Michael Moore's new movie

[barkomatic]

"Capitalism: A Love Story" is Michael Moore's latest film which premiered last night in New York and will be widely released in October. In it, he criticizes our current economic system and cites examples within the context of the latest recession--and before--where it has failed to create or maintain an acceptable standard of living we all expect from it.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/22/news/economy/michael_moore_capitalism_love.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2009092308

The recession itself and the current health care debate has more people questioning our economic system and policies now more than ever. It seems like we're one more major economic setback away from moving toward more socialist tendencies.

Have we evolved past the concept that pursuing individual wealth is the greatest good one can do for our society? Is that even a truly realistic goal anymore for most of us? It seems people struggle valiently just to stay in what's considered the "middle class". Most families have both parents working all the while accumulating considerable debt that will take most of their lives to pay off. That's just to have a roof over their heads and to pay for college tuition.

[CorvusCamenarum]

So is he offering to let people see the movie for free or does one have to buy a ticket?

[barkomatic]

So is he offering to let people see the movie for free or does one have to buy a ticket?

Since the point of the movie is that we are still in a capitalist society, you have to buy a ticket. :)

[obeygiant]

So is he offering to let people see the movie for free or does one have to buy a ticket?

Well you buy a ticket and the proceeds go to help the impoverished get their tickets.

[barkomatic]

Well you buy a ticket and the proceeds go to help the impoverished get their tickets.

The move is being released by a private company so no. Also, Michael Moore will be paid a handsome amount himself. Does this mean he's a hypocrite? How could one get funding for and widely release a film in this country without utilizing the current distribution system?

Besides, I don't think he's suggesting we abandon all profitable business. You would still need to buy a movie ticket in his "ideal society" just as you do in France or Canada.

[Badandy]

The move is being released by a private company so no. Also, Michael Moore will be paid a handsome amount himself. Does this mean he's a hypocrite?

Yes.

[NathanCH]

I like Mr. Moore. As a Canadian, he shows Americas worst spots as they should be. I loved Sicko :)

[callmemike20]

Michael Moore. lol. And I get made fun of for listening to Rush Limbaugh...

[thegoldenmackid]

Michael Moore. lol. And I get made fun of for listening to Rush Limbaugh...

Segregating the busses is a good idea.

In other news, watched Roger & Me again to prepare for the new one. His work (other then Fahrenheit 9/11) has been amazing.

[Zombie Acorn]

Without capitalism America would have never been great.

[djellison]

So is he offering to let people see the movie for free or does one have to buy a ticket?

When profitability trumps morality, there is a problem.

As with all mind-sets, it is the fundamentalists that are the problem. Capitalist fundamentalism is damaging. It's what created the global economic disaster, caused millions to lose their jobs and thousands to lose their homes.

If Moore, however loose his relationship with fact is, can make that one point clear, then he's doing a good thing.

[.Andy]

So is he offering to let people see the movie for free or does one have to buy a ticket?
Without capitalism America would have never been great.

Is it an anti-capitalism movie?

[NT1440]

Without capitalism America would have never been great.

And now that we're so "great" it seems all we've been doing for almost a decade is free falling. The rest of the world is catching up.

[Zombie Acorn]

And now that we're so "great" it seems all we've been doing for almost a decade is free falling. The rest of the world is catching up.

China is catching up, we've been outsourcing all of our **** to them and all the other countries that are catching up for a while now.

European countries still have very low GDP until you add them altogether.

[NT1440]

China is catching up, we've been outsourcing all of our **** to them and all the other countries that are catching up for a while now.

European countries still have very low GDP until you add them altogether.

Ah, as usual, its money that anyone cares about :rolleyes:

This country as a society is becoming a massive joke.

[Zombie Acorn]

Ah, as usual, its money that anyone cares about :rolleyes:

This country as a society is becoming a massive joke.

GDP is more than a measure of money making. Its positively correlated with the standard of living and gives more insight into the country.

[CorvusCamenarum]

Is it an anti-capitalism movie?

"Capitalism is an evil and you can't regulate evil. You have to replace it with something that is good for everyone."

You tell me.

[callmemike20]

Is it an anti-capitalism movie?


Dude, it's Michael Moore...was that a serious question?

[NT1440]

GDP is more than a measure of money making. Its positively correlated with the standard of living and gives more insight into the country.

I tend to rank society on things like:

Education
Overall health
Health Systems
How they treat those who are worse off


All of which, and more, america is losing its footing and falling flat on its face in front of the rest of the world.

[Zombie Acorn]

I tend to rank society on things like:

Education
Overall health
Health Systems
How they treat those who are worse off


All of which, and more, america is losing its footing and falling flat on its face in front of the rest of the world.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/Rankings.PNG

Our health system has problems (so does every other health system in the world). We are a bunch of fatties due to cultural changes, but we still have some of the best medical facilities and pharm companies in the world.

[.Andy]

Dude, it's Michael Moore...was that a serious question?
Yes. I've never seen him proposing anything other than capitalism but don't follow him so I might be wrong. And from what I've read about this movie it appears to be pointing out the problems with the excesses and limitations of capitalism and where it is "evil". Which doesn't necessarily make it anti-capitalism does it? Can't there be an intermediate?

edit: I'll wait until I see it before jumping up and down.

[Gelfin]

Without capitalism America would have never been great.

Is the flavor of capitalism we have now sufficiently valuable to you that you would sacrifice that greatness in order to keep it?

Right now the profit motive of American capitalists is doing a lot more to make China great at our expense than it is us, based in large part on the fact that China's hybrid economy can be precision tuned to drain away our money by exploiting our ideological economic inflexibility.

