Now I haven't seen Mr. Moore's new documentary "Capitalism A Love Story", but all my friends have and naturally they came back loaded with fallacies. Has anyone watched it? What are some of the major blunders economically that Micheal Moore made?
Dustin S. Jussila: Now I haven't seen Mr. Moore's new documentary "Capitalism A Love Story", but all my friends have and naturally they came back loaded with fallacies. Has anyone watched it? What are some of the major blunders economically that Micheal Moore made?
The Marxists contend that capitalism requires the state, although the definition says otherwise. If the people who watched Moore's movie understood how Marx explicitly defined capitalism, then they would have to deduct that capitalism is not compatible with the state, thus, they could not argue that we live under capitalism.
My favorite online shop: www.cafepress.com/libertyphile
Dustin S. Jussila:Now I haven't seen Mr. Moore's new documentary "Capitalism A Love Story", but all my friends have and naturally they came back loaded with fallacies. Has anyone watched it? What are some of the major blunders economically that Micheal Moore made?
I may sit through it just to do a scene by scene refutation for the hell of it. But that'll have to be a DVD thing. As far I've heard right now it's the standard confusion of capitalism with corporatism or fascism. That is, "The state gave bankers eighty bazillion dollars, so capitalism is evil!" To which I guess we could try and calmly explain, to an audience that largely doesn''t give a shit, that capitalism to the extent it exists under a state exists in the areas of lesser, not greater government involvment and regulation. The reason they won't give a shit is because if you want to explain to them the bailouts aren't capitalist, you also have to explain eventually the FDIC isn't capitalist. And most people are like most businessmen, they see nothing wrong with socializing their losses and everything wrong with socializing the losses of others.
xahrx:I may sit through it just to do a scene by scene refutation for the hell of it. But that'll have to be a DVD thing. As far I've heard right now it's the standard confusion of capitalism with corporatism or fascism. That is, "The state gave bankers eighty bazillion dollars, so capitalism is evil!" To which I guess we could try and calmly explain, to an audience that largely doesn''t give a shit, that capitalism to the extent it exists under a state exists in the areas of lesser, not greater government involvment and regulation. The reason they won't give a shit is because if you want to explain to them the bailouts aren't capitalist, you also have to explain eventually the FDIC isn't capitalist. And most people are like most businessmen, they see nothing wrong with socializing their losses and everything wrong with socializing the losses of others.
That's what Michael saws! Haha
Jump to background 2 minutes +
3 minutes -> 3.20 is good.
Then 3.20 -> 3.30 = lmao.
The non sequitur is amazing.
That video was November 2008. I wanted to try find a video of Moore being asked about the Business Cycle or seeing the crisis coming or something like that. And contrast it with Ron Paul. I pretty good and quick refutation video.
Of all the people you could have gone after in a story about Capitalism, surely Ron Paul would have been it...
I haven't seen it, but I can tell you off top that economic fallacies are irrelevant here. Moore succeeds by appealing to emotion, not logic. He's very similar to a politician. He gets you emotionally charged, then says some vague plan that amounts to big government.
Anyone you talk to about it you should simply ask, "Why didn't MM bail out the people in his movies with HIS money?!" He has enough to not only keep such people above water on a mortgage, he could buy several dozen of them homes up-front without a mortgage. But like the politician, he does not care about them. He only cares about having his pulpit, not using it to benefit others.
Also remind people that the market tried to put the companies that engaged in the "evil" out of business, but it was Uncle Sam who saved them. Now, does that mean that we should get rid of the market and empower Uncle Sam, or that we should get rid of Uncle Sam and empower the market? Most people, when confronted with such a simple question, will hesitate to make the common sense answer.
It becomes clear they don't want justice or responsibility - they just want the same privileges as Wall St, etc. They want to rob others for their own gain. They want to turn the tables and play the same game.
Check my blog, if you're a loser
http://mooreperplexed.ytmnd.com/
market choices can be overwhelming sometimes...
Regarding Mr Moore, I really liked what Doug Casey [someone I have enjoyed reading for more than 20 years], says about him, concerning the issues of national health care [the subject of one of Mr Moore's recent documentaries as I understand it] , versus his [Moore's ] personal health [or lack thereof] in an article today at lewrockwell.com. To whit:
"It’s amusingly coincidental that I happen to have been at a health spa when I wrote an article for this month’s Casey Report, on the so-called national health care crisis. That is, of course, mostly hysteria. Overhauling the U.S. medical system will do absolutely nothing to improve the health of the population. American medicine is extremely good for acute problems and diseases, but when it comes to health maintenance, it’s next to useless.
You know, Michael Moore, who is physically obese, intellectually dishonest, and philosophically unsound (what a pathetic combination – he should run for Congress), made the argument in his ridiculous movie that the average Cuban is healthier than the average American. That’s totally correct – but it has absolutely nothing to do with the health care system. The average Cuban isn’t healthier than the average American because his health care system is better. It’s a horrible – actually, a primitive health care system. The technology stopped advancing there back in 1960, and the doctors stopped learning new things in that year… medicines… Nothing has changed since 1960. But the average Cuban is in much better health than the average American.
There are two reasons for that: he has a much better diet, which is to say that he eats way fewer calories (and they are unrefined calories), and he gets a lot more exercise than the average American.
When things change in Cuba, so they have a diet like that of the average American and the same kind of transportation as the average American, the average Cuban will be in much worse shape.
People conflate the health of a population with a country’s medical system, when these things really have almost nothing to do with each other.
What this actually shows is the degraded state of American society. Instead of taking some personal responsibility for their health and lifestyle choices, they try to rely on medicos to engage in heroic efforts to keep them alive with tubes up their noses after they’ve become flaccid and bloated from a lifetime of bad habits.............."
Source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/casey/casey29.1.html
Hello From a "Post- Austrian",Anarcho-Capitalist ,Taoist, 911 "No- Planer" :
lol
I was hoping that the student would interrupt him to let him know he wasn't staying on topic with his question. Oh well...
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap