Michael Moore's CAPITALISM...

[dEnny!]

I've not watched the movie (yet), just an interview he's done.

He states the richest 1% have more financial wealth than the bottom 95% combined. How was he able to prove this fact?

He then stated we live in a democracy where we are supposed to have fairness and equality and goes on to state this example: "When you have a pie on the table and there are 10 slices and one guy at the table says 9 of those slices are mine and you other 9 guys can fight over that last slice."

That doesn't equate does it? Isn't that a simplistic, incorrect view of what's going on.

People are supposed to be TREATED fairly and equally and pursue happiness, but that doesn't mean you are ENTITLED to a share of someone else's success does it? Isn't it up to the individual to strive for education and a career and their own personal success.

I work for an organization frustrated because we haven't received raises in years and then point out (contractual) bonuses to the head of our organization and of course the larger salaries enjoyed at the top, but these people went to college, got a PhD and worked for where they are.

Now I don't always agree with their decisions, I think too many are made that only impact the bottom and maybe that's what Moore is trying to point out, the unfairness in the decision making process.

[Captain Sensation]

im excited about the movie, part of me wants to watch it on DVD and not in the movies though.

[Brian Defferding]

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery."

-Winston Churchill

[dEnny!]

I saw a clip where he's trying to get the bailout money back from Goldman Sachs, AIG, etc and I feel bad who have to deal wit him, because they aren't the targets, the CEO's and Board is, but he can't get that far. I like the theatrics, but I wish he could have a straight conversation with these guys to see how they justify their decisions.

[CapnChaos]

As a member of the richest class, I'm eager to find out when he's going to redistribute 90% of his wealth to the residents of Michigan since he's unfairly got so much more than they do.

[Gregory]

The commercials for the movie show scenes where he is portraying a frustrated and angry everyman. That would be a lot easier sell if he wasn't such an unlikable guy. The movie is selling him not his argument, and I don't think Moore is a box-office draw.

[Jef UK]

That doesn't equate does it? Isn't that a simplistic, incorrect view of what's going on.

People are supposed to be TREATED fairly and equally and pursue happiness, but that doesn't mean you are ENTITLED to a share of someone else's success does it? Isn't it up to the individual to strive for education and a career and their own personal success.

Well, let's start small: to be able to be TREATED fairly and equally and pursue happiness, doesn't the playing feild need to be level in the first place? How can, say, any given individual in, say, a 3 generation family living below the poverty line in, say, a one bedroom apartment, strive for education, a career and her own personal success?

Conversely, does being the great grandson of an industrial mogul ENTITLE you to share someone else's success?

Are you not stating things as simply and incorrectly as you are accusing Micheal Moore?

[Dreg]

I've not watched the movie (yet), just an interview he's done.

He states the richest 1% have more financial wealth than the bottom 95% combined. How was he able to prove this fact?

He then stated we live in a democracy where we are supposed to have fairness and equality and goes on to state this example: "When you have a pie on the table and there are 10 slices and one guy at the table says 9 of those slices are mine and you other 9 guys can fight over that last slice."

That doesn't equate does it? Isn't that a simplistic, incorrect view of what's going on.

It's not incorrect, it just fails to illustrate what that one guy had to do to get his nine slices.

[Dan-C]

I've not watched the movie (yet), just an interview he's done.

He states the richest 1% have more financial wealth than the bottom 95% combined. How was he able to prove this fact?

He then stated we live in a democracy where we are supposed to have fairness and equality and goes on to state this example: "When you have a pie on the table and there are 10 slices and one guy at the table says 9 of those slices are mine and you other 9 guys can fight over that last slice."

That doesn't equate does it? Isn't that a simplistic, incorrect view of what's going on.

People are supposed to be TREATED fairly and equally and pursue happiness, but that doesn't mean you are ENTITLED to a share of someone else's success does it? Isn't it up to the individual to strive for education and a career and their own personal success.

I work for an organization frustrated because we haven't received raises in years and then point out (contractual) bonuses to the head of our organization and of course the larger salaries enjoyed at the top, but these people went to college, got a PhD and worked for where they are.

Now I don't always agree with their decisions, I think too many are made that only impact the bottom and maybe that's what Moore is trying to point out, the unfairness in the decision making process.

I'd agree with you on the pie thing. It seems like a bit of an inaccurate way to relay his message.

As for the latter part regarding company heads, CEOs and bonuses and all of that, I think the main problem is not that they don't work hard, or have the education and experience necessary. I think the problem is there's no way for the general public to enforce any sort of perceived wrong doings. There are CEOs making $20 million a year, while their company is reporting annual losses of $5 million. Meaning, if you cut the CEO's salary in half, the company now winds up with a $5 million profit (in theory at least). Which would probably benefit the company and raise the stock price more than anything else the guy could do. But there's no way for you or me, or anyone else to go in an try to correct the situation. You can't fire him because of the $50 million golden parachute built into his contract. But you have no say in hiring the guy in the first place.

Stock holders are supposed to have a say in these sorts of things, but they really don't because most stock holders don't attend the meetings or vote.


I saw a clip where he's trying to get the bailout money back from Goldman Sachs, AIG, etc and I feel bad who have to deal wit him, because they aren't the targets, the CEO's and Board is, but he can't get that far. I like the theatrics, but I wish he could have a straight conversation with these guys to see how they justify their decisions.

Yeah right. Like any of those guys are going to give the public honest answers about their sleasy business practices? Even as teh economy was circling the drain last fall, these guys were appearing on cable news shows painting nothing but the rosiest of pictures.

Its all spin. Not a single truthful negative statement comes out of these people's mouths, ever. no CEO is going to go on TV and say "you know, we knew this was probably going to come back and bite us in the ass eventually, but we decided to go for it anyway. Thank goodness the government was there to pay my bloated salary and bonus."

That being said, I do believe that by all reports most of these companies are slowly paying the loan money back, with interest. But the tracking of said monies is a bit lacking.

[bachman]

The whole "that isn't fair" argument makes no sense. Life isn't fair. In any society, at any time.

A few months ago the company I work for helped prepare an estate worth about 100 million. Of that, we set aside 45% of the balance for estimated estate taxes. 45%, almost half. What would be "more fair"? 55%? 65%?
How about we just choose the 10 riches familes in America and have them support the whole country?

The problem isn't the "wealthy paying their fair share", they already do. The problem is the government wasting it all.

[Ryudo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPfqSw46VJ8

[RickLM]

CEO salaries are indeed an issue that requires serious examination -- both from moral and financial standpoints -- but when Moore is doing the examining, the whole enterprise becomes a joke. He pretty much poisons every debate he enters.

[Dreg]

The whole "that isn't fair" argument makes no sense. Life isn't fair. In any society, at any time.

A few months ago the company I work for helped prepare an estate worth about 100 million. Of that, we set aside 45% of the balance for estimated estate taxes. 45%, almost half. What would be "more fair"? 55%? 65%?
How about we just choose the 10 riches familes in America and have them support the whole country?

The problem isn't the "wealthy paying their fair share", they already do. The problem is the government wasting it all.

Yes, but if that is correct --and this is something the conservative party often fails to realize-- then we can't continue demonizing all poor people and folks on wellfare for being lazy. If the rich shouldn't be vilified for benefiting from an inherently unbalanced system, then the poor sure as hell shouldn't be vilified for being at the short end of the stick. If you admit it's inherently injust, you guys kind of lose the boogyman of the impoverished hucksters living in the lap of luxury thanks to the tax money of hardworking Americans. You admit it can happen to anybody, and in fact, a good percentage of American people.

[Ray G.]

CEO salaries are indeed an issue that requires serious examination -- both from moral and financial standpoints -- but when Moore is doing the examining, the whole enterprise becomes a joke. He pretty much poisons every debate he enters.

This.

He's a carnival barker.

[bachman]

Yes, but if that is correct --and this is something the conservative party often fails to realize-- then we can't continue demonizing all poor people and folks on wellfare for being lazy. If the rich shouldn't be vilified for benefiting from an inherently unbalanced system, then the poor sure as hell shouldn't be vilified for being at the short end of the stick.

How is the system "unbalanced", and how would you propose fixing it?

[Jef UK]

The whole "that isn't fair" argument makes no sense. Life isn't fair. In any society, at any time.

Do you want unalienable rights to meaningful or not?

And isn't the entire project of a democratic republic to make life more fair for its constituents then in other societies?

[Dreg]

How is the system "unbalanced", and how would you propose fixing it?

Your argument that "life isn't fair." It isn't. In a fair world, poverty would only happen to the lazy or the unmotivated. It doesn't. Admitting this means forfeiting the popular image of poor people being somehow less worthy of a decent life than the rest of us. Because life isn't fair. If we want to introduce justice, that means exercising compassion to those less fortunate. There's no other way of balancing opportunity.

[Doc Randy]

The pie scenario is important because it shows one of the great enemies of democracy.

The legitimacy of a democracy is determined by the relative equality of all participants to shape the direction of the nation. In a monarchy, you have one person with absolute power that is completely disproportional to the masses. In an aristocracy or oligarchy, you have small group of people who wield enormous power disproportional to the masses. Granted, absolute sovereign equality is always going to be an unattainable goal, but you can strive towards a more perfect system on this continuum.

The problem with wealth inequality in the United States is that we have become a plutocratic system in terms of the relative ability to shape the direction of the nation. The richest 1% have vastly more power to shape policies and laws than the poorer 95% do. As a result, most of these laws tend to favor the rich or reflect their perspectives and agenda.

The system we have now is shameful and anti-democratic.

[Jef UK]

How is the system "unbalanced", and how would you propose fixing it?

Wealth is amassed and inhereted by few.

One could start by illustrating the ill ramifications of this process on a society and then distribute the illustration to the masses within that society.

[A.Huerta]

The commercials for the movie show scenes where he is portraying a frustrated and angry everyman. That would be a lot easier sell if he wasn't such an unlikable guy. The movie is selling him not his argument, and I don't think Moore is a box-office draw.

They should use House instead. Im not even trying to be funny I think that would be the coolest thing ever.

[yeamon]

This.

He's a carnival barker.

I think he's a brilliant filmmaker. And a very funny guy.

[bachman]

.

[Gregory]

I think he's a brilliant filmmaker. And a very funny guy.

I think he's marginalized himself and his movies by starring in them. He is a good idea man and, I think a sincere chronicler of emperor clothing, but he's ... god, he's an ass sometimes.

[Ryan F]

I'm not particularly interested in having a discussion about a movie neither of us have seen, but will respond to a couple of points you bring up:


I've not watched the movie (yet), just an interview he's done.

He states the richest 1% have more financial wealth than the bottom 95% combined. How was he able to prove this fact?

The UN, the census bureau, non-profits like United for a Fair Economy, and economic institutes all track these statistics. Their methodologies are published and transparent, and widely agreed upon. From everything that I came up with searching the internet, Moore's numbers are about right.


He then stated we live in a democracy where we are supposed to have fairness and equality and goes on to state this example: "When you have a pie on the table and there are 10 slices and one guy at the table says 9 of those slices are mine and you other 9 guys can fight over that last slice."

That doesn't equate does it? Isn't that a simplistic, incorrect view of what's going on.

People are supposed to be TREATED fairly and equally and pursue happiness, but that doesn't mean you are ENTITLED to a share of someone else's success does it? Isn't it up to the individual to strive for education and a career and their own personal success.

I work for an organization frustrated because we haven't received raises in years and then point out (contractual) bonuses to the head of our organization and of course the larger salaries enjoyed at the top, but these people went to college, got a PhD and worked for where they are.

Now I don't always agree with their decisions, I think too many are made that only impact the bottom and maybe that's what Moore is trying to point out, the unfairness in the decision making process.

My personal beliefs:

I agree that individuals should all strive for success and be rewarded for their effort. In my observation, that's often not what happens. Certain people start out with clear advantages while others have massive disadvantages. For many people, where they are on the scale has nothing to do with the effort they've put in. Many others are discouraged before they even have a chance to put in effort. Public education rectifies some of these disadvantages, though the current state of public education in the United States is far from equitable.

I also think that a social safety net is also important, so that people with little margin for error can pick themselves up if and when they stumble. There is such a thing as bad luck, and in the US, it's easy for something like a hospital bill to ruin someone who is working hard to lift themselves up.

[Brian Defferding]

The pie scenario is important because it shows one of the great enemies of democracy.

