Micheal Moore

[thehackercat]

Premise two: There are certain truths that are evident simply by God's natural law, and require no court, cabinet, or congress to uphold. These include the right to life, the right to liberty, and the right to pursue happiness. (Also added in recent years are the rights of womens' suffrage, equal civil rights across the nation, and 18-year-old suffrage).

That took an amendment to be included.

Another self-evident truth. Please read carefully?

[Scarlet]

most of the claims he makes such as people being turned away because of not be able to afford insurance which is most cases is not true. public hospitals are there to help the poor and disavantaged whilst private hospitals are there to help the rich and powerful.

Public hospitals are rare in the US.

I think a major problem here is the whole profit stuff... healthcare should not be a money making industry. But it is. The goal is to treat first, rather than to cure... lots of money to be made via treating ya know.

I say that the United States is the greatest nation in the world.

Come on, you gotta be kidding.
The US is a disaster. Just look at the cities... they're screwed. Look at the debt - it's terrifying. It's doing down the hole.

I can write for days about the huge problems here.

Therefore, a Capitalist state running a free-enterprise system encourages both COMPETITION and the INNOVATION required thereof. This means that EVERYONE has a stake in the success of the nation as a whole.

Competition with whom? The US has lost millions of jobs to cheap labor costs in poor countries. Like no wonder people are out of work now.
Competing with such low labor rates is an insult to people. It really is.

It is also why the United States of America went from Kitty Hawk to Tranquility Base in about 70 years, and has led the world in the Industrial Revolution, as well as led the world financially in Wall Street.

The US developed through extremely high tariffs, to protect its industry from outside industry. That is key. That is very anti-free-market.

In contrast, a centralized state (typically known as a Socialist state, though definitions vary) ensures that all resources are regulated by the central government. This eliminates the incentive to succeed, because there is little competition. If no one has a stake in the success of the market, industry, etc, then it will collapse, ESPECIALLY if handled by a strong federal government.

Your problem is that you are looking at things as two possible extremes. It does not quite work out that way in the modern world. Guess what, we have social security in the US. That is a socialistic thing.

Capitalism has to be regulated. Otherwise it will suffocate in its own greed.

Welfare and nationalization are one of the largest gaping wounds in this country, not because of their nature, but because of their methodology.

What exactly is getting nationalized? I don't see anything getting nationalized in the US.

More regulation is a must. Look at how much more stable canada then the US or the EU. It's because their financial system was a hell of a lot more regulated than the one down here. Hint hint, neoliberalism/reaganomics is bad.

[RoboBlue]

I didn't really make that clear. I know there are middle grounds, an example being my own country, believe it or not. The New Deal, along with many medical and disability pensions added since then, are a centralized operation.

The intent of these systems is a good one, perhaps even a noble one. But the way we're going about it is wrong. The only successful welfare system is one with the purpose of helping individuals get BACK ON THEIR FEET, not giving them a ride for the rest of their lives. There are exceptions to the rule, obviously, such as people with chronic illness. But if exceptions are made and well regulated, the rule would be a good one to follow.

Welfare and nationalization are one of the largest gaping wounds in this country, not because of their nature, but because of their methodology.

From what I've heard, anyone who's on medicaid is restricted to a total of 2,000 dollars in assets at any one time. That means saving money is punishable. :/

[Deltamatic]

What I find troublesome about a purely capitalistic environment is that the needs of individuals become less important than the needs of corporations. The 'greater good' is the economy. Then you end up with obscene amounts of money poured into "bail outs" when things go wrong.

Bailouts are unnecessary. If a company has messed up and failed, it should be left to disintegrate instead of being rewarded for its failure. Bailouts ensure that companies with bad policies that get them into trouble will continue to operate with those bad policies at the expense of taxpayers.

An extreme, perhaps exceptional example, but it definitely reflects our society's priorities. At a more microcosmic scale, everyday people spend ridiculous amounts of money on things that do not contribute to the societal progress or individual success. Take poker machines for example.

Yes, those harmful options are available, but they're still harmful. The more you spend at a poker machine the less of an effective competitor you are due to your lost resources.