At the same time, while fiscal conservatives decry the printing of money to solve problems, pointing correctly to the inflation in its wake, they do not manage to extend that objection to the virtual printing of money enabled by the contrivances of Wall Street convention, by which money is essentially spoken into existence, unrelated to any measurably productive activity. The unhappy truth is that the inflation fiscal conservatives fear is already here with us. You don't notice it because it is potential instead of kinetic, like the tension in a stretched spring, hidden away in the gap between massive hoarders of wealth at the top of the economy and the "conventional" economy at the bottom that is not just stagnating but being actively cannibalized to further pad the top.

If your priority is American greatness, you need to start paying attention, because business as usual isn't going to cut it anymore. The people whose self-interested behavior you're relying on to promote that greatness these days openly regard the entire concept of national loyalty as useless sentimentalism. They are not on your side.

I'm on record as not being a huge fan of Moore. To me he's a tease. He sets up a premise, begins to build a case for it, then when he should be closing in for the kill, falls back on cheap and unfocused emotional manipulation. This weakness allows political opponents to dismiss him far too easily, and undermines all his best intentions.

Some of his marginalization has not been his fault. Of the people whose response to Moore is a snark and an eyeroll, I would be interested to know how many have ever actually watched one of his films. Of the handful who have, how many weren't sitting with a notepad uncritically mining for ammunition? How many are simply mimicking what some right-wing talking head has demonstrated to them as the "correct" reaction to mention of Moore?

He's not a slam dunk artist, but he does his homework, and the end result deserves to be evaluated critically and discussed rationally. Anyone who tries to convince you otherwise has something to fear from that happening, and you'd do well to figure out what.

I am very encouraged to see Capitalism, even if I doubt I will agree with its conclusions, and mostly on the back of this review (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/42457), from a right-inclined reviewer who, but for one reservation, thinks it is incredibly important for his fellow Republicans to see the film, and not just as a target for ridicule.

Having had a couple of conversations with this reviewer in the past, I am pleased to see he is part of what I am just starting to see might be a genuine movement by genuine conservatives to break the extreme lockstep that's characterized the American right for years, based in part on a recognition that they've been had, that all the things conservatives believed in have been turned against them and used to exploit them. Slowly they're looking around, seeing where it's brought them and saying, "wait a minute, I didn't sign on for this."

You might not see the movie, but give the review a sincere chance at least. I think it will be worth your time, and there's a chance it might change your mind.

[Zombie Acorn]

Ive seen most if not all of Michael Moore's films, the most recent one I watched was sicko. Which I find kind of odd that he would do a statement on health care (even if it was mostly about health coverage being denied) when he himself is a fat slob perpetuating our health problems in the US.

I have no problem with China taking advantage of the US, they are probably one of my favorite countries right now. Capitalism will make them great also.

As for wallstreet creating money out of thin air, I think there is definitely truth to that, but when they fall flat on their asses the government is there to back them up, so we aren't really doing ourselves any favors here. One of our main problems is we have too few companies with too much power. If a company is "too big to fail" it shouldn't be allowed to operate in the first place without heavy regulations.

[NT1440]

Ive seen most if not all of Michael Moore's films, the most recent one I watched was sicko. Which I find kind of odd that he would do a statement on health care (even if it was mostly about health coverage being denied) when he himself is a fat slob perpetuating our health problems in the US.


You need to be the perfect example of health to see problems in the industry? :confused::confused::confused:

[Zombie Acorn]

You need to be the perfect example of health to see problems in the industry? :confused::confused::confused:

It sure helps. I can't really protest prostitution if I am going to the brothel every night. I think heart conditions are the leading cause of death now in the US. Thats $$

[abijnk]

this review

Thanks for the link. We need more conservatives who think like that reviewer does. He's not the only one I've seen who pointed out the misdirection of current "populist rage," but he puts it very nicely.

I'm looking forward to this film...

...when he himself is a fat slob perpetuating our health problems in the US.

There are days when you actually speak sense, and then days when you say crap like this and I just have to go: WTF? :confused:

[Gelfin]

Ive seen most if not all of Michael Moore's films, the most recent one I watched was sicko. Which I find kind of odd that he would do a statement on health care (even if it was mostly about health coverage being denied) when he himself is a fat slob perpetuating our health problems in the US.

See, that's what you call an ad hominem attack. It's what people resort to when they cannot address any matter of substance.

I have no problem with China taking advantage of the US, they are probably one of my favorite countries right now. Capitalism will make them great also.

So your interest in "American greatness" was a red herring then? A bit of flag waving to rally the politically naive so you can march them into a wood chipper?

Perhaps you'd rather go live in China then. Don't mistake this for a "love it or leave it" suggestion. I'm suggesting you genuinely consider whether you'd want to live inside the Chinese economy, on the less advantageous side of their artificially state-pegged exchange rate, working for pennies a day producing Wal-Mart fodder for American suckers, with the surplus from your labor going to prop up a bloated and corrupt regime that controls all the resources and dictates your life.

Since the scheme you embrace is simultaneously creating a privatized version of the same power structure in the United States, I suppose at least you are consistent, but you and I have radically different definitions of the word "great."

As for wallstreet creating money out of thin air, I think there is definitely truth to that, but when they fall flat on their asses the government is there to back them up, so we aren't really doing ourselves any favors here. One of our main problems is we have too few companies with too much power. If a company is "too big to fail" it shouldn't be allowed to operate in the first place without heavy regulations.

And to think I just called you consistent. Socialist.

[leekohler]

...but we still have some of the best medical facilities and pharm companies in the world.

If you you can afford them.

[barkomatic]

An open question I'd like to pose is how are you doing under our current economic system and what are your prospects? Most people I know work very hard to provide only the basics. Two parents must now work (often crazy hours) to make a house payment, a car payment, buy clothing, food and save for college tuition. It's a system of lifelong crushing debt where the slightest economic shock can cause them to lose all of the above.

Previous generations didn't have iPhones or Macbook pros, but only one parent had to work a full time job to have a house and car paid for in a reasonable amount of time. An expensive college education wasn't a requirement for many well-paying jobs and when it was the tuition was far cheaper (accounting for inflation) than it is now.

I'm not saying we should convert our economic system to communism or socialism. However, I think its time to acknowledge that financial circumstances and quality of life for the majority of people is considerably lower than it has been in generations past. It's not a crisis yet but it could become one.

[Zombie Acorn]

There are days when you actually speak sense, and then days when you say crap like this and I just have to go: WTF? :confused:

I don't like purposely unhealthy people talking about problems in the health industry, there is nothing wrong with that. Most of our health issues revolve around obesity and heart related conditions. If everyone worked out 3+ times a week and stopped munching down on McDonalds our health costs would drop drastically.

See, that's what you call an ad hominem attack. It's what people resort to when they cannot address any matter of substance.


Fine, I will just call him a hypocrite and that will be all then.


So your interest in "American greatness" was a red herring then? A bit of flag waving to rally the politically naive so you can march them into a wood chipper?

I said it "made" America great, I am not so sure these days what it is doing for us, it doesn't seem to be making us any greater.


Perhaps you'd rather go live in China then. Don't mistake this for a "love it or leave it" suggestion. I'm suggesting you genuinely consider whether you'd want to live inside the Chinese economy, on the less advantageous side of their artificially state-pegged exchange rate, working for pennies a day producing Wal-Mart fodder for American suckers, with the surplus from your labor going to prop up a bloated and corrupt regime that controls all the resources and dictates your life.


As the economy stabilizes from growth spurts I think we will see a dramatic rise in quality of life. The rural areas will probably still be crap though for some time to come.


And to think I just called you consistent. Socialist.

Not at all, I personally do not believe in "too big to fail", but if we are going to allow it and backstop it then I want hard regulation.

[anjinha]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/Rankings.PNG

Our health system has problems (so does every other health system in the world). We are a bunch of fatties due to cultural changes, but we still have some of the best medical facilities and pharm companies in the world.

And still the U.S. ranks in 18th of 36 countries in terms of education.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/11/19/US-slipping-in-education-rankings/UPI-90221227104776/

[abijnk]

I don't like purposely unhealthy people talking about problems in the health industry, there is nothing wrong with that. Most of our health issues revolve around obesity and heart related conditions. If everyone worked out 3+ times a week and stopped munching down on McDonalds our health costs would drop drastically.


Well then, I guess I'll just leave PRSI now that I am "purposefully unhealthy." :rolleyes:

[Gelfin]

Fine, I will just call him a hypocrite and that will be all then.

Still the same problem. Hypocrisy doesn't necessarily make someone wrong. It's not even accurately hypocrisy.

Congresspeople and seniors who already have public health insurance arguing why it's morally wrong for anybody else to have it is relevantly hypocritical. They're expressing moral outrage at something they're also happily claiming for themselves. It's not the hypocrisy that makes them wrong, but the inconsistency calls into question the sincerity of the beliefs they claim.

It is unclear how Moore's physical condition is relevant to his argument that all Americans should have access to health care. I might agree it wouldn't make him a good spokesperson for the President's Council on Physical Fitness.

In what way does his physique suggest he is insincere in his belief that Americans should be able to visit a doctor when they need one without being bankrupted?

I said it "made" America great, I am not so sure these days what it is doing for us, it doesn't seem to be making us any greater.

If you don't think it's doing the job anymore, why be so insistent that we stick to it? Nostalgia?

As the economy stabilizes from growth spurts I think we will see a dramatic rise in quality of life. The rural areas will probably still be crap though for some time to come.

Could be that you're not fully apprehending the strategy here. Improving quality of life is not part of the agenda. Strengthening the Party and China's influence as a nation are. The rural areas are the problem. Where do you think they get the desperate people willing to take any job under appalling conditions for next to no pay? Using rural workers like slaves and lying to the world about the value of their currency is the only thing that makes China work. The Party pockets the difference, and leverages it to build their world influence, not to make the population's lives better.

See, you think China has seen the error of their ways and embraced glorious Capitalism, and that in so doing their citizens will automatically become more free and prosperous in the American mold. What you haven't realized is that the Chinese government has instead learned to apply capitalism as it is understood in communist theory as a tool to further their own ends.

If you're looking to prove the Marxist's point that the soul of capitalism is exploitation, then you're on the right track. I'd rather believe that the idea of equitable exchange can make everyone's lives better, but people must consciously choose improved quality of life over ruthless market efficiency, or the Invisible Hand will choose the latter for them.

Not at all, I personally do not believe in "too big to fail", but if we are going to allow it and backstop it then I want hard regulation.

Well, I suppose we are somewhat in agreement, but honestly you don't seem to know entirely what you want. You seem torn between taking a pragmatic view focusing on desirable outcomes and adhering so strongly to an antiseptic ideal that you bite the bullet and accept whatever misfortune it brings.

[fivepoint]

I always find it laughable when someone indicates that other countries, in this case... China, can only prosper at our expense. That somehow their gain always equals our loss. Such statements indicate such a laughable and misguided understanding of the free market and capitalism in general. Ah well...

