TheAgitator.com
Just Curious
Monday, September 7th, 2009So for consistency’s sake, Michael Moore’s new film won’t be advertised, marketed, or otherwise promoted by crass capitalist machinations, right?
And I assume we’ll all be able to see it for free?
75 Responses to “Just Curious”
Leave a Reply
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivs 2.5 License.
Reading the IMDB plot summary, it sounds like the film should really be called “Corporatism”
Do you even know what “capitalism” means, Radley? If so, I would love to hear what it has to do with marketing or advertising, or selling things.
I’m not sure Michael Moore has any particular idea either, of course, and won’t be finding out. But your reasoning there is sloppier than a Taco Bell dumpster.
I never expected agreement from this quarter with the idea that capitalism is nothing but the overly rich manipulating whatever nominal systems might be in place to screw the rest of us.
Right, and it cost nothing to MAKE either. Come on, get real.
I am pretty sure that the film will be about the dangers of unregulated capitalism, which is pretty much what got us into the mess we are in today. I have never heard Moore say that people buying and selling from and to each other, in and of itself, was bad.
The ability of the financial services sector to make real estate loans that no prudent lender would have made was primarily due to a hands off approach from the agencies responsible for regulating such things. When that house of cards toppled over, the rest of the economy, which had come to rely on the myth of ever-increasing home values to survive, has been dragged down with it.
Since I don’t even watch Michael Moore movies for free, I doubt I will see this one, either. Nonetheless, if Moore is to live the life that he wishes for the rest of us, he should abandon any of his private property and have the state make all of his movies with any profits distributed to “the people.” Anything less would be an act consistent with private enterprise, which Moore claims to despise.
I have always been a fan of the way you point out how socialists try to profit from American capitalism (or what’s left of it). Dude becomes a millionaire off of criticizing the very system that allows him to become a millionaire.
We are supposed to listen to the man who believes Communist Health Care is better than our regulated to hell and gone Health Care System preach about the evils of “Unregulated” capitalism?
Liberal Please.
It is a howler to think that financial markets are “unregulated,” and one who works in those markets never would make that claim. What happened was not “unregulated capitalism,” but rather a situation involving moral hazard because the government had promised to backstop Wall Street losses.
As Ludwig von Mises noted long ago, a private enterprise system has to have both profits AND losses, as losses send signals of where resources should NOT be directed. Unfortunately, between the various government agencies that act to backstop losses plus the Federal Reserve System throwing around trillions of dollars, we have seen people take risks that in a normal profit and loss system would not have been taken.
Furthermore, don’t forget that it was the government that was encouraging all of this activity in the housing market, ostensibly to make housing “affordable.” We have seen the Fed blow up two huge financial bubbles in a decade, yet people STILL believe that the problem was “unregulated capitalism”? Let us try the “unregulated” central bank! (Of course, anyone who believes that entities like Fannie, Freddie, and the Fed should be “regulated” is seen as a kook or some sort of enemy of the people.)
Just another example of where captalism gets the blame for government involvement’s fault ….
No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.
Attrib HLMencken
I am pretty sure that the film will be about the dangers of unregulated capitalism, which is pretty much what got us into the mess we are in today.
How the hell do people come up with this nonsense? Is it nothing more than parroting?
“I have always been a fan of the way you point out how socialists try to profit from American capitalism (or what’s left of it). Dude becomes a millionaire off of criticizing the very system that allows him to become a millionaire.”
So millionaire can’t exist in socialist countries then? Funny, since a lot of the “socialist” EU countries have higher per capita GDP than the US does.
From the previews I’ve read, it sounds like Jeff is most likely correct. The movie won’t be about the dangers of capitalism, but about the dangers of unregulated capitalism. Moore will probably make a statement at some point in the movie reminding his viewers of that.
Of course, from the previews I’ve read and his history, Moore will prove this point by showing his viewers from of the most egregious examples of short-sighted, politically motivated government regulation wreaking havoc on the market. Moorewatch will get frustrated because he’ll have convinced the sheeple that he just proved that we NEED more regulation when, if anything, he just demonstrated the counterargument to his thesis.