The legitimacy of a democracy is determined by the relative equality of all participants to shape the direction of the nation. In a monarchy, you have one person with absolute power that is completely disproportional to the masses. In an aristocracy or oligarchy, you have small group of people who wield enormous power disproportional to the masses. Granted, absolute sovereign equality is always going to be an unattainable goal, but you can strive towards a more perfect system on this continuum.

The problem with wealth inequality in the United States is that we have become a plutocratic system in terms of the relative ability to shape the direction of the nation. The richest 1% have vastly more power to shape policies and laws than the poorer 95% do. As a result, most of these laws tend to favor the rich or reflect their perspectives and agenda.

The system we have now is shameful and anti-democratic.

It's a big result and unfortunate by-product of public/private partnerships in so many areas of the economy, as well as the subsidies, corporate welfare, and bailouts from the government; the end result is not capitalism at all, but rather something that is known as "corporatism" and "crony capitalism." Government subsidizes and has regulations that favor the few, empowers the few. It prevents voluntary distribution of wealth and opportunity.

[yeamon]

I think he's marginalized himself and his movies by starring in them. He is a good idea man and, I think a sincere chronicler of emperor clothing, but he's ... god, he's an ass sometimes.

But... that's the movie. He is the movie. The first documentary that brought Moore to the masses was "Roger & Me". The "Me" was Moore. Ordinary fat guy with brass balls who puts the swells on the spot.

And as for the pie thing... again, I haven't seen the movie either, but I don't think the film is about one guy eating too much of the pie. I think it's about one guy "fucking stealing" the whole goddam thing.

[hamgravy]

It's a big result and unfortunate by-product of public/private partnerships in so many areas of the economy; the end result is not capitalism at all, but rather something that is known as "corporatism" and "crony capitalism." Government subsidizes and has regulations that favor the few, empowers the few. It prevents voluntary distribution of wealth and opportunity.

This.

Money is self-sustaining.

"A report issued last fall by the Paris-based Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) revealed that the United States has the third worst level of income inequality and poverty among the group’s 30 member states. Only Mexico and Turkey ranked higher in those categories.

The OECD report defined those in poverty as households with an income below half of the median national salary. By this definition, 17 percent of the US population is categorized as poor—higher than all the advanced OECD economies and only marginally behind Mexico and Turkey.

The US also ranked among the worst in OECD countries in regard to the length of time people remain “poverty entrapped.” 7% of the US population remain “ persistently poor.” The US also ranks among the worst countries in “inequality of opportunity.”

[Mr. Dave]

The problem isn't the "wealthy paying their fair share", they already do. The problem is the government wasting it all.

Hell Yeah! The government is the problem. The politicians have their heads so far up their asses there is no way we can trust them. All they care about is their next election and making sure they are taken care of when they leave office.

[Gregory]

But... that's the movie. He is the movie. The first documentary that brought Moore to the masses was "Roger & Me". The "Me" was Moore. Ordinary fat guy with brass balls who puts the swells on the spot.


And he's milked that ordinary-guy shtick for a number of films now, and it's obvious he's not an ordinary guy. He's a big-time documentary maker. For documentaries, there's him and Errol Morris. They're the kings of the genre. He can't pretend to be Candide in the scandal-of-the-year anymore.

I worry that these films are eclipsed by his presence, and I think a smarter course would be to stay behind the camera to present the information with someone else oncamera walking the audience through it.

[Rosemary's Baby]

This.

Money is self-sustaining.

"A report issued last fall by the Paris-based Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) revealed that the United States has the third worst level of income inequality and poverty among the group’s 30 member states. Only Mexico and Turkey ranked higher in those categories.

The OECD report defined those in poverty as households with an income below half of the median national salary. By this definition, 17 percent of the US population is categorized as poor—higher than all the advanced OECD economies and only marginally behind Mexico and Turkey.

The US also ranked among the worst in OECD countries in regard to the length of time people remain “poverty entrapped.” 7% of the US population remain “ persistently poor.” The US also ranks among the worst countries in “inequality of opportunity.”

Could I get a link for that?

[Brother Power the Gong]

And he's milked that ordinary-guy shtick for a number of films now, and it's obvious he's not an ordinary guy. He's a big-time documentary maker. For documentaries, there's him and Errol Morris. They're the kings of the genre. He can't pretend to be Candide in the scandal-of-the-year anymore.

I worry that these films are eclipsed by his presence, and I think a smarter course would be to stay behind the camera to present the information with someone else oncamera walking the audience through it.

Spot on. Moore is toxic to many of the people who would benefit most by watching his films.

[Mr. Dave]

I wish Morgan Spurlock would do a movie about Capitalism. I like him. Moore is a self-serving shit hole.

[A.Huerta]

Do people hate Moore because hes fat and always wears sweats?

He doesnt bug me at all unless you want to let him bug you.

[hamgravy]

Could I get a link for that?

http://www.chrismartenson.com/forum/wealth-gap-and-collapse-us/24520

The rest pertains to the historical periods of wealth transfer and the role deregulation has played in the perpetuation of the Wealth Class.

It's no wonder that Jobless Rates go up whenever a Republican is in office.

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet

Notice the trends of peaks and valleys.

[Rosemary's Baby]

http://www.chrismartenson.com/forum/wealth-gap-and-collapse-us/24520

The rest pertains to the historical periods of wealth transfer and the role deregulation has played in the perpetuation of the Wealth Class.

It's no wonder that Jobless Rates go up whenever a Republican is in office.

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet

Notice the trends of peaks and valleys.

Thanks.

[yeamon]

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I thought "Fahrenheit 9/11" and "Sicko" were brilliant, thought-provoking, and moreover, absolutely hilarious.

Is Moore someone I would want to have over for dinner? Maybe not. But he makes great documentaries, and is an entertaining personality on screen.

[stevapalooza]

The tricky part of our society is that we value both equality and personal freedom, and those two concepts are at loggerheads. You can't have total freedom and equality because human beings, when left to their own devices, will treat others unfairly. And you can't have total equality and freedom because total equality is an artificial state that must be created and enforced by a government at the cost of individual liberty. So it's a constant balancing act between a free-but-cruel society and a fair-but-unfree society. I think we're way better than we've ever been in the past, but there's always room for improvement.

[Mr. Dave]

My problem with Moore is he is a muck raker. I am sure with the early movies he was doing a service and helping people. Now he is just stirring controversy with no real substance and using only one-sided views. And he is making a mint off that controversy. The saddest day for Moore was the day George W. Bush left office.

I do applaud him for using his much raking abilities to make a mint. I would like to do the same thing. In that regard he is a genius. A fear monger for sure, but definitely a genius.

[Cth]

There's no such thing as a true democracy where all are equal.

I think it's disingenuous to selectively apply it to our society. After all, men have little to no rights when it comes to child custody battles and absolutely none with reproductive rights.

So, what it boils down to, is using a loaded word to make change when you don't REALLY want to apply that word across the board, just to redistribute funds.

Our system isn't perfect, and I agree CEO salaries should be looked at, but to do it under the guise of "Truth, Justice and the American Way" so you can paint those who disagree as non-patriotic is tantamount to what Bush and gang were doing the last 8 years, IMO.

[Jef UK]

The tricky part of our society is that we value both equality and personal freedom, and those two concepts are at loggerheads. You can't have total freedom and equality because human beings, when left to their own devices, will treat others unfairly. And you can't have total equality and freedom because total equality is an artificial state that must be created and enforced by a government at the cost of individual liberty. So it's a constant balancing act between a free-but-cruel society and a fair-but-unfree society. I think we're way better than we've ever been in the past, but there's always room for improvement.

We should be talking about "liberty", which entails rules which allow for a free society, and not the nebulous idea of "freedom" so many Americans hold now. The current notion of "freedom" isn't the liberty our founding fathers were talking about, and is a fairly recent development within the dissemination of meaning.

[A.Huerta]

My problem with Moore is he is a muck raker. I am sure with the early movies he was doing a service and helping people. Now he is just stirring controversy with no real substance and using only one-sided views. And he is making a mint off that controversy. The saddest day for Moore was the day George W. Bush left office.

I do applaud him for using his much raking abilities to make a mint. I would like to do the same thing. In that regard he is a genius. A fear monger for sure, but definitely a genius.

You just described almost every documentary ever made.

And he does use substance. its right there on the screen.

[Jef UK]

I think it's disingenuous to selectively apply it to our society. After all, men have little to no rights when it comes to child custody battles and absolutely none with reproductive rights.

So, what it boils down to, is using a loaded word to make change when you don't REALLY want to apply that word across the board, just to redistribute funds.

But there are people fighting for those rights you claim are absent. Given the worldview evoked in the post above, those people shouldn't bother in those arenas either, because there would yet be more areas of inequality. Yet, I think you'd find that men's rights when it comes to child custody battles has changed significantly in the last 40 years. Why is that?

[hamgravy]

Here is my favorite bit of writing on the Health Care Debate that pertains to the role of Capitalism.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/drew-westen/why-the-president-has-bee_b_278971.html

It's from Drew Westen, a PhD psychologist who comments on Huffington Post and wrote a book about the political brain and the effect of framing language in politics.

At it's core is Westen's call for Obama to state that the insurance agencies actively work against the best interests of their clients in order to make a profit. Democrats are rarely explicit that the opposite of the threat of Big Government is Big Business collusion against the populace. It's not some passive growth entity.

Here's a passage of a fan-fic speech he drafted for Obama with this specific language in mind:

"There are those on the right who believe that government is always the problem, not the solution, and that the best way to provide health care in this country is to leave insurance entirely to health insurance company CEOs and bureaucrats, free of any rules of the road, to decide who to cover, what to cover, and how much to charge for it. That's what we have now, and if you're wondering why your rates have doubled or you've lost your insurance over the last few years as their profits doubled, it's because there are only three ways they make their profits: increase your premiums and out of pocket expenses like co-pays, discriminate against the ill by excluding people with "pre-existing conditions," or deny a third of claims for procedures your doctor ordered. If you think that's a good system, support the Republicans, because they've been fighting to keep that system for decades."

[Jef UK]

Also, if your project is to change everything, then you won't actually be able to effect change.

[Mr. Dave]

You just described almost every documentary ever made.

And he does use substance. its right there on the screen.

Almost no documentaries make money the way Michael Moore does.

[A.Huerta]

Almost no documentaries make money the way Michael Moore does.

Maybe because theyre good? He cant control who watches his movies.

[yeamon]

Almost no documentaries make money the way Michael Moore does.

Which you applaud him for.

[Cth]

But there are people fighting for those rights you claim are absent. Given the worldview evoked in the post above, those people shouldn't bother in those arenas either, because there would yet be more areas of inequality. Yet, I think you'd find that men's rights when it comes to child custody battles has changed significantly in the last 40 years. Why is that?

They believe they're fighting for that ideal, but ask two people what that ideal is and there's a good chance you'll get different answers.

So, the definition of that ideal is up to the government, which kind of defeats the point doesn't it?

Especially with the fluid nature of our government which changes so frequently.

As to the child custody issues, simple. It wasn't nearly the problem it was back then that it is today. Is that a good thing? Again, subjectively you'll get different answers from people.

The point is, you can't say America is all about equality, we should all be equal, when the reality and facts show that isn't true. Yes, there's been some progress in some areas, but you'll never get 100%. Much like religion, guns, and reproductive rights, you're never going to get everyone to agree. Strive for it all day, which is an admirable goal, but realistically, it won't happen without the state enforcing it which as was pointed out already is counter productive.

[Doc Randy]

The point is, you can't say America is all about equality, we should all be equal, when the reality and facts show that isn't true.

Who is saying, "America is all about equality, we should all be equal?"

[Ben]

I've not watched the movie (yet), just an interview he's done.

He states the richest 1% have more financial wealth than the bottom 95% combined. How was he able to prove this fact?

He then stated we live in a democracy where we are supposed to have fairness and equality and goes on to state this example: "When you have a pie on the table and there are 10 slices and one guy at the table says 9 of those slices are mine and you other 9 guys can fight over that last slice."

That doesn't equate does it? Isn't that a simplistic, incorrect view of what's going on.

People are supposed to be TREATED fairly and equally and pursue happiness, but that doesn't mean you are ENTITLED to a share of someone else's success does it? Isn't it up to the individual to strive for education and a career and their own personal success.

I work for an organization frustrated because we haven't received raises in years and then point out (contractual) bonuses to the head of our organization and of course the larger salaries enjoyed at the top, but these people went to college, got a PhD and worked for where they are.

Now I don't always agree with their decisions, I think too many are made that only impact the bottom and maybe that's what Moore is trying to point out, the unfairness in the decision making process.The pie analogy, as you stated it, seems perfectly appropriate. Every person wasn't given an equal opportunity to get a slice. The one guy just started out taking nine and then the others could fight over what was left.

[Brian Defferding]

Here is my favorite bit of writing on the Health Care Debate that pertains to the role of Capitalism.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/drew-westen/why-the-president-has-bee_b_278971.html

It's from Drew Westen, a PhD psychologist who comments on Huffington Post and wrote a book about the political brain and the effect of framing language in politics.

At it's core is Westen's call for Obama to state that the insurance agencies actively work against the best interests of their clients in order to make a profit. Democrats are rarely explicit that the opposite of the threat of Big Government is Big Business collusion against the populace. It's not some passive growth entity.

Here's a passage of a fan-fic speech he drafted for Obama with this specific language in mind:

"There are those on the right who believe that government is always the problem, not the solution, and that the best way to provide health care in this country is to leave insurance entirely to health insurance company CEOs and bureaucrats, free of any rules of the road, to decide who to cover, what to cover, and how much to charge for it. That's what we have now, and if you're wondering why your rates have doubled or you've lost your insurance over the last few years as their profits doubled, it's because there are only three ways they make their profits: increase your premiums and out of pocket expenses like co-pays, discriminate against the ill by excluding people with "pre-existing conditions," or deny a third of claims for procedures your doctor ordered. If you think that's a good system, support the Republicans, because they've been fighting to keep that system for decades."

To be fair, the issue goes beyond that. The HMO Act back in the 70's subsidized HMO's for millions to billions of dollars; it allowed them to become very powerful; along with mandatory minimum services in many states which raises the insurance premiums up further, then there is the reimported prescription drug ban which allowed big pharma companies to spike their prices up, the Medicare Advantage subsidy to private insurance....and now with this new bill being discussed, which will force people to be covered through some sort of insurance plan; all of it is a corporatist method to resolve problems, not a capitalist method. There is no voluntary distribution of wealth, they are solutions which are intended to help the many, but really only support the few.

[Ryan F]

To be fair, the issue goes beyond that. The HMO Act back in the 70's subsidized HMO's for millions to billions of dollars; it allowed them to become very powerful; along with mandatory minimum services in many states which raises the insurance premiums up further, then there is the reimported prescription drug ban which allowed big pharma companies to spike their prices up, the Medicare Advantage subsidy to private insurance....and now with this new bill being discussed, which will force people to be covered through some sort of insurance plan; all of it is a corporatist method to resolve problems, not a capitalist method. There is no voluntary distribution of wealth, they are solutions which are intended to help the many, but really only support the few.

Millions and millions more Americans would not have healthcare without the HMO Act, which was a necessary, but horribly awkward, stop-gap necessitated by the killing of universal healthcare in the '60s.

The capitalist method is to let poor people die.

[RegularJoe]

The whole "that isn't fair" argument makes no sense. Life isn't fair. In any society, at any time.

A few months ago the company I work for helped prepare an estate worth about 100 million. Of that, we set aside 45% of the balance for estimated estate taxes. 45%, almost half. What would be "more fair"? 55%? 65%?
How about we just choose the 10 riches familes in America and have them support the whole country?

The problem isn't the "wealthy paying their fair share", they already do. The problem is the government wasting it all.


sir, if logic and reason are all you bring to the table i'm going to have to ask you to leave the internet.

[Brian Defferding]

Millions and millions more Americans would not have healthcare without the HMO Act, which was a necessary, but horribly awkward, stop-gap necessitated by the killing of universal healthcare in the '60s.

The capitalist method is to let poor people die.

It wasn't necessary at all. It only made the rich get richer and made the whole system more expensive. We have seen decades of this kind of practice and it has done nothing more than make matters worse.

It is the corporatist system, not the capitalist system, that keeps the poor people broke when they get sick.

[Doc Randy]

It wasn't necessary at all. It only made the rich get richer and made the whole system more expensive. We have seen decades of this kind of practice and it has done nothing more than make matters worse.

It is the corporatist system, not the capitalist system, that keeps the poor people broke when they get sick.

Surely you would admit that other nations were able to create universal health care systems that didn't follow this "corporatist" model that made the rich richer and did indeed help the poor.

So maybe the problem isn't government intervention per se, but the type of government we have now... a government that tends to be less democratic in a society that has greater social and economic stratification.

[hamgravy]

Surely you would admit that other nations were able to create universal health care systems that didn't follow this "corporatist" model that made the rich richer and did indeed help the poor.

So maybe the problem isn't government intervention per se, but the type of government we have now... a government that tends to be less democratic in a society that has greater social and economic stratification.

If anything, our Health Care Industry is already anti-capitalist due to it's government buttresses and lack of real choice among consumers.

In terms of other nations, there certainly many models, and pieces, that we can adopt that aren't the vilified English and Canadian brands.

[Mr. Dave]

I am all for a Universal Health Care coverage that is not run by the government. The g-damn politicians won't even agree to accept their plan for their own coverage it is absolutely retarded. And the plan is not concerned with health and wellness, but sickness and drugs. As always in this country we are treating the wrong symptoms.

[Ben]

I am all for a Universal Health Care coverage that is not run by the government. The g-damn politicians won't even agree to accept their plan for their own coverage it is absolutely retarded. And the plan is not concerned with health and wellness, but sickness and drugs. As always in this country we are treating the wrong symptoms.People are not interested in health and wellness. (http://www.606studios.com/bendisboard/showthread.php?t=182916)

[Brian Defferding]

People are not interested in health and wellness. (http://www.606studios.com/bendisboard/showthread.php?t=182916)

Sure they are. (http://www.606studios.com/bendisboard/showthread.php?t=154779)

[Mr. Dave]

People are not interested in health and wellness. (http://www.606studios.com/bendisboard/showthread.php?t=182916)


Sure they are. (http://www.606studios.com/bendisboard/showthread.php?t=154779)

This board is an exception to any and all rules of normal society.

[WillieLee]

What's bizarre is that he's still on the automakers as if they owe people jobs.

[Jamie S. Rich]

Well, I have seen the movie, and I urge all folks to do so. I think there has been a real shift in Moore's moviemaking over the last couple films where he marginalizes his own participation and emphasizes the humanism that truly drives his work. Yes, some of his shtick is tired, and that's when Capitalism falters, but by my memory, he is in this less than he was even in Sicko, and like that movie, he is letting the other stories take center stage, and I think the questions he raises are important for all of us to ponder. Especially since we are the 95%.

What Moore ends up doing is emphasizing how things became so imbalanced and illustrating where a "free market" is not free at all. For instance, showing how deregulation has allowed for unfair practices and targeting of people with less so that those who have more can take away what little they have--and not "dumb" or "lazy" people, either, but honest citizens who got gobbled up by the greed that comes down from the top. Or how bailouts benefited people and organizations who already had a lot of money, but left the common man out in the cold. A bank takes government money to cover their debts, cuts loose a business that could use a similar helping hand, and the workers are left unpaid with seemingly no recourse.

Randy's first post really sums up a lot of what is fundamentally wrong with unregulated capitalism and the imbalance it creates. Statistics show that while the incomes of the top 1% have steadily risen in the last thirty years, the other 95%, who provide the foundation for that upper earning, has remained static. This implies that their work has become more valuable as it has garnered more cash, but that they are not being compensated for it. At the same time, basic things like health care and education and even affordable quality food have been pushed further out of their reach, which results in making our workforce the human equivalent of bad materials. Build a bridge with cheap material, and it will fall down; degrade your workforce, and the system falls down, too.

It's easy to say "life is unfair" and then write off the rest. The truth is, though, life actually is fair, and at a base level, we are all given the tools we need to survive. (I know, Kirk Cameron, evolution is bogus...but yet, why do I still have growing pains?) Where it grows unfair is when a small group of people seizes the biggest portion of power, the level playing field changes into something where those basic tools we are born with are no longer enough, and those creating the unfairness are playing a shell game with the other tools, making us believe we can one day get a hold of them even though they really have no intention of relinquishing what they've seized. It boggles my mind that as a society, so many of us are willing to stand up for our elected leaders when they shield the businesses and the robber barons, but willing to ignore our own interests to do so. Even if you are doing all right and life has treated you "fair," isn't the true value of civilization measured in how we treat the least among us? I'm sure a lot of people who have found themselves unemployed and lost their homes in the last couple of years felt they were doing all right and that it could never happen to them.

Where did this notion that all people should have a fair and equal shot come from? Who ever said that all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety? Coz those people must have been ker-azyyyy!

[cyberweasel]

Don't let him fool you. He's okay with capitalism. His accountant told me so. (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=fahrenheit911.htm)

[hamgravy]

Thanks for the review JSR

[Ben]

Jamie writes a lot of other great reviews on DVDTalk.com. Thought I'd plug it since I never see him plugging his reviews!

[Jamie S. Rich]

What's bizarre is that he's still on the automakers as if they owe people jobs.

Or it's the fact that the automakers worked against the interests of their workers and rewarded years of service by selling their jobs out from under them and ignoring technological innovations so those same workers couldn't create a better, more competitive product, which is what capitalism is all about. This thinking has clearly worked against the American automakers and forced them to turn to foreign automakers who have used a better system, so it clearly was not the right way to go. Of course, the execs all got golden parachutes forged from the work of those who were then left with nothing, who lost their incomes, their work benefits, and their pensions--the latter of which they did owe those people.

But nah, that's too complicated, he's saying the other thing. :roll:

(FYI, I actually don't like Michael Moore the person, and I don't like a lot of how he presents himself--but I don't have to like a guy to appreciate that he has a good idea. Hell, if I did, I wouldn't still read Bendis comics!)

[Jamie S. Rich]

Jamie writes a lot of other great reviews on DVDTalk.com. Thought I'd plug it since I never see him plugging his reviews!

Thanks! I tend to stick them in specific movie threads, and often in the "last two movies you watched" thread. My full review of Capitalism will be online next Thursday, I am held to posting my pieces until the day before the movies come out.

[Ben]

Are we going to see a new round of ad hominem attack, Anti-Michael Moore movies that don't really address the issues?

[Brian Defferding]

Randy's first post really sums up a lot of what is fundamentally wrong with unregulated capitalism and the imbalance it creates. Statistics show that while the incomes of the top 1% have steadily risen in the last thirty years, the other 95%, who provide the foundation for that upper earning, has remained static. This implies that their work has become more valuable as it has garnered more cash, but that they are not being compensated for it. At the same time, basic things like health care and education and even affordable quality food have been pushed further out of their reach, which results in making our workforce the human equivalent of bad materials. Build a bridge with cheap material, and it will fall down; degrade your workforce, and the system falls down, too.

This is where Moore loses me.

America is not an unregulated capitalist paradise. If it was, then why does government spending always increase much more than the inflationary rate year after year? Deficit spending per GDP has skyrocketed to undiscovered territory. Where is all that money going? Who is getting all that money? And this isn't just military funding. Bachman is correct, a lot of that tax money is going to waste, and it's hurting our workforce, not helping it.

I don't think I've ever seen Moore address the times when regulation hurts small businesses, not help them (and instead helps the big businesses). And there are plenty of those cases out there.

I will still watch Moore's latest creation regardless though.

[Jamie S. Rich]

Deregulation is not just about taxes; the most dangerous deregulation goes far beyond taxes and into the way people conduct their business. My father is a small business owner who has had trouble in California due to increased workman's compensation taxes, so I do know it goes both ways; at the same time, he has also been victimized by unchecked practices in the banking industry regarding the handling of property, interest rates, etc. Given that Moore lands on the side that those with more should carry more burden, too, I think his basic belief would be that such changes would actually help smaller businesses. This makes me think of the "Joe the Plumber" argument where real reform was deflected by claiming it would also hurt the little guy when the change was actually aimed at the bigger guy.

Plus, if capitalism truly were about a free market where the best and the brightest survived, then big corporations would not receive benefits and have laws skewed on their behalf, giving them advantages over the small business that might actually have a a better product. There is a reason we have had, for instance, laws against monopolies.

I don't think Moore is the be-all and end-all on the subject, by any means. No one person should be or ever will be.

[WillieLee]

But Jamie, he covered that twenty years ago in Roger and Me. At what point does the economic distress become the responsibility of its citizens?

[Hoggie]

Go see my movie about evil capitalism and make me richer....

[Jamie S. Rich]

Well, according to Capitalism now.