Michael Moore is a lunatic socialist loser who uses cheap parlor tricks in an attempt to convince the weak-minded. Thankfully, thanks to this movie he's completely outing himself as such. His implication of capitalism as the reason for this economic is so patently false that it's laughable. Forget about the FED manipulation of the dollar! Forget about the government's mandate on banks to push increasingly dangerous loans! Forget the government's 'backing/insuring' of these companies so that they could remotely afford to offer such loans! Forget about the government's bailout of these organizations once they started to go under thanks to their own policies! It was capitalism that caused the problem! The very economic model that has made this country the richest nation in the world, and the model that has brought real wealth, prosperity, safety/security, quality healthcare, quality food/agriculture, to the globe as a whole! Naw... let's blame capitalism, it sure makes for good TV! :mad:

[ucfgrad93]

Michael Moore is the liberal version of Glenn Beck. Now if you will excuse me, I have to go check the daily threads here that bash Glenn Beck/Sarah Palin.:rolleyes:

[freeny]

Michael Moore is the liberal version of Glenn Beck. Now if you will excuse me, I have to go check the daily threads here that bash Glenn Beck/Sarah Palin.:rolleyes:
Sort of. Glenn bases his rants on paranoia, Moore bases his rants for the most part on research. But to your point I do agree they both have similar agendas.

[leekohler]

Michael Moore is the liberal version of Glenn Beck. Now if you will excuse me, I have to go check the daily threads here that bash Glenn Beck/Sarah Palin.:rolleyes:

While he's definitely biased, he's a lot more based in reality than Beck or Palin.

[Gelfin]

I always find it laughable when someone indicates that other countries, in this case... China, can only prosper at our expense. That somehow their gain always equals our loss. Such statements indicate such a laughable and misguided understanding of the free market and capitalism in general. Ah well...

The misunderstanding is entirely yours, from your fundamentalist's incomprehension of free market capitalism right down to your intentionally abusive misreading of what I wrote.

If you had bothered to read instead of searching for a witless and unsupported attack vector, you would have noticed I said, "I'd rather believe that the idea of equitable exchange can make everyone's lives better," a sentiment that presupposes precisely that capitalism need not be a zero-sum game.

Your error, and the error of most fundamentalist capitalists, is the assumption that this all happens by magic, that the mere presence of holy capitalism in an economy is sufficient to bring about this betterment. Most of you then compound the error by redefining "betterment" to mean whatever happens at the end result of a particular capitalist economy.

Now, on the topic of the concern you misunderstood, do you deny that the tools of a capitalist economy can be used to exploit others and concoct scenarios that fail to bring about universal improvement? Do you deny that for a nation to peg the exchange rate for its currency at an artificially high price is a tactic used to benefit that nation at others' expense? Do you deny that the use of virtual slave labor is more economically efficient, yet accomplishes precisely the opposite of the universal quality of life improvements you view as the natural fruits of capitalism?

I never said China can only prosper at our expense. I said they do.

Capitalism only improves lives if you make that a priority. Capitalism mindlessly advances whatever you make a priority.

[leekohler]

The misunderstanding is entirely yours, from your fundamentalist's incomprehension of free market capitalism right down to your intentionally abusive misreading of what I wrote.

If you had bothered to read instead of searching for a witless and unsupported attack vector...

You didn't really expect anything different, did you?

[Eraserhead]

Improving quality of life is not part of the agenda. Strengthening the Party and China's influence as a nation are. The rural areas are the problem. Where do you think they get the desperate people willing to take any job under appalling conditions for next to no pay? Using rural workers like slaves and lying to the world about the value of their currency is the only thing that makes China work. The Party pockets the difference, and leverages it to build their world influence, not to make the population's lives better.

Source? That isn't the position from where I'm standing in the slightest.

[Desertrat]

Sheesh! Capitalism is not a belief system. It's merely the label given to the accumulated totality of marketplace decisions. As a generality, the more free the decision-making, the better the performance. Government can help by keeping the playing field reasonably level.

Moore in no way understands this. His general view is that if you didn't start out life as part of the lower economic strata, you're a bad guy. If you begin in any portion of the upper strata and improve your lot, you're a bad guy. He wants equality of results in the marketplace, and his view is that only a powerful government can achieve this. The fact that he's gotten rich from promulgating this crapola doesn't seem to bother him.

Example: Is there not a segment speaking to the problems for a family whose house was repoed? Sad, isn't it? But was there any commentary about the financial capabilities of the buyer? Any commentary about the wisdom or lack thereof of taking on a financial obligation which could not be fulfilled? I, myself, find it difficult to have much sympathy for notably unwise decision making.

djellison's comment in Post #11 about the causes of this present economic meltdown is 180 degrees off from fact. Government interventions in the marketplace caused it, aided and abetted by greed on the part of friends of government. Moore's desire for equality of results is part and parcel of the actions of governments to avoid the inevitable realities of the marketplace--which very damned obviously have not been avoided.

'Rat

[Eraserhead]

djellison's comment in Post #11 about the causes of this present economic meltdown is 180 degrees off from fact. Government interventions in the marketplace caused it, aided and abetted by greed on the part of friends of government.

Source?

[Shivetya]

The move is being released by a private company so no. Also, Michael Moore will be paid a handsome amount himself. Does this mean he's a hypocrite? How could one get funding for and widely release a film in this country without utilizing the current distribution system?

Besides, I don't think he's suggesting we abandon all profitable business. You would still need to buy a movie ticket in his "ideal society" just as you do in France or Canada.

Lets see, he is an obvious over consumer, he has millions, and he tells others what they do wrong and most likely does not adhere to his own advice.

Must be an entertainer or a politician.

QOTD : It's funny a gluttonous millionaire filmmaker living in the USA says that capitalism has failed.

[aquajet]

Show of hands: who here has seen the movie?

I haven't. But I did watch the interview of Michael Moore on democracynow.org, and what Mr. Moore has suggested is basically two things: first, that our economic system needs democratic structures built within it and second, we need an ethical system which is institutionalized within this democratic economic system.

He then provides a few short examples of what democratic institutions within the realm of economics would look like, such as how an engineering firm in Wisconsin is run democratically by its employees. No longer is there the hierarchical and tyrannical corporate superstructure in which orders from a few individuals at the very top are carried out down through the ranks, and the wealth produced by such enterprises is concentrated within the top echelons. Instead, the people who work in this enterprise are equal participants within it, and each has a say in the way the enterprise is run and decisions made and implemented through a democratic process. The participants decide on their own how much to pay themselves. This is what is meant by concepts such as "collective ownership" and "workplace/industrial democracy". This is also what we may more or less refer to as a "communist enterprise".

So with this in mind, I would like to know how some people managed to arrive at the conclusion that Mr. Moore is a "hypocrite" for making a movie about how capitalism is unfair. Perhaps you know something I don't.

If you find some of these ideas remotely interesting, you should google "The Take", a documentary about the recuperated factory movement in Argentina and how working people are implementing these ideas into their lives.

[Gelfin]

Source? That isn't the position from where I'm standing in the slightest.

Oh, gosh, is that the time?

Hrmph. Well, I have some crow to eat here, so I'd better get carving. I was misremembering the nature of China's currency manipulation, confusing it with what the Soviet Union was doing in the 1980s.

The Soviets were pegging their currency exchange at a rate as much as a hundred times the natural rate. While a ruble cost around ten dollars on the official exchange, people would regularly offer ten rubles for a dollar on the street, in part because dollars could be used in tourist-only stores otherwise forbidden to the locals. This obviously acts as a massive implicit tariff on all Soviet goods, with the state bank claiming the margin.

This is not what the Chinese are doing. They are, in fact, undervaluing (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5353313) the yuan against world currencies. The end effect, however, is similar. Undervalued currency compounds the effect of abysmal labor conditions (http://www.chinalaborwatch.org/) and, often, dangerously shoddy goods (http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=china+toys+lead+paint&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8) to make it superficially cheaper to ship things across an ocean than to manufacture them locally. It also all but compels a trade deficit, because locals must climb uphill to afford foreign goods, but foreigners can acquire local products easily.

On the other hand, the discount we get is partly illusory. The reason for this is that the Chinese government buys massive amounts of U.S. treasury bonds and uses the proceeds to subsidize the manufacturers, thus obliging America as a nation to pay off the discount Americans receive as individuals. Not to mention that the purchase of American paper is subsidizing discounts to the rest of the world as well. In that sense we're footing the bill for everyone to do business with China.

Americans buy cheap crap at Wal-Mart and then turn around and complain that those idiots in Washington cannot keep the federal debt under control, entirely oblivious to the direct correlation between the two. If the government were to offer direct debt-backed subsides for lower prices at Wal-Mart the right-wingers in PRSI would go nuts, but it's so cleverly hidden, laundered through the Chinese economy, that they don't even realize that's what's happening. To them, China is capitalist magic, an economic miracle.

They complain about $700bn to keep the economy from tanking outright, but ignore the $800bn (http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=5&art_id=87969&sid=25396147&con_type=1&d_str=20090917) in treasury paper owned by China, more particularly the extent to which that debt purchase helped fuel the problems that necessitated the $700bn expenditure in the first place. You'll note that the NPR article, from 2006, still paints it as a good consequence that China's debt purchases depress interest rates for all U.S. credit, and that "[t]hose low mortgage rates have fueled a dramatic housing boom, raising the price of many homes. All those inflated home prices have injected countless billions of dollars into the U.S. economy. Americans are flush with home equity and cheap debt."

Don't get me wrong. There are far worse things (http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/1932/bare_branches.html) a nation can do with a massive surplus of unmarriageable young men, and there have been good arguments (which I cannot lay hands on immediately) that international financial entanglements do more to prevent war than any act of diplomacy ever did. On the other hand, I do believe the facts as they stand support the conclusions that currency manipulation is geared to benefit the PRC at our expense, but that Chinese workers are not seeing the benefit of the increased business this frankenstein pseudo-capitalism generates.

[Zombie Acorn]

Show of hands: who here has seen the movie?

I haven't. But I did watch the interview of Michael Moore on democracynow.org, and what Mr. Moore has suggested is basically two things: first, that our economic system needs democratic structures built within it and second, we need an ethical system which is institutionalized within this democratic economic system.

He then provides a few short examples of what democratic institutions within the realm of economics would look like, such as how an engineering firm in Wisconsin is run democratically by its employees. No longer is there the hierarchical and tyrannical corporate superstructure in which orders from a few individuals at the very top are carried out down through the ranks, and the wealth produced by such enterprises is concentrated within the top echelons. Instead, the people who work in this enterprise are equal participants within it, and each has a say in the way the enterprise is run and decisions made and implemented through a democratic process. The participants decide on their own how much to pay themselves. This is what is meant by concepts such as "collective ownership" and "workplace/industrial democracy". This is also what we may more or less refer to as a "communist enterprise".

So with this in mind, I would like to know how some people managed to arrive at the conclusion that Mr. Moore is a "hypocrite" for making a movie about how capitalism is unfair. Perhaps you know something I don't.

If you find some of these ideas remotely interesting, you should google "The Take", a documentary about the recuperated factory movement in Argentina and how working people are implementing these ideas into their lives.

Engineering firms already use these structures because they are all qualified individuals, sometimes the managers can't even do the work the floor engineers do and so they use a more collaborative approach because of specialization. This isn't the same as many other industries where you have qualified managers running cubicle grunts.

[SactoGuy18]

I'd like Moore a LOT more (pun not intended) if he would propose some actual, workable solutions.

How about these solutions:

1) Change our tax system to encourage savings and capital investment not leaving the country just to reduce the income tax bite.

2) Reigning in our financial system to stop the type of uncontrolled speculation that caused the crash last year.

Moore wants essentially something close to communism, and given the history of the Soviet Union, that's not such a good idea in the long run....

[.Andy]

Moore wants essentially something close to communism
Does he?

[Zombie Acorn]

Does he?

It sounded like he wanted democratic business structures from an earlier post. That doesn't work in most industries because not everyone has the same level of qualifications, if you give a janitor and someone in the finance department with a MBA an equal vote in company decisions your company is going down the tubes in no time.

[.Andy]

It sounded like he wanted democratic business structures from an earlier post. That doesn't work in most industries because not everyone has the same level of qualifications, if you give a janitor and someone in the finance department with a MBA an equal vote in company decisions your company is going down the tubes in no time.
I don't think giving the janitor equal say in the direction of a company as people with an MBA is the idea.

Giving people a say and a personal investment in the business they are working is prudent and previously practiced - giving them shares for instance. Someone is going to be more productive if they have a vested interest in what they are doing above and beyond their paycheck.

[Zombie Acorn]

I don't think giving the janitor equal say in the direction of a company as people with an MBA is the idea.

Giving people a say and a personal investment in the business they are working is prudent and previously practiced - giving them shares for instance. Someone is going to be more productive if they have a vested interest in what they are doing above and beyond their paycheck.

I don't understand Moore's agenda then, this is already practiced in the business place today. Is he saying we should have to force businesses to do this type of setup? :confused:

[Peterkro]

Show of hands: who here has seen the movie?

I haven't. But I did watch the interview of Michael Moore on democracynow.org, and what Mr. Moore has suggested is basically two things: first, that our economic system needs democratic structures built within it and second, we need an ethical system which is institutionalized within this democratic economic system.

He then provides a few short examples of what democratic institutions within the realm of economics would look like, such as how an engineering firm in Wisconsin is run democratically by its employees. No longer is there the hierarchical and tyrannical corporate superstructure in which orders from a few individuals at the very top are carried out down through the ranks, and the wealth produced by such enterprises is concentrated within the top echelons. Instead, the people who work in this enterprise are equal participants within it, and each has a say in the way the enterprise is run and decisions made and implemented through a democratic process. The participants decide on their own how much to pay themselves. This is what is meant by concepts such as "collective ownership" and "workplace/industrial democracy". This is also what we may more or less refer to as a "communist enterprise".

So with this in mind, I would like to know how some people managed to arrive at the conclusion that Mr. Moore is a "hypocrite" for making a movie about how capitalism is unfair. Perhaps you know something I don't.

If you find some of these ideas remotely interesting, you should google "The Take", a documentary about the recuperated factory movement in Argentina and how working people are implementing these ideas into their lives.

What Mr Moore is describing here is Anarchism although it would extend from the means of production to all relationships being non hierarchal,Anarchism indeed could be described as non authoritarian Communism or Socialism.

[SactoGuy18]

It sounded like he wanted democratic business structures from an earlier post. That doesn't work in most industries because not everyone has the same level of qualifications, if you give a janitor and someone in the finance department with a MBA an equal vote in company decisions your company is going down the tubes in no time.

I've always said we need equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. Moore seems to want the latter, but I prefer the former.

That's why I'm surprised that Moore hasn't caught onto the idea of changing our tax laws to encourage personal savings and capital investment staying in the USA--not headed out of the country for tax avoidance purposes--would do enormous good for the USA. Too many large companies are basing their economic decisions based on keeping their tax burden low, not what's best for the company in other measuring methods; small wonder why the manufacturing base is rapidly falling apart in the USA.

[Desertrat]

Eraserhead, have you never partaken of threads, here, discussing the various governmental laws and regulations which affect marketplace behavior? Seriously, do you not look at the effects of laws and regulations on economic activity? I'm not trying to be a smartass in this. The information is common knowledge from "the numbers", whether inflation rates, housing foreclosures or bank failures. The causes of those have been shown to be directly related to distinct acts of government.

Homework assignment: Go to Google. Hunt up folks like Roubini, Schiff, Gary North, Doug Casey and Matt Simmons. Read through their commentaries. That's as good a short course in real-world economics as one could find.

'Rat

[aquajet]

It sounded like he wanted democratic business structures from an earlier post. That doesn't work in most industries because not everyone has the same level of qualifications, if you give a janitor and someone in the finance department with a MBA an equal vote in company decisions your company is going down the tubes in no time.


This type of social organization within the realm of the production of wealth is not remotely the norm in the US, nor anywhere for that matter. The simplified reason for this is that tyrannical structures are not only encouraged, but fully institutionalized throughout our economic system for the primary purpose of allowing individuals the opportunity to gain tremendous wealth. When the modus operandi of an economic system is to do whatever it takes to be the biggest winner, of course "democratic business structures" aren't going to work. It's much easier and more efficient to simply take the whole pie when you're under the auspices of a political and economic system which actively supports private dictatorships, than to patiently explain to your fellow pie-making participants that you ought to be entitled to the vast majority of the pie, while the others nothing more than a piece of crust.

It is for this simple reason above that I think a truly democratic society and capitalism are mutually exclusive.

BTW, I don't think you fully understand how industrial democracy actually tends to work in the real world. Nearly two hundred Argentine businesses have implemented workplace democracy since 2001 through expropriation and nationalization -- various factories, food service firms, media outlets, clinics, hospitals, hotels, airlines, construction firms, IT firms and others have done exactly what you say "won't work".

