Capitalism: A Love Story

I wonder how right-wingers will express their unbridled loathing for Michael Moore when he takes on the big banks and Wall Street in his new film… I suspect many of them might be forced into actually agreeing with him.

The horror… the horror!

Whatever one might think about his theatrical excesses or minor deceits as a filmmaker (that have been thoroughly documented by his many detractors) or the fact that he’s fat (something wingnuts never tire of pointing out), it’s hard to deny that he was pretty much spot on about the impending fate of General Motors, the corrosive nature of America’s gun-crazy culture, the ideological flim-flammery of the Iraq war, and the malicious bureaucracy driving the for-profit healthcare industry.



Filed under Liberals-Progressives

28 responses to “Capitalism: A Love Story

  1. Tomm

    Yeah gotta know it’s going to be entertaining.

  2. Tomm, probably not.

    Bowling for Columbine, notwithstanding it’s “theatrical excesses or minor deceits” (did you know we don’t lock our doors in Canada?) was entertaining, and raised some interesting points..

    Sicko was, well, profoundly dissappointing from an entertainment point of view, though again, did raise some interesting questions, which, however, were I think drowned out by the resort to yet greater “theatrical excesses”.

    Who knows with this – I’m sure I’ll watch it when it goes to video, and I will be curious as to the extent to which Michael shares his booty gained from the movie equally with every worker who in some manner contributed to production.

  3. Oh that’s for sure.

  4. Ti-Guy

    did you know we don’t lock our doors in Canada?

    The minor deceit there was that he didn’t specify that we don’t lock them when we’re at home.

    Where I grew up, no one locked their houses, though. I delivered the newspaper and once a week, would go into people’s houses and collect the money left on the table. When my parents finally moved, they had to get the locks changed because they didn’t have the keys anymore.

  5. Rob — I will be curious as to the extent to which Michael shares his booty gained from the movie equally with every worker who in some manner contributed to production.

    Shares his booty? You make it sound like piracy or something. Arrrrr.

    Anyway, I like this story from a few years ago…

  6. Ti-Guy

    I’m sure I’ll watch it when it goes to video, and I will be curious as to the extent to which Michael shares his booty gained from the movie equally with every worker who in some manner contributed to production.

    This is the same phony charge of hypocrisy wingnuts level at environmentalists who travel by plane or at Al Gore for having a big house.

    It’s breathtaking in its moral bankruptcy.

  7. Yes, clearly. “Capitalism is bad, except when it benefits me.” That’s no hypocrisy at all.

    Your point TG – clearly, is that by virtue of their identification with the left, a speaker is, ipso facto, sincere and believable – while, by definition, anyone on the rightish side of the spectrum is devoid of any potential for valid commentary or even occasionally accidental episodes of truth.

    You, Mr. Masked Complainer, are a political bigot. You define you position, not based upon the substance of the comment, but by it’s political color. Blue is bad, red is good. Almost (but not quite) impressive in it’s dogged narrow-mindedness.. ironically, the trait you seem to most complain about from anyone conservative.

  8. Ti-Guy

    “Capitalism is bad, except when it benefits me.”

    I’m not sure to what extent any of these people are anti-capitalist. Maybe they’re just like Liberals, who think capitalism is the worst system to organise an economy, except for all the others. In any case, it’s irrational to turn on these people for producing a product the market wants, let alone expect them to produce anything that has market appeal within a capitalist system.

    What you want them to is work for free and expect nothing, which would mean they wouldn’t be able to mount the challenges they have. Which would suit you just fine, I’m sure.

  9. “Anyway, I like this story from a few years ago”

    heh. i watched sicko just last night.


  10. “I will be curious as to the extent to which Michael shares his booty gained from the movie equally with every worker who in some manner contributed to production.”

    why should he, rob? did he ever suggest that he’s some sort of a collectivist? he doesn’t need to give them extra; they work in an industry where they make a good union wage.

    that is so fucking phoney, rob.


  11. burpster

    When I was a kid we never did lock the doors. As a mid-fifties resident of Kamloops I’d say we lock our doors 75% of the time.

    I’ve never begrudged a employer making a good profit. The problem comes when a employer wants all the money. Whats the point of working if your wage is not enought to cover both the rent and the groceries?

    At some point there has to be a little bit of balance between the wealthiest and the poor.

  12. “You, Mr. Masked Complainer, are a political bigot.”

    says the rightwing apologist masquerading as a centrist.


  13. @burpster – I’ll go even further. I don’t really care how rich someone is, how much executives are compensated, or the income difference between the rich and poor classes (well, maybe a little on the last one, at least indirectly).