At won't point do people on a message board actually have the responsibility to see a movie they are arguing about? ;)

[Brian Defferding]

Deregulation is not just about taxes; the most dangerous deregulation goes far beyond taxes and into the way people conduct their business. My father is a small business owner who has had trouble in California due to increased workman's compensation taxes, so I do know it goes both ways; at the same time, he has also been victimized by unchecked practices in the banking industry regarding the handling of property, interest rates, etc. Given that Moore lands on the side that those with more should carry more burden, too, I think his basic belief would be that such changes would actually help smaller businesses. This makes me think of the "Joe the Plumber" argument where real reform was deflected by claiming it would also hurt the little guy when the change was actually aimed at the bigger guy.

Plus, if capitalism truly were about a free market where the best and the brightest survived, then big corporations would not receive benefits and have laws skewed on their behalf, giving them advantages over the small business that might actually have a a better product. There is a reason we have had, for instance, laws against monopolies.

I don't think Moore is the be-all and end-all on the subject, by any means. No one person should be or ever will be.

I completely, totally agree with the highlighted part above. The free market can only work best when markets ARE actually free and liberty is completely preserved.

[Blue Flash]

And he's milked that ordinary-guy shtick for a number of films now, and it's obvious he's not an ordinary guy. He's a big-time documentary maker. For documentaries, there's him and Errol Morris. They're the kings of the genre. He can't pretend to be Candide in the scandal-of-the-year anymore.

I worry that these films are eclipsed by his presence, and I think a smarter course would be to stay behind the camera to present the information with someone else oncamera walking the audience through it.

And as editor-in-chief of Mother Jones before that film... People tend to forget Moore was doing alright for himself before he became a bit of a star.

[cyberweasel]

Well, according to Capitalism now.

At won't point do people on a message board actually have the responsibility to see a movie they are arguing about? ;)Okay, I'll support him by going to see the movie and then tal-- oh wait a minute, you! I see what you did there!

[Doc Randy]

I don't think I've ever seen Moore address the times when regulation hurts small businesses, not help them (and instead helps the big businesses). And there are plenty of those cases out there.


Here is where we get into a catch-22. The current laws and regulations we have are often written and promoted by the wealthy or powerful interests seeking to maintain or consolidate power. These laws and regulations can often create steep barriers for competition and entry to the market place. It goes back to what I was saying earlier… not all people or entities have an equal ability to shape the affairs of the state. It is this deviation from democratic equality that I was talking about earlier.
But how will you get these new pro-democratic reforms in government when the government doesn’t really represent the broad interests of the public?

The only way to make sure that these laws and regulations work as intended is by having greater democratic involvement of the public and limitations of the disproportionally powerful actors of society.
The solution is to re-equalize the democratic process so that the state is “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” But the main tools we have to do this are progressive taxation, social programs, and regulation – all things ½ of this country seem to hate with a passion.

This goes back to what you and I are always talking about. You think government is ineffective because it is too easily corrupted by powerful corporations. Your solution would be to limit the power of the public and the public's ability to regulate these corrupting actors. My solution would be to increase the public's democratic legitimacy and reduce the influence of the corrupting agents.

[Dan-C]

This.

Money is self-sustaining.

"A report issued last fall by the Paris-based Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) revealed that the United States has the third worst level of income inequality and poverty among the group’s 30 member states. Only Mexico and Turkey ranked higher in those categories.

The OECD report defined those in poverty as households with an income below half of the median national salary. By this definition, 17 percent of the US population is categorized as poor—higher than all the advanced OECD economies and only marginally behind Mexico and Turkey.

The US also ranked among the worst in OECD countries in regard to the length of time people remain “poverty entrapped.” 7% of the US population remain “ persistently poor.” The US also ranks among the worst countries in “inequality of opportunity.”

There are some that would probably make the rebuttal that the US also has the most free-loaders. There are plenty of people who benefit from the government in some form or another, yet don't contribute to it on any level - either by paying taxes, voting, or by participating in the military/ public service.



This goes back to what you and I are always talking about. You think government is ineffective because it is too easily corrupted by powerful corporations. Your solution would be to limit the power of the public and the public's ability to regulate these corrupting actors. My solution would be to increase the public's democratic legitimacy and reduce the influence of the corrupting agents.

This I totally agree with, and as crazy as it sounds, I'm pretty sure this is why we're seeing all of the uprising against health care reform. However, most of those people come off as looney psychos who don't know what they are talking about.

I'm pretty sure this is why Obama has floated the idea of students repaying educational loans with public service. Not necessarily military service, but some form of contributing back to you government. I think, in a way, he's hoping that the younger generation starts to realize the country works a lot better when people contribute, as opposed to everyone fending for themselves.

[WillieLee]

At won't point do people on a message board actually have the responsibility to see a movie they are arguing about?

Somewhere near people criticizing corporations without having run one.

[Ben]

Here is where we get into a catch-22. The current laws and regulations we have are often written and promoted by the wealthy or powerful interests seeking to maintain or consolidate power. These laws and regulations can often create steep barriers for competition and entry to the market place. It goes back to what I was saying earlier… not all people or entities have an equal ability to shape the affairs of the state. It is this deviation from democratic equality that I was talking about earlier.
But how will you get these new pro-democratic reforms in government when the government doesn’t really represent the broad interests of the public?

The only way to make sure that these laws and regulations work as intended is by having greater democratic involvement of the public and limitations of the disproportionally powerful actors of society.
The solution is to re-equalize the democratic process so that the state is “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” But the main tools we have to do this are progressive taxation, social programs, and regulation – all things ½ of this country seem to hate with a passion.

This goes back to what you and I are always talking about. You think government is ineffective because it is too easily corrupted by powerful corporations. Your solution would be to limit the power of the public and the public's ability to regulate these corrupting actors. My solution would be to increase the public's democratic legitimacy and reduce the influence of the corrupting agents.Also, we need to give the residence of DC voting representation in Congress.

[Matt Jay]

Are we going to see a new round of ad hominem attack, Anti-Michael Moore movies that don't really address the issues?

Remember that one fat joke that Bruce Willis told in The Last Boy Scout about a helicopter or something? That's like Michael Moore, too.

[Ultimate Lurker]

The whole "that isn't fair" argument makes no sense. Life isn't fair. In any society, at any time.

A few months ago the company I work for helped prepare an estate worth about 100 million. Of that, we set aside 45% of the balance for estimated estate taxes. 45%, almost half. What would be "more fair"? 55%? 65%?
How about we just choose the 10 riches familes in America and have them support the whole country?

The problem isn't the "wealthy paying their fair share", they already do. The problem is the government wasting it all.

Wow, only 55 million left in the estate after taxes? How awful. :roll:

I just hate how Moore pretends he's not part of that upper percentile. "I make documentaries" he says. Other documentaries don't make multi-millions.

[Doc Randy]

Do you guys really think Moore is really all that rich?
Do you really think he is in the top 1%?

[Ultimate Lurker]

Do you guys really think Moore is really all that rich?
Do you really think he is in the top 1%?

He has an 8 figure net worth.

In 2003, just 1% of all households -- those with after-tax incomes averaging $701,500 -- received 57.5% of all capital income, up from 40% in the early 1990s.

So yeah.

[Jef UK]

They believe they're fighting for that ideal, but ask two people what that ideal is and there's a good chance you'll get different answers.

Who are "they," how do you know what the ideal is, and show me some evidence.

Big ideas are a process. Ideals can't really exist.



So, the definition of that ideal is up to the government, which kind of defeats the point doesn't it?

I don't know what this means.



Especially with the fluid nature of our government which changes so frequently.

I think this statement begs a lot of questions.



As to the child custody issues, simple. It wasn't nearly the problem it was back then that it is today. Is that a good thing? Again, subjectively you'll get different answers from people.


Simple? What? Are you saying there's no measurable data to study, no precedents set in law, or no litigation trends (to start) to find answers as to how men's rights in custody battles have changed? And that then we couldn't come to any agreement as to what that information means?




The point is, you can't say America is all about equality, we should all be equal, when the reality and facts show that isn't true. Yes, there's been some progress in some areas, but you'll never get 100%. Much like religion, guns, and reproductive rights, you're never going to get everyone to agree. Strive for it all day, which is an admirable goal, but realistically, it won't happen without the state enforcing it which as was pointed out already is counter productive.

I don't think you're arguing against my points, as I don't agree with (or necessarily understand) your depiction of what I and others have said in this thread. I don't get why you're going on about everybody agreeing (on what now?) or what this business about the state enforcing things (what exactly?). You're tossing around a lot of generalities.

[Taxman]

I've not watched the movie (yet), just an interview he's done.

He states the richest 1% have more financial wealth than the bottom 95% combined. How was he able to prove this fact?

He then stated we live in a democracy where we are supposed to have fairness and equality and goes on to state this example: "When you have a pie on the table and there are 10 slices and one guy at the table says 9 of those slices are mine and you other 9 guys can fight over that last slice."

That doesn't equate does it? Isn't that a simplistic, incorrect view of what's going on.I would say that rather than just accepting or rejecting such a figure out of hand base on one's opinion of the source, one would do well to research the information oneself and determine how close this is to accurate.

There seems to be an inherent assumption in place that however income is distributed currently is some natural function of the economy. One should ask themselves to what extent government policies currently in place affect the distribution of income by the economy. Has there been a substantial shift in wealth in recent decades, and in which direction? If there has been a shift, is that shift one the moves the country in the right direction, or the wrong direction. Compare the distribution of wealth here wit that in other countries. Consider which countries we are closest to in that respect, on who those countries are regarded generally.

Instead of framing these considerations in terms of "fairness", consider doing so in terms of sustainability. Is the wealth distributed in such a way that can sustain this country and our system long term? Is it currently in such as way as to be optimal for continued growth and prosperity in the future?

[Mr. Sean]

Complaining about Moore being rich is silly.
There are many people who make the same points he does, but we don't discuss them, because they didnt have the money/clout to get their message across to the entire country. If they ever did, people would buy their book/watch their movie, leading them to then become rich.
At which point you would dismiss their arguement, because you would think they were a hypocrite for being rich.
It doesn't matter if he's rich. It matters if he's RIGHT.

[Mr. Dave]

Moore's wealth clouds the picture. I view Oprah the same way. At least with Oprah we see her trying to help those less fortunate.

[Ben]

Moore's wealth clouds the picture. I view Oprah the same way. At least with Oprah we see her trying to help those less fortunate.Oh please. Watch Sicko and tell me his isn't trying to help those people. Oprah just goes and gives a bunch of people free cars that they now owe taxes on.

[Doc Randy]

Regarding Moore's wealth...

With great power comes great responsibility.

I respect the fact that he uses his powers for good.

[Jamie S. Rich]

I used to be on the side of people who beat up the rich and the famous over a belief that they were living in mansion-sized glass houses, but I have over the years decided I was totally wrong. The fact is, a filmmaker who has put together several successful films is employing people. If you can demonstrate that Michael Moore doesn't pay his employees a fair wage or extend them proper benefits, then I will say he's a hypocrite; however, it still won't make him wrong.

He's not saying people shouldn't be rich. I point you to Randy's earlier point about power and how that is distributed based on wealth, and how that creates an unsustainable structure that is anti-democracy. (Taxman is right, that's a more accurate word than fair.)

[Jonathan Callan]

I completely, totally agree with the highlighted part above. The free market can only work best when markets ARE actually free and liberty is completely preserved.

But how can that possibly occur without lobbying reform? Can we possibly have a free and fair system when the influence of corporations actually counts more than the influence of the people?

I'm not itching for a fight. I'm actually curious - what's the libertarian perspective on corporate lobbying? To your mind, does money equal free speech?

If so, how can you ever expect politicians to keep the playing ground level? How can Obama ever speak out against, say Israeli foreign policy, when the Israeli lobby gives truckloads of money to lobbying Congress?

[Ultimate Lurker]

I used to be on the side of people who beat up the rich and the famous over a belief that they were living in mansion-sized glass houses, but I have over the years decided I was totally wrong. The fact is, a filmmaker who has put together several successful films is employing people. If you can demonstrate that Michael Moore doesn't pay his employees a fair wage or extend them proper benefits, then I will say he's a hypocrite; however, it still won't make him wrong.

He's not saying people shouldn't be rich. I point you to Randy's earlier point about power and how that is distributed based on wealth, and how that creates an unsustainable structure that is anti-democracy. (Taxman is right, that's a more accurate word than fair.)

from 1990 to 2005, CEOs' pay increased almost 300% (adjusted for inflation), while production workers gained 4.3%.

[cyberweasel]

Regarding Moore's wealth...

With great power comes great responsibility.

I respect the fact that he uses his powers for good.:mistrust: Well now, I wouldn't say that...

