moore's, and defeats it, insisting upon victory over the filmmaker. All this, having seen fewer than 2 minutes of a film.

They epitome of straw man.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Another person who sets up their own argument, claiming it to be Moore's, and defeats it, insisting upon victory over the filmmaker. All this, having seen fewer than 2 minutes of a film.

They epitome of straw man.[/QUOTE]

the title used to be "Save the CEO's", now its "Capitalism..." Then he's talking about the bailouts with AIG, et al. and probably has something with the auto industry. He has two people talking about lack of work and the disparity in income. Its not that hard to jump to a conclusion about the focus of the "documentary". looking at it again, im moore hopeful that the stimulus and bailouts will be addressed as out of line from what the government should be doing and therefore put the blame on the government- but im guessing the majority of blame will fall on industry (the oh-so-cute citizen arrest bit at the beginning). maybe my predisposition is more cynical than it should be (i doubt it) but its only due to disagreements with previous "documentaries" and clips made by that fat tortoise.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']So basically those without insurance should be treated like second class citizens.[/QUOTE]

First of all, read what I said. Second of all, most people without health insurance are only without it for a short time. Children should always have health insurance since they are children and they are generally healthy enough that the cost wouldn't be terrible (they generally don't need surgery, or anything beyond shots and basic medicines) Most don't have it because they lost there job but will get health insurance again once they return to the workforce. This is just meant for a temporary solution to hold them over. It's not fair that people who don't work should get for free, what everyone else must work and pay for, on top of paying for others. I'm not saying we should not give the uninsured anything, but the costs of treating 47 million people for free are an unbearable burden on the taxpayers. So yes, they will have to settle for something of less quality if you want to preserve the good care that everyone else gets without disrupting it for everyone else. Otherwise what incentive is there to get a job if I can get free healthcare, welfare, food stamps, and other government programs?

If you aren't going to offer a valid counterpoint to my argument of rationing then you are in the same boat with Obama because I don't think either one of you know what will happen when doctor's suddenly have 47 million more people to take care of, and who are probably not paying for it, thereby they will show no restraint whenever they have the need to visit a doctor. I already wait a week to get an appointment now.
 
jputa, before I bother to respond to you point by point you are aware that many other countries A)provide care for everyone B) with almost universally better outcomes than we have while C) spending less than we do correct?
 
[quote name='jputahraptor']Second of all, most people without health insurance are only without it for a short time.[/QUOTE]
Or, as I understand, it, are JolietJake.
 
^^ but can the government force its citizens to buy anything, even health insurance.

my idea is to make small incremental improvements in health care. not just some sweeping overhaul that will only be enacted 4 years from now. tort reform, reducing insurance coverage requirements, etc. to lower costs and spread advailability.

the bottom line is that the US government is inefficient. From medicare to medicaid to Social Security to the USPS to the DMV to everything else, government programs are economically inefficient. period. Obamacare cannot perform as well (at least economically, let alone qualitatively) as other existing ideas, like 2 mentioned above, for health care reform. Many people see that if enacted, obamacare will eventually bankrupt the country.
 
[quote name='jputahraptor']First of all, read what I said. Second of all, most people without health insurance are only without it for a short time. Children should always have health insurance since they are children and they are generally healthy enough that the cost wouldn't be terrible (they generally don't need surgery, or anything beyond shots and basic medicines) Most don't have it because they lost there job but will get health insurance again once they return to the workforce. This is just meant for a temporary solution to hold them over. It's not fair that people who don't work should get for free, what everyone else must work and pay for, on top of paying for others. I'm not saying we should not give the uninsured anything, but the costs of treating 47 million people for free are an unbearable burden on the taxpayers. So yes, they will have to settle for something of less quality if you want to preserve the good care that everyone else gets without disrupting it for everyone else. Otherwise what incentive is there to get a job if I can get free healthcare, welfare, food stamps, and other government programs?

If you aren't going to offer a valid counterpoint to my argument of rationing then you are in the same boat with Obama because I don't think either one of you know what will happen when doctor's suddenly have 47 million more people to take care of, and who are probably not paying for it, thereby they will show no restraint whenever they have the need to visit a doctor. I already wait a week to get an appointment now.[/QUOTE]
So let me get this straight. You think people like myself should have to settle for sub-standard care all because you don't like to wait for a doctor's appointment? I have news for you, you don't deserve any better care than i do. You want to set up some kind of class system for health care it seems.

Way to think of others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top