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.

No one responding to you doesn’t mean you won, it just means everyone else realized that you’re mentally retarded.

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.

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.

#58 | MicroNomics | September 8th, 2009 at 12:59 am
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.”

Sounds like Michael Moore needs some regulation.

#24 | Kevin | September 7th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

“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.

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.

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.”