His responsibilities are to his agenda and his views, not to the truth. If you agree with his agendas, views, and his methods, then good for you-- that's not what I'm talking about. But as far as objective and transparent-- he's not. And that's not responsible to me.

This isn't exclusive to him and his causes, obviously. But this thread is about him, so...

[Doc Randy]

:mistrust: Well now, I wouldn't say that...

His responsibilities are to his agenda and his views, not to the truth. If you agree with his agendas, views, and his methods, then good for you-- that's not what I'm talking about. But as far as objective and transparent-- he's not. And that's not responsible to me.

This isn't exclusive to him and his causes, obviously. But this thread is about him, so...


You may not agree with him, which is totally cool, but I would argue that Moore is far more objective and transparent than nearly any other editorialist or commentator working in our popular culture. For each of his films, he provides copious footnotes and works cited. He goes out of his way to back up his assertions. He not only provides these in books that serve as companions to the films, but also as a section on his website easily accessed by any who care to.

When is the last time you saw that in a newspaper editorial? Or during a Sean Hannity rant?

[Jamie S. Rich]

from 1990 to 2005, CEOs' pay increased almost 300% (adjusted for inflation), while production workers gained 4.3%.

Yeah, and I noted the same thing earlier, without the statistics. I am not sure how that is indicative of Michael Moore's own business pratices, but it seems to me a leap in logic to suggest that because statistically the CEOs have gotten pay increases and their workers have not that Michael Moore pays his people unfairly, too. For all we know, as his pay increased and his movies got bigger starting capital, so too did his crew's.

I think it's also a leap to equate a CEO and a film producer/director, though I suppose it could be mathematically sound. Given how involved the guy is with the actual making of his product, including promoting it, I don't think he's exactly sitting in his office watching everyone else break their backs.

Again, he could be a real shitheel. There have been stories of him throwing tantrums, etc., while on tour. But I've not really seen anyone show he's a crappy boss.

Arguably, the fact that he appears on camera and as himself is transparency unto itself (even if it is bullshit that he always wears the same basic outift). I think he makes film essays as opposed to totally unobjective documentaries; even so, I'd rather his bias be in favor of the people than against them.

[Mr. Dave]

Sean Hannity is no saint either. Moore and Hannity have their views. I don't think either is right.

[Brian Defferding]

Regarding Moore's wealth...

With great power comes great responsibility.

I respect the fact that he uses his powers for good.

Michael Moore is nothing more than a liberal version of John Stossel.

[cyberweasel]

You may not agree with him, which is totally cool, but I would argue that Moore is far more objective and transparent than nearly any other editorialist or commentator working in our popular culture.First, to quote myself: "This isn't exclusive to him and his causes, obviously."


For each of his films, he provides copious footnotes and works cited. He goes out of his way to back up his assertions. He not only provides these in books that serve as companions to the films, but also as a section on his website easily accessed by any who care to.

And second: Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11 (http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-In-Fahrenheit-911.htm) I think somewhere in there is a valid argument or two.


When is the last time you saw that in a newspaper editorial? Or during a Sean Hannity rant?And third: I don't listen to Sean Hannity or read newspaper editorials (with an exception here and there). I don't like being told what to think. I like having the facts, as best as they can be supplied nowadays, and forming an opinion. But I don't rely on what I'm given, I like to go and search around for what's out there on a topic.

Moore supplies what facts he wants to and skews others to try and prove a point. And I get just as annoyed when the right does it too. Neither side is doing themselves a favor and they look like liars when they do so.

[Jef UK]

You may not agree with him, which is totally cool, but I would argue that Moore is far more objective and transparent than nearly any other editorialist or commentator working in our popular culture. For each of his films, he provides copious footnotes and works cited. He goes out of his way to back up his assertions. He not only provides these in books that serve as companions to the films, but also as a section on his website easily accessed by any who care to.

When is the last time you saw that in a newspaper editorial? Or during a Sean Hannity rant?


Sean Hannity is no saint either. Moore and Hannity have their views. I don't think either is right.

I feel you've missed the point of Randy's post.

[Run-BMC]

How do the poor become poor, and how do the rich become rich? If the landscape of the US was that "what you're born with, you're stuck with," then I guess there should be reform of some kind. But is that the case? A LOT of statistics are thrown around... a stat I'd love to know is how many of the rich/poor were rich/poor when they were born.

I don't look at a homeless person and think "he should get a job," because I know it's not that simple, but, and maybe this is more the American dream as opposed to the American reality, when I look at a rich person I'd like to think that the odds are good that they themselves earned it.

[artimoff]

How can, say, any given individual in, say, a 3 generation family living below the poverty line in, say, a one bedroom apartment, strive for education, a career and her own personal success?



Well, hopefully their teachers & friends at public school can impress upon them that hard work & quick thinking get results. That he does well in school, well enough to either go to college, tech school or some other place to further this education.

But in a society who gives the undeserving a handout, he has no reason to crawl out of poverty. 3 generations living on the dole show him that he doesn't need any of that to eat McDonalds, chug beer & watch Idol.

[hamgravy]

How do the poor become poor, and how do the rich become rich? If the landscape of the US was that "what you're born with, you're stuck with," then I guess there should be reform of some kind. But is that the case? A LOT of statistics are thrown around... a stat I'd love to know is how many of the rich/poor were rich/poor when they were born.

I don't look at a homeless person and think "he should get a job," because I know it's not that simple, but, and maybe this is more the American dream as opposed to the American reality, when I look at a rich person I'd like to think that the odds are good that they themselves earned it.

Unfortunately that is simply not the case.

Within some of those statistics earlier in the thread, you can see that it's become increasingly more difficult for Americans born below the poverty level to escape the velocity of their lives while the rich insulate themselves from losing their estates.

The comparative numbers rank us alongside Mexico and Turkey as far as forward advancement is concerned.

Although there are fewer legal barriers against a person's potential livelihood, the American Dream is a myth.

I'm pretty sure "The Turkish Dream" is either a honey/pistachio dessert or a perverted sex act.

[Brian Defferding]

But how can that possibly occur without lobbying reform? Can we possibly have a free and fair system when the influence of corporations actually counts more than the influence of the people?

I'm not itching for a fight. I'm actually curious - what's the libertarian perspective on corporate lobbying? To your mind, does money equal free speech?

If so, how can you ever expect politicians to keep the playing ground level? How can Obama ever speak out against, say Israeli foreign policy, when the Israeli lobby gives truckloads of money to lobbying Congress?

I don't think there is an "official" libertarian stance on lobbying, other than striking down most campaign finance reform laws. Those laws do sacrifice liberties and actually do little to stop corruption, cronyism, or election control. Campaign finance reform laws infract on free speech (like how radio shows can suddenly get smacked by the FCC for being part of a campaign when they are not) and has become so severe that now only the richer candidates can afford to run at the federal level, effectively shutting out the third parties any chance to compete.

I know the knee-jerk reaction to that is thinking that elections will then be bought and paid for, but even before McCain/Feingold there has been plenty of examples where underfunded upstarts defeated the established and richly backed candidates (late Senator Wellstone's win is a good example). And that might mean more lobbying will be going on from hundreds of sides, that's just the price that has to be paid I guess :dunno: Nothing can be done about that, other than constant vigilance.

There are essentially two reasons to engage in lobbying - greed and legislative self-defense. In most cases lobbying is a combination of the two. The problem with lobbying is that you will see an increase of it as government expands, obviously when it expands the government controls the fate of the economy more. We are then left to write to our Congress regarding health care reform, instead of like what we do with groceries (we typically don't write to our Congress person if the produce was bad at a store, we just find another source to buy produce from).

The most disturbing example of lobbying that I can think of is the when government lobbies government. Everyone from Sarah Palin (when she was governor) to the teachers unions has actively engaged lobbyists to win favor for their special interests. The problem with that is that people who garner their living from the government will in many cases have a natural inclination to expand government one way or another, it provides job security for them and entitles them to the kind of pay/salary/benefits most everyone else in the working world would definitely not be entitled to, because it would run the rest of them bankrupt, while government is (to our detriment) allowed to work on deficit.

Not sure if this answers your question, and it's particularly long-winded, but I hope it helps somewhat :D

[A.Huerta]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRpQNdlttDs

[JoeE]

Do you guys really think Moore is really all that rich?
Do you really think he is in the top 1%?

Are you kidding? He may even be in the top 0.1%.

[mike black]

So, let me guess how this thread shook out.


People rabble-rabbled about Michael Moore.
Then someone defended him.
More people rabble-rabbled Michael Moore.
The usual suspects sniped eachother.
Straw Men. Rabble-Rabble. Michael Moore's rich and fat. Rabble-rabble.
Somewhere someone in here said something insightful that was buried.

[yeamon]

Michael Moore is nothing more than a liberal version of John Stossel.

He's a hell of a lot funnier than John Stossel.

And he was a big Nader supporter until recent elections.

[cmoney]

Do people hate Moore because hes fat and always wears sweats?

He doesnt bug me at all unless you want to let him bug you.

No kidding. I guess people just love to hate him.

[Wigner's Friend]

You may not agree with him, which is totally cool, but I would argue that Moore is far more objective and transparent than nearly any other editorialist or commentator working in our popular culture. For each of his films, he provides copious footnotes and works cited. He goes out of his way to back up his assertions. He not only provides these in books that serve as companions to the films, but also as a section on his website easily accessed by any who care to.

His objectivity I greatly question. The problem are not the facts he uses, but the ones he leaves out as well as the connections he forges between these facts. I recently watched Sicko (which has a great overall thesis about the value of individual health in relation to society), but he grabs numbers from different sources and pastes them together to exaggerate his preconceived point.

He more or less begs the question in his films. Now, I understand this is the way for most editorials throughout the question, but most if not all lack the visibility of a Moore documentary.

[cmoney]

So, let me guess how this thread shook out.


People rabble-rabbled about Michael Moore.
Then someone defended him.
More people rabble-rabbled Michael Moore.
The usual suspects sniped eachother.
Straw Men. Rabble-Rabble. Michael Moore's rich and fat. Rabble-rabble.
Somewhere someone in here said something insightful that was buried.

Actually, you guess wrong. It's been a pretty low-key discussion, and no significant incidences of sniping. You should read it. :)

[mike black]

Actually, you guess wrong. It's been a pretty low-key discussion, and no significant incidences of sniping. You should read it. :)

Eh, none of it is going to change my mind. I stand by the following - Michael Moore is an insightful asshole who destroys his own credibility. Like where in Sicko he talks about how much better the Cuban health system is than the US, despite earlier in the movie showing a World Health Organization report that showed the US right above Cuba.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kj9qfcKmNz8

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v87/mikeblackkills/Anonymous/ranking.jpg

[NATE!]

Eh, none of it is going to change my mind. I stand by the following - Michael Moore is an insightful asshole who destroys his own credibility. Like where in Sicko he talks about how much better the Cuban health system is than the US, despite earlier in the movie showing a World Health Organization report that showed the US right above Cuba.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kj9qfcKmNz8

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v87/mikeblackkills/Anonymous/ranking.jpg

Michael Moore shouldn't even be called a documentary filmmaker. After all, documentaries are supposed to be objective as opposed to subjective.

[mike black]

Michael Moore shouldn't even be called a documentary filmmaker. After all, documentaries are supposed to be objective as opposed to subjective.

I don't disagree. However, I don't think Cannes or Sundance has an "Editorial" category.

[Humphrey_Lee]

I completely, totally agree with the highlighted part above. The free market can only work best when markets ARE actually free and liberty is completely preserved.


And when that happens the guys with the highest amount of money will initiate scams, like, say a housing market bonanza that will eventually collapse a market but make them rich while they do so, and people who aren't in the know will lose a bundle. But eventually a new market will arise, which is great except for all those that the previous scenario left destitute, and all because no one came in and said, hey, you really ought not do that Mr. Rich Investment Banker CEO guy and even if they did they'd say "Fuck you, I'm rich, who are you going to complain to?". But sadly, the guys we complain to are in on the gag as well, so free market or no, government intervention or no, you're really fucked either way by what basically amounts to a wealthy ruling class.

[WillieLee]

How do the poor become poor, and how do the rich become rich? If the landscape of the US was that "what you're born with, you're stuck with," then I guess there should be reform of some kind. But is that the case? A LOT of statistics are thrown around... a stat I'd love to know is how many of the rich/poor were rich/poor when they were born.

I don't look at a homeless person and think "he should get a job," because I know it's not that simple, but, and maybe this is more the American dream as opposed to the American reality, when I look at a rich person I'd like to think that the odds are good that they themselves earned it.

Various sources (US News and World Report, The Millionaire Next Door) put the amount of self-made millionaires that come from middle to lower class families at around 80%.

[Jonathan Callan]

I don't think there is an "official" libertarian stance on lobbying, other than striking down most campaign finance reform laws. Those laws do sacrifice liberties and actually do little to stop corruption, cronyism, or election control. Campaign finance reform laws infract on free speech (like how radio shows can suddenly get smacked by the FCC for being part of a campaign when they are not) and has become so severe that now only the richer candidates can afford to run at the federal level, effectively shutting out the third parties any chance to compete.

I know the knee-jerk reaction to that is thinking that elections will then be bought and paid for, but even before McCain/Feingold there has been plenty of examples where underfunded upstarts defeated the established and richly backed candidates (late Senator Wellstone's win is a good example). And that might mean more lobbying will be going on from hundreds of sides, that's just the price that has to be paid I guess :dunno: Nothing can be done about that, other than constant vigilance.

There are essentially two reasons to engage in lobbying - greed and legislative self-defense. In most cases lobbying is a combination of the two. The problem with lobbying is that you will see an increase of it as government expands, obviously when it expands the government controls the fate of the economy more. We are then left to write to our Congress regarding health care reform, instead of like what we do with groceries (we typically don't write to our Congress person if the produce was bad at a store, we just find another source to buy produce from).

The most disturbing example of lobbying that I can think of is the when government lobbies government. Everyone from Sarah Palin (when she was governor) to the teachers unions has actively engaged lobbyists to win favor for their special interests. The problem with that is that people who garner their living from the government will in many cases have a natural inclination to expand government one way or another, it provides job security for them and entitles them to the kind of pay/salary/benefits most everyone else in the working world would definitely not be entitled to, because it would run the rest of them bankrupt, while government is (to our detriment) allowed to work on deficit.

Not sure if this answers your question, and it's particularly long-winded, but I hope it helps somewhat :D

It does. And it's more or less what I expected. The idea that money constitutes free speech would seem to fit with the back to basics personal freedom ethos of libertarianism. Personally, I think there's a contradiction there. To equate it to the founding fathers, its more of the Federalist mentality than anything close to the personal republicanism espoused by Jefferson. And I think if even Hamilton could see the corporate future of the United States, he'd be appalled.

It seems to me you can't possibly have a level playing field when corporations and special interests are allowed to game the system, employing lobbyists to pressure Congress into legislating in their favor. Even seemingly "honest" politicians are compromised beyond all hope.

I agree with a lot of Chris Dodd's stances, for instance. Particularly in regards to healthcare. Yet Dodd's wife is employed by something like four different healthcare companies at the moment.

But you're dead on about Government lobbying Government. I remember a story about representatives of the Afghani Government petitioning their nation for more money to lobby the U.S. Congress. Consider that for a moment - the Afghani Government leveraging money to lobby the United States for a foreign policy more favorable to their interests. Then consider that this money likely originated from U.S. taxpayers.

Or remember late in the 2008 election when John McCain backed Georgia and decried Russian imperialism? One has to wonder if it was a coincidence that McCain's foreign policy advisory at the time was a former lobbyist for the Georgian Government.

[Jonathan Callan]

Michael Moore shouldn't even be called a documentary filmmaker. After all, documentaries are supposed to be objective as opposed to subjective.

Um, no?

From the wikipedia page:


Documentary film is a broad category of visual expressions that is based on the attempt, in one fashion or another, to "document" reality. Documentary, as it applies here, works to identify a "filmmaking practice, a cinematic tradition, and mode of audience reception" that is continually evolving and is without clear boundaries.

[hamgravy]

Various sources (US News and World Report, The Millionaire Next Door) put the amount of self-made millionaires that come from middle to lower class families at around 80%.

So, to be clear, that's saying that only 20% of "self-made" millionaires come from the upper class that are already almost, but not quite, millionaires?

The statistic, saying that most self-made success comes from the middle to lower classes, is sort of redundant and doesn't account for the inherited insulation of wealth and social mobility overall.

[Doc Randy]

Eh, none of it is going to change my mind. I stand by the following - Michael Moore is an insightful asshole who destroys his own credibility. Like where in Sicko he talks about how much better the Cuban health system is than the US, despite earlier in the movie showing a World Health Organization report that showed the US right above Cuba.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kj9qfcKmNz8



I think you misunderstood his argument. At no point did Moore actually say that the Cuban system was a better overall system. All he says is they have universal access and a lower cost.

His main point was NOT that we should adopt the Cuban system.

His main point was... why weren't our 9/11 responders (praised national heroes) getting the care they needed here, but were able to get it cheaply in an "enemy" nation that has been embargoed for 50 years and doesn't even rank as high as us?

The fact that they are ranked number 39 kind of supports his point.
If Cuba can give them affordable medical aid, why can't we?

[Brian Defferding]

And when that happens the guys with the highest amount of money will initiate scams, like, say a housing market bonanza that will eventually collapse a market but make them rich while they do so, and people who aren't in the know will lose a bundle. But eventually a new market will arise, which is great except for all those that the previous scenario left destitute, and all because no one came in and said, hey, you really ought not do that Mr. Rich Investment Banker CEO guy and even if they did they'd say "Fuck you, I'm rich, who are you going to complain to?". But sadly, the guys we complain to are in on the gag as well, so free market or no, government intervention or no, you're really fucked either way by what basically amounts to a wealthy ruling class.

Well, unfortunately our current banking system legitimizes and legalizes fraud by way of the Federal Reserve and FDIC backing full faith and credit to banks and lenders who lend out more than what they have in their vaults. It was this government guarantee that enabled banks to approve all these ARM's that killed the market and ran homeowners bankrupt. Then the losses were socialized and we paid for their bad business practices thanks to bad government policy. These government guarantees would never be allowed in a freer market; deposit insurance would be privatized instead and banks/lenders would be charged a fee to companies who that provide a service of keeping their vaults full when they need it - it would also mean banks would be more responsible with their lending knowing that their deposit insurance is limited.

In theory, banks would have much more incentive to approve more feasible loans to responsible borrowers then, thus stunting the amount of credit default swaps in the market. I would definitely like to see this explored, I find it to make a lot of sense.

This is a primary reason why I would like to see the Federal Reserve and the FDIC abolished. It should also be worth mentioning that before the Federal Reserve was established, banks were only allowed to have one branch, which stunted credit when credit was needed. That limit does not apply now, so with that in mind, there will be enough credit in the market to grow the economy without the Fed and the FDIC; it just would not be as excessive as it is today and during the housing bubble.

[Ryan F]

So, to be clear, that's saying that only 20% of "self-made" millionaires come from the upper class that are already almost, but not quite, millionaires?

The statistic, saying that most self-made success comes from the middle to lower classes, is sort of redundant and doesn't account for the inherited insulation of wealth and social mobility overall.

Yeah, I don't understand that statistic either.



This is a primary reason why I would like to see the Federal Reserve and the FDIC abolished. It should also be worth mentioning that before the Federal Reserve was established, banks were only allowed to have one branch, which stunted credit when credit was needed. That limit does not apply now, so with that in mind, there will be enough credit in the market to grow the economy without the Fed and the FDIC; it just would not be as excessive as it is today and during the housing bubble.

Because the banking system was so healthy before FDIC!

[bachman]

He's a hell of a lot funnier than John Stossel.

And he was a big Nader supporter until recent elections.

Disagree. I prefer a smart-ass over a whiny hypocrite.

[Brian Defferding]

Because the banking system was so healthy before FDIC!

The banking system is even worse now. (http://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/banklist.html)

[Ryan F]

The banking system is even worse now. (http://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/banklist.html)

The number of bank failures is far lower. (http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/26/news/economy/bank_failures_forecast.fortune/index.htm)

That's dozens vs thousands, if you don't feel like reading the article. The real issue is that the banks in '08 were far larger. There are plenty of ways to safeguard against unnecessary risk (and no bank wants to go into FDIC receivership, so the idea that that's what caused them to make stupid risks is just ridiculous), but the government backed away from those sorts of regulations.

[Brian Defferding]

The number of bank failures is far lower. (http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/26/news/economy/bank_failures_forecast.fortune/index.htm)

That's dozens vs thousands, if you don't feel like reading the article. The real issue is that the banks in '08 were far larger. There are plenty of ways to safeguard against unnecessary risk (and no bank wants to go into FDIC receivership, so the idea that that's what caused them to make stupid risks is just ridiculous), but the government backed away from those sorts of regulations.

It is no mystery of the connection with the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913 to to the stock market bubble of the 1920's. The Federal Reserve was the role of the FDIC before the FDIC was created - they were a government legitimized banking cartel that backed lenders and banks, hence the name "Federal Reserve."

It enabled speculative lending and ponzi-scheme like economics. The whole reason the Federal Reserve happened was the big banks wanted a way to lend out more loans, collect the profits from their lending rates, and if they ran out of money to lend they would have a way to cover their losses on the hook of the taxpayer.

The politicians also loved the idea, because it allowed deficit spending. The farmers loved the idea, because they could get easy loans. It was this idea of easier money that overflowed the public once the policy was implemented.

But we have seen what has happened with this idea after 100 years of it, especially after seeing the crash of '29, $800 billion dollars of bailout money, the Savings and Loan Scandal, and the steady-and-certain decrease in purchasing power of the dollar. This is why I think the eventual demise of the Federal Reserve and the FDIC are pragmatic steps toward finding a better solution to grow our economy.

[Ryan F]

It is no mystery of the connection with the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913 to to the stock market bubble of the 1920's. The Federal Reserve was the role of the FDIC before the FDIC was created - they were a government legitimized banking cartel that backed lenders and banks, hence the name "Federal Reserve."

It enabled speculative lending and ponzi-scheme like economics. The whole reason the Federal Reserve happened was the big banks wanted a way to lend out more loans, collect the profits from their lending rates, and if they ran out of money to lend they would have a way to cover their losses on the hook of the taxpayer.

The politicians also loved the idea, because it allowed deficit spending. The farmers loved the idea, because they could get easy loans. It was this idea of easier money that overflowed the public once the policy was implemented.

But we have seen what has happened with this idea after 100 years of it, especially after seeing the crash of '29, $800 billion dollars of bailout money, the Savings and Loan Scandal, and the steady-and-certain decrease in purchasing power of the dollar. This is why I think the eventual demise of the Federal Reserve and the FDIC are pragmatic steps toward finding a better solution to grow our economy.

Read a non-libertarian book or take a class or something. The entire modern economy is based on "speculation." Capitalism is based on "speculation." Government banks have been crucial to the creation of modern economies and the modern world. The US was founded on debt and a central bank to manage it. The British Empire was built on the Bank of England. There were severe crises before the federal reserve. The banking system almost collapsed in the 1893 and 1907, and the Fed was vital to preventing that sort of collapse. You'll be hard pressed to find a reputable historian or economist who thinks that the Federal Reserve caused the Great Depression single-handedly. Exacerbated? sure. Caused? no.

FDIC stabilized a self-destructing banking system in the 1930s. It funds itself. No bank wants to go into FDIC receivership. It's not a license to speculate irresponsibly. Bail-outs are a whole other issue, but you are way outside the bounds of economic sanity in these posts.

[Doc Randy]

After seeing this thread yesterday, I thought I would go back and watch Fahrenheit 9/11. Man... what a sloppy film. It is an interesting film to watch because it was very much "in the moment."

The funny thing is that in general, he gets his facts right about the war. Has anything come out since the war started to rebut his assertions about the war or how it was sold?

But as many have said before, he does it in such a way that it often does a disservice.

[hamgravy]

After seeing this thread yesterday, I thought I would go back and watch Fahrenheit 9/11. Man... what a sloppy film. It is an interesting film to watch because it was very much "in the moment."

I was wondering about Sicko.

I'm aiming to re-watch it and hope it fares better.

Roger and Me is still fascinating as a personality study rather than a message movie.

[WillieLee]

So, to be clear, that's saying that only 20% of "self-made" millionaires come from the upper class that are already almost, but not quite, millionaires?

The statistic, saying that most self-made success comes from the middle to lower classes, is sort of redundant and doesn't account for the inherited insulation of wealth and social mobility overall.

20% of the millionaires inherited the wealth. 80% of them are first generation millionaires that worked for it.

[hamgravy]

20% of the millionaires inherited the wealth. 80% of them are first generation millionaires that worked for it.

Your initial quote was that 80% of self-made millionaires are from the middle to lower class.

That would mean that they are all "self-made."