What Mr Moore is describing here is Anarchism although it would extend from the means of production to all relationships being non hierarchal,Anarchism indeed could be described as non authoritarian Communism or Socialism.

Call it what you wish. I think it's an idea that people seriously need to consider worth exploring.

[Zombie Acorn]

And you can say this authoritatively how, exactly?


I run two businsses myself, I also have enough business core credits to graduate with a degree in the field even though I am currently pursuing computer science. Michal Moore is either advocating practices that are already present or practices that simply will not work in America. We are not a collectivist society and that is not about to change.

I'd respond further but my iPod touch doesn't handle quite as well as my computer.

[NT1440]

I run two businsses myself, I also have enough business core credits to graduate with a degree in the field even though I am currently pursuing computer science. Michal Moore is either advocating practices that are already present or practices that simply will not work in America. We are not a collectivist society and that is not about to change.

I'd respond further but my iPod touch doesn't handle quite as well as my computer.

Why would they "simply not work in America" ?

[Zombie Acorn]

Why would they "simply not work in America" ?


Americans are groomed for competition. We work for ourselves not the whole.

[.Andy]

Americans are groomed for competition. We work for ourselves not the whole.
No man is an island.

[skunk]

We are not a collectivist societyIn that case you are not a society at all.

[blackfox]

In that case you are not a society at all.

An irony lost on all too many...

[Peterkro]

This type of social organization within the realm of the production of wealth is not remotely the norm in the US, nor anywhere for that matter. The simplified reason for this is that tyrannical structures are not only encouraged, but fully institutionalized throughout our economic system for the primary purpose of allowing individuals the opportunity to gain tremendous wealth. When the modus operandi of an economic system is to do whatever it takes to be the biggest winner, of course "democratic business structures" aren't going to work. It's much easier and more efficient to simply take the whole pie when you're under the auspices of a political and economic system which actively supports private dictatorships, than to patiently explain to your fellow pie-making participants that you ought to be entitled to the vast majority of the pie, while the others nothing more than a piece of crust.

It is for this simple reason above that I think a truly democratic society and capitalism are mutually exclusive.

BTW, I don't think you fully understand how industrial democracy actually tends to work in the real world. Nearly two hundred Argentine businesses have implemented workplace democracy since 2001 through expropriation and nationalization -- various factories, food service firms, media outlets, clinics, hospitals, hotels, airlines, construction firms, IT firms and others have done exactly what you say "won't work".



Call it what you wish. I think it's an idea that people seriously need to consider worth exploring.

Indeed what it's called is irrelevant "direct democracy" is as good a term as any,although to be clear what is being referred to is miles away from "representative democracy" which is of course a sham.Your reference to what's happening in Argentina is but one example of what millions of people around the world are struggling to do,build a new world inside the shell of the old one, it will take time but sometime in the future the exploiters and expropriators will wake up one morning and their world will be gone and the rest of us will be free to live life to all the great possibilities that were always there.( I must have got out the right side of the bed this morning :) ).

[Eraserhead]

BTW, I don't think you fully understand how industrial democracy actually tends to work in the real world. Nearly two hundred Argentine businesses have implemented workplace democracy since 2001 through expropriation and nationalization -- various factories, food service firms, media outlets, clinics, hospitals, hotels, airlines, construction firms, IT firms and others have done exactly what you say "won't work".

After speaking to several people who currently live in Argentina or have left, and after visiting it myself it is pretty clear that it is essentially a failed state.

And their government hasn't achieved much, other than making themselves 158% richer last year alone (source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/26/argentina-kirchner-wealth)).

EDIT: I should clarify, that I mean that just because the Argentinians have done it isn't a ringing endorsement of the ideas success, unless there is some good evidence that the companies have done very, very well with this style of management.

[Gelfin]

Americans are groomed for competition. We work for ourselves not the whole.

Do you have any idea how recent an invention this pathological social incohesion in America is? I gather it is probably older than you are, but not by much.

Sociopathy is hard if you aren't born to it, and by far most humans aren't; however, it's amazing what sort of behavior people can be led into if you only tell them it's what "good Americans" believe and always have.

Consider for a moment the way social capital tends to compete with regular capital. There are a lot of people, many of whom genuinely are born sociopaths, who recognize that it's better for them if you buy a product or service to solve a problem instead of asking a neighbor for assistance. Of course it is in those people's financial interests to convince you that you are a scorpion instead of a human.

The problem isn't capitalism per se (and here I may end up disagreeing with Moore once I've seen the film) but precisely what you've expressed here, this notion that money is our only proper interface to other people.

[Rt&Dzine]

Do you have any idea how recent an invention this pathological social incohesion in America is? I gather it is probably older than you are, but not by much.

Sociopathy is hard if you aren't born to it, and by far most humans aren't; however, it's amazing what sort of behavior people can be led into if you only tell them it's what "good Americans" believe and always have.

Consider for a moment the way social capital tends to compete with regular capital. There are a lot of people, many of whom genuinely are born sociopaths, who recognize that it's better for them if you buy a product or service to solve a problem instead of asking a neighbor for assistance. Of course it is in those people's financial interests to convince you that you are a scorpion instead of a human.

The problem isn't capitalism per se (and here I may end up disagreeing with Moore once I've seen the film) but precisely what you've expressed here, this notion that money is our only proper interface to other people.