As far as #2 goes, I'm not sure if you're asserting that we need a completely free system (no regulation) or not, but I'd like to point out that when many of the regulations were removed, companies made some very risky and even stupid decisions; They then had to be bailed out with taxpayer money. Sad

So the company was allowed to shoot itself in the foot, which it did, and then it "had to be bailed out". Why must failed large companies be bailed out? Why can't they just go out of business like all the other failed companies?

Theres too many beliefs and ways in the world for there to be one absolute truth.

Wow, a real postmodernist! If I believe the sky is green, that doesn't change the color of the sky. There are many beliefs, yes, but those beliefs do not change realities, which are true regardless of what people believe.

Competition with whom? The US has lost millions of jobs to cheap labor costs in poor countries. Like no wonder people are out of work now.

Yes, because many countries are more friendly to business than the US. We have things like unions which incessantly demand higher wages for the same amount of work and minimum wage laws which eliminate entry-level positions and keep unskilled laborers out of work. They don't.

Capitalism has to be regulated. Otherwise it will suffocate in its own greed.

How is greed inherent in capitalism?

[RoboBlue]

So the company was allowed to shoot itself in the foot, which it did, and then it "had to be bailed out". Why must failed large companies be bailed out? Why can't they just go out of business like all the other failed companies?

You're right, that's what should have happened, but both parties seem to feel that their constituents are entitled to a free pass on debt.

[Scarlet]

How is greed inherent in capitalism?

It's what capitalism is all about, making profits. It's a system where the private sector owns/does everything. Capitalism always needed the state/authority to stop it from suffocating in its own greed.

Yes, because many countries are more friendly to business than the US. We have things like unions which incessantly demand higher wages for the same amount of work and minimum wage laws which eliminate entry-level positions and keep unskilled laborers out of work. They don't.

Companies were sending jobs away when they were making the biggest profits yet. So it's not that they had to send them over. They chose to make more money. And so while the consumer might get a product for 5% less, the corporation increases their profits by 100% or 200%. Where does this difference go? They pocket it.
Hence we must have no mercy towards them.

Bailouts are unnecessary. If a company has messed up and failed, it should be left to disintegrate instead of being rewarded for its failure. Bailouts ensure that companies with bad policies that get them into trouble will continue to operate with those bad policies at the expense of taxpayers.

I'd say that this is fair statement.
One thing bothers me. Should we just let everything fall to rock bottom? Surely some intervening could be made so that a new company is formed from at least parts of it? But keeping the same thing around bothers me greatly... though perhaps some elements of the sinking ship could be reused elsewhere, rather than simply get discarded?

[Commander Spleen]

If I believe the sky is green, that doesn't change the color of the sky.

The sky is also red. Sometimes it's grey. Half the time it's black (with specks of yellow and white and, if you look close enough, every colour there is). It's also all these at the same time.

One thing bothers me. Should we just let everything fall to rock bottom?

Where's Tyler Durden when we need him?

[Deltamatic]

an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

Doesn't seem to be all about profits to me. I see it as people being given goods and services based on how many goods and services they produce. Yes, profits are nice, because that means you provided goods/services to get those profits, and in turn can receive goods/services by spending those profits. The state is okay and serves some important functions, but I don't think it should heavily regulate legitimate business.

Companies were sending jobs away when they were making the biggest profits yet. So it's not that they had to send them over. They chose to make more money. And so while the consumer might get a product for 5% less, the corporation increases their profits by 100% or 200%. Where does this difference go? They pocket it.
Hence we must have no mercy towards them.

Sounds like a win-win situation to me--we spend less money, they get more money. And if they keep their hard-earned money, that's all well and good.

One thing bothers me. Should we just let everything fall to rock bottom? Surely some intervening could be made so that a new company is formed from at least parts of it? But keeping the same thing around bothers me greatly... though perhaps some elements of the sinking ship could be reused elsewhere, rather than simply get discarded?

Hmm. Because the sunk ship is out of business, that eliminates reusing its money. That leaves buildings (sold to interested parties), equipment (same), and employees (fired). The employees seem the part to reuse, but where and how to reuse them?