So, if the stat above is what you are saying, do you have any of the sources onhand? I am genuinely curious.

[yeamon]

After seeing this thread yesterday, I thought I would go back and watch Fahrenheit 9/11. Man... what a sloppy film. It is an interesting film to watch because it was very much "in the moment."

The funny thing is that in general, he gets his facts right about the war. Has anything come out since the war started to rebut his assertions about the war or how it was sold?

But as many have said before, he does it in such a way that it often does a disservice.

I'm actually on the other side of that viewpoint. If Moore's goal is to entertain and use humor as his primary weapon, "Fahrenheit" successfully achieves that. I watched it again recently, and I still laughed my ass off.

Maybe I'm the one looking at it wrong, but I don't think it's a fair comparison to hold Michael Moore up to Errol Morris or any other documentary filmmaker. He's really closer to Sacha Baron Cohen. People seem to be able to accept Cohen putting ordinary morons in uncomfortable situations, and letting them hang themselves for our entertainment. But for some reason when Moore does it, he's a fat smarmy piece of shit. I don't get it.

[hamgravy]

I'm actually on the other side of that viewpoint. If Moore's goal is to entertain and use humor as his primary weapon, "Fahrenheit" successfully achieves that. I watched it again recently, and I still laughed my ass off.

Maybe I'm the one looking at it wrong, but I don't think it's a fair comparison to hold Michael Moore up to Errol Morris or any other documentary filmmaker. He's really closer to Sacha Baron Cohen. People seem to be able to accept Cohen putting ordinary morons in uncomfortable situations, and letting them hang themselves for our entertainment. But for some reason when Moore does it, he's a fat smarmy piece of shit. I don't get it.

Maybe it's because of the package. Guys like John Stewart and Cohen claim to be comedians first and their commentary is much more incisive because of it.

[WillieLee]

Your initial quote was that 80% of self-made millionaires are from the middle to lower class.

That would mean that they are all "self-made."


People born into upper classes can make their own fortunes as well.



So, if the stat above is what you are saying, do you have any of the sources onhand? I am genuinely curious.


The Millionaire Next Door (http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/stanley-millionaire.html) is one.

[mike black]

I think you misunderstood his argument. At no point did Moore actually say that the Cuban system was a better overall system. All he says is they have universal access and a lower cost.

His main point was NOT that we should adopt the Cuban system.

His main point was... why weren't our 9/11 responders (praised national heroes) getting the care they needed here, but were able to get it cheaply in an "enemy" nation that has been embargoed for 50 years and doesn't even rank as high as us?

The fact that they are ranked number 39 kind of supports his point.
If Cuba can give them affordable medical aid, why can't we?

I got that, but he's purposely overlooking the obvious - "Political Reasons".

[yeamon]

Maybe it's because of the package. Guys like John Stewart and Cohen claim to be comedians first and their commentary is much more incisive because of it.

I've always maintained that the humor in "The Daily Show" is very similar to the brilliant series Moore did called "The Awful Truth". And you can't tell me that Cohen and Bill Maher haven't pulled inspiration for their film material straight from Michael Moore's stuff.

The only problem I've really had with Michael Moore is I thought he just flat-out bullied Charlton Heston in "Bowling for Columbine". His tactics backfired in that instance, and only succeeded in making the audience feel sorry for that crazy old bastard.

[WillieLee]

After seeing this thread yesterday, I thought I would go back and watch Fahrenheit 9/11. Man... what a sloppy film. It is an interesting film to watch because it was very much "in the moment."

The funny thing is that in general, he gets his facts right about the war. Has anything come out since the war started to rebut his assertions about the war or how it was sold?

But as many have said before, he does it in such a way that it often does a disservice.

My problem is his increasing use of the sad voice in his narration. It's really impacted the effectiveness of his work.

[Brother Power the Gong]

The only problem I've really had with Michael Moore is I thought he just flat-out bullied Charlton Heston in "Bowling for Columbine". His tactics backfired in that instance, and only succeeded in making the audience feel sorry for that crazy old bastard.

Heston's alzheimers hadn't been made public when Moore interviewed him, and if the NRA saw fit to have this man as its head, it should expect that sometimes that man will face semi-tough questioning.

[Doc Randy]

My problem is his increasing use of the sad voice in his narration. It's really impacted the effectiveness of his work.


He should hire the guys who do the "in a world" voice overs for movie trailers.

That or Morgan Freeman. I am convinced that if it were Morgan Freeman narrating, he would win over most of his critics. :twisted:

[yeamon]

He should hire the guys who do the "in a world" voice overs for movie trailers.

That or Morgan Freeman. I am convinced that if it were Morgan Freeman narrating, he would win over most of his critics. :twisted:

Or maybe Moore could just end every scene with "Hiigh Fiiive!".

[Hoggie]

"Capitalism is anti-jesus, anti-American, and Anti-democratic."- Michael Moore.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/23/michael-moore-says-capita_n_296090.html

[WillieLee]

He should hire the guys who do the "in a world" voice overs for movie trailers.

Nooooooooo! Don LaFontaine is dead!



That or Morgan Freeman. I am convinced that if it were Morgan Freeman narrating, he would win over most of his critics. :twisted:

He needs to bring back more of his humour into these things. That was his most effective tool. I'm curious to see this movie because really, isn't he the hallmark of capitalism? That a guy can come from nowhere and become successful using his talents?

[bachman]

Has he really lost it or is he just trying to get attention?

[Hoggie]

Obama needs to be wary of campaign contributors, like this guy.
http://www.newsmeat.com/celebrity_political_donations/Michael_Moore.php

[bachman]

"Wary", son.

[Hoggie]

"Wary", son.

fixed, :lol:

What do you expect from a dumb American.

[Ryan F]

Obama needs to be wary of campaign contributors, like this guy.
http://www.newsmeat.com/celebrity_political_donations/Michael_Moore.php

Political candidates are now responsible for everything their contributors say? This could get ugly.

[Joe Kalicki]

My problem is his increasing use of the sad voice in his narration. It's really impacted the effectiveness of his work.

Yeah, that drove me nuts in Sicko.

He's talking about the guy picking between his fingers, an inherently hilarious situation, and he's all got the quiet voice on.

[Hoggie]

Political candidates are now responsible for everything their contributors say? This could get ugly.

wa? Thats not at all what I was saying. In the above huffpost article Moore makes a big deal about campaign contributors, mainly corporations.

[Doc Randy]

wa? Thats not at all what I was saying. In the above huffpost article Moore makes a big deal about campaign contributors, mainly corporations.


There is a huge difference between someone contributing $2,300 (the maximum allowed for individuals) as part of the democratic process and various corporations and lobbying groups spending millions to influence policy.
One is inherently democratic. One is anti-democratic.

[Hoggie]

There is a huge difference between someone contributing $2,300 (the maximum allowed for individuals) as part of the democratic process and various corporations and lobbying groups spending millions to influence policy.
One is inherently democratic. One is anti-democratic.

I realize. I wonder if he feels this way for all the lobbying groups that support his socialist utopia.

[Doc Randy]

I realize. I wonder if he feels this way for all the lobbying groups that support his socialist utopia.

Who are these lobbying groups spending millions for a socialist utopia?

[Brother Power the Gong]

Who are these lobbying groups spending millions for a socialist utopia?

:lol:

[Hoggie]

Who are these lobbying groups spending millions for a socialist utopia?

I don't know, but you don't think there are groups out there fighting for what they believe to be the best form of government?

[Brian Defferding]

Read a non-libertarian book or take a class or something. The entire modern economy is based on "speculation." Capitalism is based on "speculation." Government banks have been crucial to the creation of modern economies and the modern world. The US was founded on debt and a central bank to manage it. The British Empire was built on the Bank of England. There were severe crises before the federal reserve. The banking system almost collapsed in the 1893 and 1907, and the Fed was vital to preventing that sort of collapse. You'll be hard pressed to find a reputable historian or economist who thinks that the Federal Reserve caused the Great Depression single-handedly. Exacerbated? sure. Caused? no.

FDIC stabilized a self-destructing banking system in the 1930s. It funds itself. No bank wants to go into FDIC receivership. It's not a license to speculate irresponsibly. Bail-outs are a whole other issue, but you are way outside the bounds of economic sanity in these posts.

RyanF,

I don't automatically have a problem with debt, just the excess of it and the enabling of that excess, which has clearly been the main contributor to some of our economic problems.

Again - years before the Federal Reserve, banks could only have one branch. Of course there would be a panic. Credit was forcefully stunted when it demanded expansion. Also, the banks were not allowed to have contracts allowing them to issue interest bearing notes rather than currency or gold upon depositor demand, a system which worked well during the Scottish Free Banking Era.

Besides, that panic of 1907 lasted one month. Compare that to the continuous clusterfuck of the housing bubbles and the stock market bubbles, I would prefer a one-month panic instead of years of bankruptcy. But that's just me.

When you say the FDIC "funds itself" you are meaning it borrows money at will, which is then eventually printed by the Federal Reserve. When you print more money at will like that, the money devalues. Before the Federal Reserve prices went up as much as it went down, it all eventually balanced out though. Now we have a constant chipping away of currency value. A steady decline is not stabilization. It is just that - a steady decline.

Capitalism works on sound and sensible growth, not speculation. In order to have the former, we need a better policy on money and banking.

[CPA]

Read a non-libertarian book or take a class or something. The entire modern economy is based on "speculation." Capitalism is based on "speculation." Government banks have been crucial to the creation of modern economies and the modern world. The US was founded on debt and a central bank to manage it. The British Empire was built on the Bank of England. There were severe crises before the federal reserve. The banking system almost collapsed in the 1893 and 1907, and the Fed was vital to preventing that sort of collapse. You'll be hard pressed to find a reputable historian or economist who thinks that the Federal Reserve caused the Great Depression single-handedly. Exacerbated? sure. Caused? no.

FDIC stabilized a self-destructing banking system in the 1930s. It funds itself. No bank wants to go into FDIC receivership. It's not a license to speculate irresponsibly. Bail-outs are a whole other issue, but you are way outside the bounds of economic sanity in these posts.

I would not be so demeaning about the Fed's role in economic collapses. Their ability to generate money supply has a huge influence in the recovery and destruction of an economy.

It is very obvious to see that the low interest rates maintained by Alan Greenspan in the early 2000's resulted in asset inflation. It is important to differentiate between monetary inflation and asset inflation in this time. The low interest rate combined with the implicit guarantee of Fannie and Freddie resulted in the rapid and overinflation of the housing prices. The banks were simply writing business based on the lending standards and trying to generate returns with the excess cash from the reserve. The bank could essentially write a mortgage based on the lending standards and then immediately sell the risk to Fannie or Freddie. I am not absolving the banks of blame in that the did not vet their mortgage applications thoroughly, but they were also simply doing business. The resulting meltdown of mortgages came back to bite everyone when the bank's capital structures were destroyed through mark to market accounting. Once the capital was written down, the banks could no longer lend as much which resulted in the revoking of credit. The Fed's ability to influence interest rates was at the heart of the meltdown.

My point is that the Fed's ability to influence rates has been destructive in the past and the current course will, in all likellihood, be destructive in the future.

Also, the FDIC is different from the Federal Reserve. The FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) is funded strictly through fees paid by banks.

[Doug]

Alan Moore's CAPITALISM... came out 30 years ago.

[Brian Defferding]

Also, the FDIC is different from the Federal Reserve. The FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) is funded strictly through fees paid by banks.

Former FDIC Chairman Bill Isaac wrote about what actually happens with those fees, which he learned when he was their head guy. It turns out the insurance pool they accumulate is just a myth.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/95129-fdic-insurance-fund-it-doesn-t-actually-exist


It takes in premiums from banks, then turns those premiums over to the Treasury, which adds the money to the government's general coffers for "spending . . . on missiles, school lunches, water projects, and the like."

The insurance premiums aren't really premiums at all, therefore. They're a tax by another name.

And the FDIC is running out of funds (http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2009/03/bank_closings04.html) due to all the failures, and it may have to borrow from another part of government to cover it. Which goes back to what I said about how it doesn't truly fund itself.

[CPA]

Former FDIC Chairman Bill Isaac wrote about what actually happens with those fees, which he learned when he was their head guy. It turns out the insurance pool they accumulate is just a myth.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/95129-fdic-insurance-fund-it-doesn-t-actually-exist



And the FDIC is running out of funds (http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2009/03/bank_closings04.html) due to all the failures, and it may have to borrow from another part of government to cover it. Which goes back to what I said about how it doesn't truly fund itself.