In the end, though, we all win because saying “Well, I saw in a Michael Moore movie…” is, in my experience, the easiest way to tell that someone is grossly ignorant on the topic in question.
Eh, this seems like a cheap shot on the order of “So, libertarian, when are you gonna stop using government roads and postal services?” I’ll fault Moore for many things, but not for living in the real world rather than the one he imagines he’d prefer.
So millionaire can’t exist in socialist countries then? Funny, since a lot of the “socialist” EU countries have higher per capita GDP than the US does.
A lot? I see a total of Liechtenstein, Luxembourg (one of which is ridiculously sparsley populated and the other a European banking haven). Norway is the only legitimate EU nation which could be described socialist (though I wouldn’t go that far). The rest are solidly behind the United States in ranking.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html
Only by participating in capitalism.
It’s a lot easier to distribute your wealth to other people than to build your own roads. It’s a lot easier to make and distribute a film using socialist principles than it is to totally avoid monopoly/government services. I can take all my non-essential income and give it away to people right now. But I can’t just sit in my house forever because of refusing to walk out onto the government street.
If we could just get rid of all this regulation of financial markets, the world would be perfect! That is truly the lesson of the last decade or so. Human beings, acting of their own self-interest, can only create the most perfect optimal solutions for everything!
Once you believe that, you can reach that intellectual nirvana that Greenspan got to, and by which Cheney governed.
And Michael Moore is fat! Ha ha!
I love it when people review films they haven’t seen yet. Ad Hominem much?
Seems from the trailer that the movie is mostly a critique of, not even lack of regulation, but the bailouts, which I guess imply pure capitalism to Moore. So to recap:
AIG = capitalists profiting from socialism (at least in the broadest sense meaning “socialization of losses”)
Moore = socialist profiting from capitalism
And I’m sure for consistency’s sake, Radley will remove “theagitator.com” from the government-run top-level-domain scheme. And I’m sure he doesn’t pay his taxes or utilize any socialist government services like highways, etc.
Shit, it’s gonna be great when this comes out. I have a few friends who think everything Michael Moore does is Gospel, so when they start preaching about this film, I have some study questions for them.
1) How many people do you know who own – or have ever owned – a Soviet made vehicle?
2) You’re on your first date, and your date says she wants to go to the “80s Film Festival”. The problem is, there are currently two Eighties film festivals in town. The college is playing several Bulgarian films from the 1980s, while the art house is playing several John Hughes films. Which film festival does your date wish to attend?
3) A young man in a Third World country is given a choice: Learn how to use a Fender Telecaster (a product of capitalism) or learn how to use an AK-47 (a product of communism). Which would you recommend he learn as a means to escape poverty?
4) Your country’s commercial airlines have just been nationalized, and you’ve been placed in charge of the operation. Do you keep the airlines’ Boeing and Airbus jets, or replace them with aircraft made under a system in which the workers control the means of production?
5) The Host, Joint Security Area, Oldboy, Save The Green Planet, and The Quiet Family are 5 South Korean films which have met with international acclaim within the last decade. Name 5 North Korean films that have achieved similar status. (Pulgasari was released in 1985, so it doesn’t count).
It is always frustrating to encounter the argument (see skunky above, provided I’m adequately understanding his/her point) that to maintain that one method of allocating resources is more efficient than another is tantamount to arguing that such a method will ultimately lead to a utopia. To say that a particular individual can respond more fluidly to her own circumstances than can a complete stranger is not to insist upon the omnipotence of that individual. She’s simply better at making personal decisions than the stranger can be making them for her. It follows from this point that the more you give the power to make such decisions to individuals, the better the system will work as a whole. Nobody is saying anything about a perfect world. We’re just talking about a better one.
Julian, Radley’s post may be a cheap shot, but it’s okay because Michael Moore films are basically 97% fallacious, self-righteous cheap shots.
If there’s one person it’s okay not to take seriously, it’s Moore.
“So, libertarian, when are you gonna stop using government roads and postal services?”