    What matters is how things got that way. Did the rich earn their money fairly, or did they rip someone off to get there?

    Is there real competition? Just because there’s more than 1 supplier in a market doesn’t mean there’s competition – that’s always a problem with oligopolies.

    To me, lack of real, fair, meaningful competition is the elephant in the room here. If a company can do a better job FOR THE CUSTOMER, then maybe they deserve some reward. If a company can do a better job ripping off the customer and still get rewarded, then the system needs fixin’.

    I wonder if both the left and right could agree that improved competition from the consumers perspective is a good thing, and that some industries or market segments need fixin’? I’m sure they’d disagree on how to fix them, so maybe it doesn’t matter.

  14. UU4077

    The problem is not capitalism, per se. It is “unbridled, unregulated” capitalism. There are, unfortunately, too many that are just plain greedy and to hell with anyone else.

    This latest crisis (that some believe started way back with Enron) included much fraud. There were executives booking the profits on certain derivatives contracts immediately to get there bonuses. Not only that, but the counterparties were also booking their profits. Both sides cannot win on a derivatives contract. They are, effectively, a win/lose contract (ie. insurance).

  15. UU4077

    sp. “their bonuses”

  16. I would to some degree echo TRN’s and UU4077’s

    The problem in the U.S. isn’t “capitalism”, it’s how the democratic system has been perverted to remove the checks and balances need to exist in a healthy capitalist system.. big business pays money to support their candidate, and under our current democratic system, we have to have significant money to mount a credible campaign.

    The loser? Small business who face unfair support for their large competitors, the public who, individually, do not carry the clout of a large corporation.. though, I enver cease to be amazed with the unbridaled public support for companies like Wal-Mart by the same public who bemoans “big business”.

  17. All Moore tries to do is get Lemmings to think for themselves once in a while.

    I quite admire him for that.

  18. Ideology is the preserve of the unthinking.

  19. True enough.. and he certainly provokes debate and discussion (see above). I don’t for a moment suggest otherwise.. I just find that he’s getting a bit, “done” from an entertainment standpoint..

    And the point regarding “ideology” is well stated – I seek a government not to affirm my “faith” in an “ism”, but to get the job done in a manner which serves to best provide for the common good.

  20. Capitalism is the utmost ideological deceit. And I speak as a traditional conservative … “Capitalism” in its current form is destroying civil society.

  21. Ti-Guy

    I don’t even think we should call what we have “capitalism” anymore. I think oligarchy is much closer to the truth.

  22. Yes. And they completely & certainly lack the sense of noblesse oblige that the old Aristocracy generally demonstrated.

  23. Ti-Guy

    And they completely & certainly lack the sense of noblesse oblige

    We can blame the hard left for that. Its unscientific/irrational beliefs about class and class warfare convinced people that the very existence of class is unnatural/illegitimate in human society (when in fact, it’s inevitable) and provided all the tools necessary for the influential to wage a very effective and cynical class war

  24. So who would stand up against the various oligarchies, and improve competition for the benefit of customers?

    Not ‘big business’ or the oligarchies themselves.

    Not the people. Not unless there’s a big change and they unite somehow. I’m not convinced, not even with the Internet to co-ordinate them.

    That leaves government (driven by the people, hopefully). This is where I think some Americans shoot themselves in the foot when they say “you can’t trust big gub’mint”. Can you trust big business more than big government? Really?

    There are many ways to deal with oligopolies: single-payer monopsonies, more regulations, de-regulation, government-run competitors or monopoly, etc. The real work is figuring out which remedy fits each oligopoly.

    If only we had an economist for a PM. Wait…

  25. The right wing in both Canada and the USA are not the elite.

    They are the rabble.

  26. “The right wing in both Canada and the USA are not the elite.

    They are the rabble.”

    a succint summation of movement conservatism in NA. nice.

    can’t wait for this flick. moore’s da man

  27. Ti-Guy

    Rational Number:

    In the US, the oligarchies are partners with the government, regardless of which party is in charge.

    The only hope is for the people to unite to use economic actions to oppose them (and forget demonstrations and riots; the oligarchies can live quite happily with social unrest, located as it is, far from their gated communities). With unionisation rates around 10% in the US (much lower than in other developed nations), general strikes are out of the question. Since Americans can’t live without consuming (indeed even dissent requires consumption), consumer action won’t change much either.

    I really don’t see much hope. I don’t think anything will change until things have become much worse.

  28. jeff bush

    great movie, great books

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s