That does not suprise me. While there is no actual pool, there is a reserve on the books for the amount. This is just clever government accounting. The general fund is writing IOUs to the debt service fund. These guys are great. They spend all the money the collect for "our benefit" and then spend it on other stuff.

I have read where the fund is essentially used up. The idiots then begin INCREASING fees on bank to replenish at a time in which banks have very little capital to lend out. Incredible.

[Ryan F]

RyanF,

I don't automatically have a problem with debt, just the excess of it and the enabling of that excess, which has clearly been the main contributor to some of our economic problems.

Which is why capital reserve requirements are the solution, and laxity thereof are a major problem.


Again - years before the Federal Reserve, banks could only have one branch. Of course there would be a panic. Credit was forcefully stunted when it demanded expansion. Also, the banks were not allowed to have contracts allowing them to issue interest bearing notes rather than currency or gold upon depositor demand, a system which worked well during the Scottish Free Banking Era.

There were also panics before the National Bank Act restricted branching (and those restrictions only applied to national banks, not to state chartered banks, which also suffered during panics).

Free banking was a disaster in the United States, and we were damn lucky to find enough gold to make up for the capital restrictions that Jackson imposed on us by creating a free banking system. Also, you don't see any free banking systems in twentieth century national industrial economies - everything is too interlinked.


Besides, that panic of 1907 lasted one month. Compare that to the continuous clusterfuck of the housing bubbles and the stock market bubbles, I would prefer a one-month panic instead of years of bankruptcy. But that's just me.

Because one man propped up the system. It could have (and should have) been far worse.

You have a tendency to blame everything on the Fed and give it no credit for the astonishing growth of the 20th century and the modern economy that we benefit from today. Has the Fed fucked up in the past? Yes, most definitely. But, the weight of evidence suggests that we're still much better with some sort of central banking institution than we would have been without it (though we perhaps could have a better one).


When you say the FDIC "funds itself" you are meaning it borrows money at will, which is then eventually printed by the Federal Reserve. When you print more money at will like that, the money devalues. Before the Federal Reserve prices went up as much as it went down, it all eventually balanced out though. Now we have a constant chipping away of currency value. A steady decline is not stabilization. It is just that - a steady decline.

FDIC funds itself in fees paid by banks. It's funds are, not surprisingly, depleted at the moment, but there has not been a "steady decline." Once the economy returns to normal functioning, the fund will build up again. They haven't even borrowed from the treasury yet last time I checked (though they may, temporarily).


Capitalism works on sound and sensible growth, not speculation. In order to have the former, we need a better policy on money and banking.

Speculation is central to economic growth. Speculation does not mean reckless risk-taking (though it does, necessarily, involve risk).


I would not be so demeaning about the Fed's role in economic collapses. Their ability to generate money supply has a huge influence in the recovery and destruction of an economy.

It is very obvious to see that the low interest rates maintained by Alan Greenspan in the early 2000's resulted in asset inflation. It is important to differentiate between monetary inflation and asset inflation in this time. The low interest rate combined with the implicit guarantee of Fannie and Freddie resulted in the rapid and overinflation of the housing prices. The banks were simply writing business based on the lending standards and trying to generate returns with the excess cash from the reserve. The bank could essentially write a mortgage based on the lending standards and then immediately sell the risk to Fannie or Freddie. I am not absolving the banks of blame in that the did not vet their mortgage applications thoroughly, but they were also simply doing business. The resulting meltdown of mortgages came back to bite everyone when the bank's capital structures were destroyed through mark to market accounting. Once the capital was written down, the banks could no longer lend as much which resulted in the revoking of credit. The Fed's ability to influence interest rates was at the heart of the meltdown.

My point is that the Fed's ability to influence rates has been destructive in the past and the current course will, in all likellihood, be destructive in the future.

See above. Did the Fed screw up in 1929? Absolutely. Did Greenspan's Fed contribute to the Housing bubble in the 00s? I have no doubt. Does that mean we'd be better without any sort of central banking institution? No way.

[Ryan F]

Former FDIC Chairman Bill Isaac wrote about what actually happens with those fees, which he learned when he was their head guy. It turns out the insurance pool they accumulate is just a myth.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/95129-fdic-insurance-fund-it-doesn-t-actually-exist



And the FDIC is running out of funds (http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2009/03/bank_closings04.html) due to all the failures, and it may have to borrow from another part of government to cover it. Which goes back to what I said about how it doesn't truly fund itself.

Just because the government spends money from the pool, does not mean that the pool doesn't exist. You're just talking about bookkeeping.

And, yes, I know that FDIC and the Fed are separate. It's Brian who linked them together as some sort of evil conspiracy to steal our money.

Again, no bank acts recklessly because they know that the worst will happen is that they go into FDIC receivership. That's crazy talk. The moral hazard of bail-outs is a whole separate issue - FDIC protects the money of individual depositors, not speculating banks.

[Doc Randy]

I don't know, but you don't think there are groups out there fighting for what they believe to be the best form of government?

There is nothing wrong with people or organizations working in a democratic system as long as all people have a relatively equal ability to shape the direction and policy of the nation. If you go back to my original post or pay attention to Moore’s thesis, the problem is that the system has shifted on the democratic continuum to a far more plutocratic system. It is growing less and less democratic and less responsive to the needs of the public.

These “socialist utopian” activists you speak of can not compete or get equal access. They are completely outgunned by the wealthy and powerful interests who are able to write their own legislation and buy the votes they want.

We do not have a “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” We have a government of the rich and powerful, by the rich and powerful, for the rich and powerful.

I have no problem with people being wealthy. Hell... I want to be wealthy. I just don’t believe that because one is wealthy, they are somehow more worthy of democratic participation and access.

[Dan-C]

Michael Moore shouldn't even be called a documentary filmmaker. After all, documentaries are supposed to be objective as opposed to subjective.

Having not yet seen it, I would say this about Moore's films:

1) If you don't have a point of view, you don't have a movie. Whether you like his point of view or not, its still essential to the story.

2) While he can certainly be a bit preachy, I feel like Moore more often than not simply asks the questions and lets the audience come up with their own answers. Though he usually provides the evidence that mostly lines up with his point of view.

[Doc Randy]

Michael Moore shouldn't even be called a documentary filmmaker. After all, documentaries are supposed to be objective as opposed to subjective.

There is no such thing as an objective documentary. All documentaries are subjective.

[CPA]

Just because the government spends money from the pool, does not mean that the pool doesn't exist. You're just talking about bookkeeping.

And, yes, I know that FDIC and the Fed are separate. It's Brian who linked them together as some sort of evil conspiracy to steal our money.

Again, no bank acts recklessly because they know that the worst will happen is that they go into FDIC receivership. That's crazy talk. The moral hazard of bail-outs is a whole separate issue - FDIC protects the money of individual depositors, not speculating banks.

I see your point. I think that Brian does have a good point about monetary policy. The US economy is now based consumption. The problem is that long periods of consumption cannot be sustained. It is very disappointing that all the economic growth in teh past ten years has been wiped out by the Fed bearish dollar position. The Fed should stop being concerned with the unemployment rate and concentrate on maintaining the strength of the dollar which is what it is supposed to do.

[yeamon]

Alan Moore's CAPITALISM... came out 30 years ago.

Thanks for the smile. That was funny.

[Hoggie]

There is nothing wrong with people or organizations working in a democratic system as long as all people have a relatively equal ability to shape the direction and policy of the nation. If you go back to my original post or pay attention to Moore’s thesis, the problem is that the system has shifted on the democratic continuum to a far more plutocratic system. It is growing less and less democratic and less responsive to the needs of the public.

These “socialist utopian” activists you speak of can not compete or get equal access. They are completely outgunned by the wealthy and powerful interests who are able to write their own legislation and buy the votes they want.

We do not have a “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” We have a government of the rich and powerful, by the rich and powerful, for the rich and powerful.

I have no problem with people being wealthy. Hell... I want to be wealthy. I just don’t believe that because one is wealthy, they are somehow more worthy of democratic participation and access.


You are making the assumption that all the people that want to have a more socialist type government in the US are all poor and have no access to government. This is cleary not true. I don't disagree with your comments about the rich running the country but I submit to you that there is plenty of rich people out there with money and influence that would like to see the US become a more socialist country versus a capitalist one.

[Doc Randy]

You are making the assumption that all the people that want to have a more socialist type government in the US are all poor and have no access to government.

No, I'm not.


This is cleary not true. I don't disagree with your comments about the rich running the country but I submit to you that there is plenty of rich people out there with money and influence that would like to see the US become a more socialist country versus a capitalist one.

You are missing the point. Regardless of what the agenda is, regardless of what their goals are, the problem is the disparity between participants and their relative ability to influence public policy.

There is still a problem if a rich "socialist" activist has significantly more access and influence than a poor "socialist" activist.

The greater the disparity, the less democratic a society becomes.

[yeamon]

I've met all kinds of people in my +30 years in America. I can say in all honesty, I've never met anyone who claimed to be a socialist. Nor anyone with any kind of socialist agenda. My grandpa, a staunch liberal, would sometimes tell Republicans he was a socialist, just to piss them off. What I hear a lot of conservatives describing as "socialism", I always attributed to the term "community".

[Hoggie]

No, I'm not.



You are missing the point. Regardless of what the agenda is, regardless of what their goals are, the problem is the disparity between participants and their relative ability to influence public policy.

There is still a problem if a rich "socialist" activist has significantly more access and influence than a poor "socialist" activist.

The greater the disparity, the less democratic a society becomes.

I agree. I was just curious if Michael was so anti-lobbyist when it comes to groups that support his agenda. My snarky comments should not be taken so seriously Randy ;)

[WillieLee]

There is nothing wrong with people or organizations working in a democratic system as long as all people have a relatively equal ability to shape the direction and policy of the nation. If you go back to my original post or pay attention to Moore’s thesis, the problem is that the system has shifted on the democratic continuum to a far more plutocratic system. It is growing less and less democratic and less responsive to the needs of the public.

These “socialist utopian” activists you speak of can not compete or get equal access. They are completely outgunned by the wealthy and powerful interests who are able to write their own legislation and buy the votes they want.

We do not have a “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” We have a government of the rich and powerful, by the rich and powerful, for the rich and powerful.

I have no problem with people being wealthy. Hell... I want to be wealthy. I just don’t believe that because one is wealthy, they are somehow more worthy of democratic participation and access.
It's a byproduct of having an electoral system in which the winners are generally determined by how much money they have to spend. and since the wealthy are the biggest targets they are going to promote their interests. It's not always malicious, it's human nature.

[Taxman]

I don't think there is an "official" libertarian stance on lobbying, other than striking down most campaign finance reform laws. Those laws do sacrifice liberties and actually do little to stop corruption, cronyism, or election control. Campaign finance reform laws infract on free speech (like how radio shows can suddenly get smacked by the FCC for being part of a campaign when they are not) and has become so severe that now only the richer candidates can afford to run at the federal level, effectively shutting out the third parties any chance to compete.Instead of just spitting back someone else's talking points, why not consider the issue on philosophical grounds?

If entities of great wealth are able to make substantial campaign contributions and lobbying expenditures, this is done to greatly increase their political influence. If the influence of a few is increased, it stands to reason that the influence of others must be decreased.

So, if the influence of an individual or large ground of individuals is being depleted, can it be depleted to the point where their liberties or rights are being sacrifice? Or possibly, can political influence be concentrated into the hands of a few to the point where it is damaging enough to the body politic to the point where some curtailment of their influence is justifiable or even necessary regarless of whether it might "sacrifice liberties", hypothetically at least?

[Brian Defferding]

Instead of just spitting back someone else's talking points, why not consider the issue on philosophical grounds?

If entities of great wealth are able to make substantial campaign contributions and lobbying expenditures, this is done to greatly increase their political influence. If the influence of a few is increased, it stands to reason that the influence of others must be decreased.

So, if the influence of an individual or large ground of individuals is being depleted, can it be depleted to the point where their liberties or rights are being sacrifice? Or possibly, can political influence be concentrated into the hands of a few to the point where it is damaging enough to the body politic to the point where some curtailment of their influence is justifiable or even necessary regarless of whether it might "sacrifice liberties", hypothetically at least?

Oh, I'm sure that's the big reason why liberties and rights are being sacrificed - like you said, once the rules are put in place that only a certain few can run a campaign, the less others have any say in government and the economy and the political process. The intentions of the newer campaign finance reforms may be good, but it still shuts out some capability for contenders and upstarts. When the members of the winning parties set the electoral rules and have their judges in place, it's no mystery what follows that.