I don’t really think that’s a cheap shot. It’s a perfectly legitimate stupid question that I hear consistently from the dumber segment of people I argue with about politics. And the answer is always “when they stop taking my money at gunpoint to pay for them.”
It’s a lot easier to distribute your wealth to other people than to build your own roads. It’s a lot easier to make and distribute a film using socialist principles than it is to totally avoid monopoly/government services. I can take all my non-essential income and give it away to people right now. But I can’t just sit in my house forever because of refusing to walk out onto the government street.
…sure you could. Easily. You could do all sorts of things. You could go live in the woods. You could move to Africa. You could grow your own vegetables, keep a little farm in the country… if you don’t like America, leave or become a recluse. You’ve got a choice.
I’m not sure why you feel the need to push someone else of a difference ideological belief to an extreme you don’t see the need to live up to yourself.
Michael Moore uses hyperbole to make points. It may be inelegant, but it’s effective. I’ve always thought that was the whole point of libertarianism, going around spouting unrealistic holier-than-thou beliefs while living off of the system that keeps your roads repaired and your food from poisoning you.
kleptocracy – taxpayer’s on the hook for long-run systemic risk, private wealth gets to keep the profits in the short-run good times. Often called “capitalism” by people that confuse real-world realities with political-economic ideals.
The American economy has, like it or not, a long history of government intervention, both good and bad, intentional and unintentional consequences. Calling it capitalism is a nice label but about as descriptive as calling China’s economy “communist”.
Non sequitur much?
Michael Moore has established his formula. Put forth a premise, ignore facts to the contrary and distort facts to bolster your argument.
It’s the documentary equivalent of Slayer’s music*. If you’ve heard Reign In Blood and didn’t like it, you don’t need to listen to every Slayer album to know you’re not going to like South of Heaven or Diabolus in Musica.
Unless Michael Moore drastically strays from his chosen style, I don’t need to see his documentaries to know I’m not going to like them.
I saw Canadian Bacon and thought it was funny as hell. I agreed with a lot of things he said in Fahrenheit 911, but on top of his distortions, I get sick of listening to his whiny voice throughout his documentaries. FFS, there’s a ton of voice talent in Hollywood – get Keith David to narrate your next film.
To the person who has no problem with people’s views being distorted and/or misrepresented, then Moore’s documentaries might seem fresh and innovative each time a new one is released. I’ve established my criteria for a good documentary, and Moore has established his style, and never the twain shall meet, as they say.
You see, there are valid criticisms of Michael Moore beyond, “he’s a fat fuck”.
*I’m a Slayer fan, so don’t take that as a knock on Slayer.
Michael Moore uses hyperbole to make points. It may be inelegant, but it’s effective.
So Michael Moore is the Glenn Beck of the left. That’s really your best argument?
People who point to the United States as an example of “unregulated capitalism” only prove they do not understand the meaning of either of those terms, or that they hold to a faith-based political belief system. If the former, education can help. If the latter…well, it would be like pointing to the fossil records and trying to convince a biblical literalist they might possibly be mistaken re: the age of the Earth.
Don’t think of Moore’s film as something you’d find on the Discovery channel, but more like something starring Kirk Cameron and appearing on the Trinity Broadcast Network.
To me the only point of a movie like this is to bring about debate just like your having, except not in a blog but the city councils/town halls. The fundamentals of our country seem not to be working, this is quite clear. It’s time to for a “REAL” change not the skin color of the president change. 95% of the wealth being held by 1% of the population is NOT good. (PERIOD) Bill Gates and Warren Buffett seem to agree…
“Two wrongs make a right” is the underlining philosophy of the left/right, liberal/conservative, republican/democrat dichotomy.
I hate to nitpick here but Norway is not an EU country. In theory, this means they don’t have to pay as much attention to the directives coming out of Brussels. Much of their wealth comes from oil and related industries, but also a more conservative approach to government at least in European terms. Twenty-ish years ago, when their economy was in the gutter, they turned it around with sensible things like tax cuts and deregulation.
Sorry, but our economy is so regulated and taxed that calling it “unregulated capitalism” is laughable.
Michael Moore.