The sky is also red. Sometimes it's grey. Half the time it's black (with specks of yellow and white and, if you look close enough, every colour there is). It's also all these at the same time.

Yeah, the sky's color isn't the best metaphor. What I was aiming at was a nigh-universally accepted fact, maybe "stuff exists" would be better.

[Scarlet]

Sounds like a win-win situation to me--we spend less money, they get more money. And if they keep their hard-earned money, that's all well and good.

Well, not quite... because when the job is sent away we lose a job here. And it's not quite true that oh we will get a better job to replace it.

It reminds me how so many high tech jobs were sent over there. People did not get better work in place. The people got screwed.

Hmm. Because the sunk ship is out of business, that eliminates reusing its money. That leaves buildings (sold to interested parties), equipment (same), and employees (fired). The employees seem the part to reuse, but where and how to reuse them?

Well, I would think that a big company has more than one section... so perhaps some sections might be good, and could be formed into separate companies.

Yes, profits are nice, because that means you provided goods/services to get those profits, and in turn can receive goods/services by spending those profits. The state is okay and serves some important functions, but I don't think it should heavily regulate legitimate business.

That all depends on what one considers to be heavy. BP felt it was too heavy to have safety precautions in the gulf... so we see the disaster now. The financial sector was screaming less regulation - and look at the mess that it got itself into. Meanwhile Canada regulated these two much more - and the result is something more viable and sustainable.

One particular regulation that I think is necessary is land use regulation. I look at the suburbs in the US and see these monotonous disgusting suburbs... where one has to have a car and whatnot. Planning is simply frowned upon - because developers want to build their cul-de-sac houses in the cornfields. It leads to this petrol dependant society...

[tulip]

Did anybody notice what the topic of this thread was?

[Scarlet]

Did anybody notice what the topic of this thread was?

About moore. He talks about these things though.

[RoboBlue]

I'd say that this is fair statement.
One thing bothers me. Should we just let everything fall to rock bottom? Surely some intervening could be made so that a new company is formed from at least parts of it? But keeping the same thing around bothers me greatly... though perhaps some elements of the sinking ship could be reused elsewhere, rather than simply get discarded?

The problem is, overseeing the reconstruction of a company costs a lot of money, and would raise many political questions about the neutrality of the overseer, if he/she was a government employee. It's just easier to either let the company die, or bail it out and save jobs (temporarily). Also, a lot of people buy into the idea of "if the government doesn't bail out walmart, our town will lose jobs, so they're entitled to it!", and those people often vote.

[Deltamatic]

Well, not quite... because when the job is sent away we lose a job here. And it's not quite true that oh we will get a better job to replace it.

It reminds me how so many high tech jobs were sent over there. People did not get better work in place. The people got screwed.

True. But the company's moving away wouldn't have happened if the US had what whatever they moved overseas for.

Well, I would think that a big company has more than one section... so perhaps some sections might be good, and could be formed into separate companies.

As RoboBlue said, government reorganization of a failed company can get pretty messy. And if they were trying to find out which sections of it were rotten and which sections were okay, they'd have to dig through the reasons for it collapsing and deal with different sections accusing each other in the hopes of being the ones selected to get government funding. I suppose it could be best to just leave it be.

That all depends on what one considers to be heavy. BP felt it was too heavy to have safety precautions in the gulf... so we see the disaster now. The financial sector was screaming less regulation - and look at the mess that it got itself into. Meanwhile Canada regulated these two much more - and the result is something more viable and sustainable.

I agree that safety regulations shouldn't be lax, but as I understand it cries for deregulation weren't the cause for the current recession.

One particular regulation that I think is necessary is land use regulation. I look at the suburbs in the US and see these monotonous disgusting suburbs... where one has to have a car and whatnot. Planning is simply frowned upon - because developers want to build their cul-de-sac houses in the cornfields. It leads to this petrol dependant society...

They don't seem monotonous and disgusting to me. Cars aren't that bad, either. And you can have cars without petrol, electric etc.

[RoboBlue]

It'd be nice if public transportation was cheaper than gas.

[DHeadshot]

It ought to be - sure a 'bus might use more fuel, but remember, there's 30-odd people paying for that fuel! Those savings should be passed on to the customers!