Obese.
There, I said it.
Cut his caloric intake and feed most of Central America.
I would challenge anybody to find and read the recent New Yorker article on the demise of Countrywide and then say proper regulation could not have averted the crisis we are in. “No documentation loans” based on “stated income” were a disaster waiting to happen! Companies like this cannot be counted on to behave responsibly. Sure, its fine for some people to say, “Well, let them fail.” The problem, as I said before, is that the damage reverberates far beyond the company and its borrowers.
anybody (Stephen) who thinks our economy is overtaxed should go back and see what the top corporate and individual tax rates were in the early 70′s. Corporations and the elite who control them have worked diligently to lower tax rates over the last three decades. BTW, taxation is a totally different issue than regulation.
I don’t know who this “Buffy” is, but I sure do like Slayer!
@ Jeff
What exactly could have been done to prevent it? What piece of regulation/legislation would have stopped it?
I have a theory as to what would have stopped all those things you mentioned…government not volunteering explicitly or implicitly to socialize any losses accrued by the financial institutions. Of course you already object to this, stating that the effects of such a policy would effect other people and therefore can not be allowed. Your attempting to frame the debate in a way that is completely ignorant of reality. You can not bemoan a situation created by government (socialization of losses) and then demand that the exact same situation should exist while attempting to blame it on lack of regulation.
I hope Rage Against the Machine did the soundtrack.
Jeff is a walking parody, a veritable smorgasbord of cliches, fallacies, and plain ignorance.
The high tax rates of the 50′s, 60′s, and 70′s also allowed deductions for nearly everything, credit card interest being one example. It amazes me that the people who talk about how high the tax rates where back then, always, always fail to mention the deduction side. Ignorance or deception doesn’t make your point. The effective rates weren’t a lot different than today, but it took a lot more diligence and planning.
sharinganeye:
95% of the wealth being held by 1% of the population is NOT good.
perhaps you are also sharing a brain, with about 100 other doucebags.
that is the biggest load of crap i’ve heard in a while…
#30, what an insult to Glenn Beck …. every time a Moore film comes out, you can make a top 50 list of the lies or exagerations in it in a few hours of searching. Beck’s worst quality is the just hyperbole … but people aren’t exactly calling him on facts … just “ha, he can’t spell oligarchy … huh huh”.
what regulation could have been implemented to stop what countrywide did? How about a requirement that lenders have to verify the income of the loan applicant for starters! How about a prohibition on 80/20 loans where the applicant essentially finances 100% of the purchase price. How about a requirement that a lender cannot securitize a loan until it has performed satisfactorily for three years. And, a federal reserve that had the balls to start raising interest rates when the market overheated would have been helpful too. Unfortunately, Greenspan and Bernanke have been at the beck and call of Wall St for far too long.
I also disagree that the govt warranted in advance that it would bail out lenders that performed so shoddily. However, to the extent that bailouts were implied in advance, that was a mistake as well.
“How about a requirement that lenders have to verify the income of the loan applicant for starters!”
Hey, I’m good with some of that!
The “regulation” that I was speaking of was the stuff that did away with that requirement.
How about a requirement that lenders have to verify the income of the loan applicant for starters!
bah! obviously the lender would be the primary beneficiary of such a rule! so obviously lenders were de-incentivized to make such considerations.
@Jeff, your “extra requirements” completely miss the point. The Fed shouldn’t be playing in the sand box and policing it, too. That’s a huge conflict of interest. Entities like Fannie Mae buying up stupidly written mortgages just encouraged more stupidly written mortgages. Earlier you blame unregulated capitalism for the mess, but now you’re blaming Greenspan et al for not manipulating the interest rates differently. Badly regulated is not the same thing as unregulated.
“Badly regulated is not the same thing as unregulated.”
I think that just about covers it. Well said.
“So Michael Moore is the Glenn Beck of the left. That’s really your best argument?”
Michael Moore doesn’t get a hour-long nightly show on TV to drum into our head all sort of crazy bullshit conspiracy theories. Talk about indoctrination….!
“The “regulation” that I was speaking of was the stuff that did away with that requirement.”
You’d then be describing DEregulation, which is what did away with those types of requirements.
And another thing, holy Christ on a cracker people, it’s not as if you can simply choose NOT TO GO TO THE MICHAEL MOORE MOVIE!
For a bunch of rugged individualists, you all sure do get worked up by a documentary filmmaker. It’s not like the Stasi is force-marching you to the movie theater.
Glenn Beck is free every night on your teevee. Silly liberal media.
And another thing, holy Christ on a cracker people, it’s not as if you can simply choose NOT TO GO TO THE MICHAEL MOORE MOVIE!
no kidding, we’ll spend our time ridiculing him instead.
Michael Moore doesn’t get a hour-long nightly show on TV to drum into our head all sort of crazy bullshit conspiracy theories. Talk about indoctrination….!
see your own advice post #53
Some of you may call it a cheap shot on Radley’s part, but the idea isn’t unprecedented. One of my favorite artists, Tim Fite, recorded an album with an anti-consumerist message and chose to release it for free on his website despite being under contract with a record label. I don’t necessarily agree with his take on capitalism, but I admire his consistency (and the fact that he’s an incredibly talented artist and an awesome live act). Surely if an indie artist like Tim Fite can do something like that, a rich celebrity like Moore could do the same.
there is an audience for Michael Moore- all those who are upset with Wall Street and the money paid to support our financial industry. The auto makers and the steel industry will rush to see this film. Like the birthers there are the bothers.
A while back I saw a C-Span Q&A with a fellow from Flint who made a documentary “Shooting Micheal Moore” a la “Roger & Me.”
The most egregious act by Moore was the night of the premiere he sent a limo to pick up the “rabbit lady” and gave her $100 “spending money” — the hitch was that she had to sign a “receipt.” By her own admission she can barely read, and she really signed a release. Moore tried the same thing with another guy, but he was a small businessman, IIRC, and refused to sign. He settled with Moore for “more than $100.”
“And I assume we’ll all be able to see it for free?”
Sorry, but releasing his movie for free was exactly what he tried to do with his last documentary. http://www.wired.com/underwire/2008/09/michael-moore-t/
Also, things still cost money in socialist and communist systems, so that comment didn’t really make sense anyway.
To me, badly regulated is the same as unregulated when the agencies supposedly doing the regulating are acting primarily at the behest of the regulated as the result of money in politics and the cross-pollenization between the govt and the major players from the private sector.
@DDP
“A lot? I see a total of Liechtenstein, Luxembourg (one of which is ridiculously sparsley populated and the other a European banking haven). Norway is the only legitimate EU nation which could be described socialist (though I wouldn’t go that far). The rest are solidly behind the United States in ranking.”
Actually, both Liechtenstein and Luxembourg are banking havens. Norway is not even in the EU. Moreover, Norway is one of the most expensive countries in the world to live in, which as much of Europe, largely overrides the benefits of its relatively high GDP. From the source you cite, Jersey and Bermuda are dependencies of the UK, and ahead of the US, but those two are also both banking havens.
Guernsey and the Cayman Islands are close behind the US — also both banking havens. Ireland isn’t far behind, but was touted as the “Celtic Tiger” for its free market approach (low taxes and foreign investment) before the 2008 financial crisis hit. The closest country on that list that I would really consider socialist is the Netherlands, which had a $7,000 (15 percent) lower GDP per capita than the United States as of those 2008 numbers.
But I’m afraid you are wasting your energy in trying to show empirical evidence to socialists/anti-consumerists that a freer, less regulated (although by no means laissez-faire) economy like the United States fares better as a general rule. They will always disregard inconvenient facts.
@ Jeff
Well at least your an honest hypocrite. If you understand and acknowledge that there was regulation then saying that the regulation that was in place is tantamount to no regulation (because it was bard/ineffective regulation) is completely ignorant/deceitful/hypocritical/fascistic.
I’m sorry but really? Your -really- attempting to say that ineffective regulation is the equivalent of no regulation? Not just that it’s bad regulation, but you even acknowledge that the regulatory agencies are benefiting from regulation. If you do not realize that you have just proven/accepted the radical liberation position you are a) a troll or b) a hypocritical fascist.
Radley, you seem to be under the misunderstanding that a philpsophy such as socialism (or anarchism, for that matter) is somehow prescriptive in a way which makes it incompatible with capitalsim.
socialism is incompatible with freedom. freedom and capitalism are compatible.
In the late 80′s when Gorbachev was promoting Glasnost I kept hearing the term “Communist Reform” being tossed around in the media. I thought it was great. The USSR and the USA had long established a relationship of racing each other to develop and implement new technologies and programs. I assumed that if there was going to be sincere and effective reform of communism then “Capitalist Reform” would soon follow. Boy was I wrong. As far as US capitalism was concerned there followed a whooping victory party and then the most flagrantly unchecked and destructive era of wealth-mongering capitalism ever. The problem of a completely capitalist society is that nothing can be accomplished (however vital to human welfare) unless it generates a profit; and conversely, nothing that generates a substantial profit (however detrimental it to human welfare) can be prevented.
Bill P., you seem to be under the misunderstanding that a philosophy such as socialism (or communism, for that matter) is somehow not prescriptive in a way which makes it compatible with capitalism.
…agencies supposedly doing the regulating are acting primarily at the behest of the regulated…
The root problem is the existence of such agencies. But I suppose you believe you could give people such power and somehow keep them honest.
The problem of a completely capitalist society is that nothing can be accomplished (however vital to human welfare) unless it generates a profit; and conversely, nothing that generates a substantial profit (however detrimental it to human welfare) can be prevented.
Care to give an example of something “vital to human welfare” that isn’t profitable to produce? And how, pray tell, can a company in a free market profit by strictly harming people?
I am not clear at all on how I said “the regulatory agencies are benefiting from regulation”. That really does not make any sense to me…..the concept that agencies can benefit in some way….since they are just parts of the government staffed by people.
I do say that agencies either benefit the people they are supposed to protect/serve, or they can benefit those they are supposed to control/regulate. And when you have the cross-over I described between the elite of the regulated industries and the regulating agencies themselves, it is generally inevitable that the agency starts to serve the industry, rather than the citizenry.
Second, I do not see any hypocrisy in maintaining that bad regulation can be equivalent to no regulation. If the regulating agencies promulgate rules that allow lenders to make loans without verifying the income of borrower, how is that any different from failing to enact a regulation that requires income verification?? Bad/weak regulation can easily have the same impact as no regulation at all.
This is a huge problem in this debate.
It doesn’t much matter which system is more “efficient” (however you define that).
It matters how much freedom the individual has, perhaps coupled with his standard of living. There are tradeoffs there, as well as diminishing returns, at both extremes of the libertarian vs. authoritarian spectrum.
So quibbling about efficiency is the wrong approach, IMO.
Sounds like Michael Moore needs some regulation.
Take Alex Jones as you will, but he calls himself a “conservative libertarian” (whatever that means) and releases his movies both for purchase as DVDs and online for free.
The point is that it will give his websites and radio show more exposure, which they do.
Anyway, I think it’s a little ironic when compared to Moore.
I declare myself the victor in this discussion.
@Jeff: “I declare myself the victor in this discussion.”
No one responding to you doesn’t mean you won, it just means everyone else realized that you’re mentally retarded.
I didn’t know you could win an argument by ignoring the responses of the other side.
Mikey lives in a $650,000 home with 150 ft of frontage on Torch Lake. It’s one of the most desirable places to live in Michigan. Mikey’s neighbors on the lake are millionaires.
Capitalism sure has been evil to Mikey.
Oh, and he rarely says he lives on Torch Lake. He says he lives in Bellaire or that his adopted home town is Traverse City.
As far as capitalism goes, Mikey is a good entrepreneur. His movies cost almost nothing to produce, compared to studio productions. He doesn’t pay any talent, and uses a small camera and sound crew. And he has millions of progressive leftoids who are so smug that they’ll pay $10 to see a movie about the evils of capitalism. Mikey laughs all the way to the bank.