You have articulated something that has just been some vague thoughts for me. I never thought about it as sociopathy, but it is. I don't know if this is related or not, but during the Bush administration he made a big issue how Americans shouldn't have to cut back on their luxuries during difficult times. He didn't refer to them as luxuries, but more as basic rights. Keep buying your big trucks and SUVs, etc. (It also encouraged the manufacturers to go in this direction. Then when gas prices skyrocketed people were stuck with gas guzzlers.) The contrast to how our country sacrificed during WWII was night and day. I realize Iraq wasn't on the level of WWII, but the attitude was such a contrast.

[NT1440]

Americans are groomed for competition. We work for ourselves not the whole.

HAHA,, I almost spit out my drink on my desk. I love how you speak authoritatively for others. Yet again you pull out the "I think this way, therefor so does the country" routine. Its getting really tiring.

[Eraserhead]

This is not what the Chinese are doing. They are, in fact, undervaluing (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5353313) the yuan against world currencies. The end effect, however, is similar. Undervalued currency compounds the effect of abysmal labor conditions (http://www.chinalaborwatch.org/) and, often, dangerously shoddy goods (http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=china+toys+lead+paint&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8) to make it superficially cheaper to ship things across an ocean than to manufacture them locally. It also all but compels a trade deficit, because locals must climb uphill to afford foreign goods, but foreigners can acquire local products easily.

While true, these issues apply to the vast majority of of other developing countries as well, and undoubtably they applied to us when we were developing too.

These issues don't mean that the Chinese government doesn't care about their people at all, or is that what you mean by "eating crow"?

Eraserhead, have you never partaken of threads, here, discussing the various governmental laws and regulations which affect marketplace behavior? Seriously, do you not look at the effects of laws and regulations on economic activity?

You're the one making the claim that the government is responsible for the financial crisis, so really you should find evidence to back up your claim.

The Economist for one seems to be of the view that the bailout was a good idea, and besides we'd have definitely been in trouble if more of the large banks had gone under as well as Lemann Brothers.

I suppose it is true that the Fed's low interest rates (and the Chinese buying US government bonds, thus reducing their yield - as Gelfin points out) wouldn't have helped, but they aren't the only reason the financial problems occurred.

Roubini,

He looks interesting.

Schiff,

Seems to be remarkably alarmist (http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-peter-schiff-us-stock-rally-and-dollar-doomed-gold-going-to-5000-2009-9). He's basically saying the dollar is worth 5x more than it should be as its only worth $1k today and Gold has only gone up by 12% over the last year.

Gary North,

Crazy right wing lunatic. (http://www.garynorth.com/public/5410.cfm)

Doug Casey

Can't find enough information about him to be sure, but probably ditto.

Matt Simmons.

Oil industry insider and energy advisor for Bush but doesn't seem to be all bad.

[Zombie Acorn]

HAHA,, I almost spit out my drink on my desk. I love how you speak authoritatively for others. Yet again you pull out the "I think this way, therefor so does the country" routine. Its getting really tiring.


You know what's getting tiring? Everyone trying to be apologetic to the world instead of actually trying to do anything about it.

And its funny that you spit your drink at a true statement, America when compared to other countries rates very low in the collectivist area, and Americans also tend to believe they can actually dictate their future.

So you see its not me speaking on the behalf of America, its simply true.

[Zombie Acorn]

No man is an island.

We tie our islands together with rope, sometimes we will let people across.

In that case you are not a society at all.

Our GDP says otherwise. Most productive nation in the world.

[.Andy]

We tie our islands together with rope, sometimes we will let people across.

Our GDP says otherwise. Most productive nation in the world.
And you completely missed both points.

[Zombie Acorn]

And you completely missed both points.

I don't like your use of "islands" it's too black and white. You need a new argument.

America is awesome. Something is working for us.

[Eraserhead]

America is awesome. Something is working for us.

I'm curious, have you travelled abroad?

[.Andy]

I don't like your use of "islands" it's too black and white. You need a new argument.
Thank you for attributing that quote to me. I'll take it.

America is awesome. Something is working for us.
Why are you so interested in GDP?

[skunk]

I don't like your use of "islands" it's too black and white.I'm curious: have you heard of John Donne?

[rhsgolfer33]

I'm curious, have you travelled abroad?

I'd be very surprised. I've been to my share of European nations (as well as Mexico and Canada); no one who has travelled to a decent, non third world country would be overjoyed about how great America is. I found the UK, Germany, France, and most of the other European nations I travelled to to be fairly comparable, quality of life wise, to the United States. The people are very similar (aren't most people?), nice, polite, and just as interesting and fun as any American.

If more people accepted that we are all humans and we're not entirely defined by what country we just so happened to be born in, the world would be a lot nicer place. Eventually more Americans will realize they need to be humble, maybe when China and India are the two largest economic superpowers.


Why are you so interested in GDP?

I'm not sure why he likes that measure so much. If we divide it per capita (and isn't that how it should be if each of us is so solitary and such an "island?"), the United States ranks an abysmal 10th, behind Singapore, Qatar, Kuwait, and various others. And technically, if we look at the European Union as a whole, the United States is 2nd in GDP.

[NT1440]

If more people accepted that we are all humans and we're not entirely defined by what country we just so happened to be born in, the world would be a lot nicer place. Eventually more Americans will realize they need to be humble, maybe when China and India are the two largest economic superpowers.

Isn't it sad that we as a country always have to have something happen before we accept a truth? Its like we have to be put in our place before we get over this "best country on earth" BS.

[NT1440]

You know what's getting tiring? Everyone trying to be apologetic to the world instead of actually trying to do anything about it.

And its funny that you spit your drink at a true statement, America when compared to other countries rates very low in the collectivist area, and Americans also tend to believe they can actually dictate their future.

So you see its not me speaking on the behalf of America, its simply true.

It seems to me that you have no idea what it takes for something to be "true".

[rhsgolfer33]

Isn't it sad that we as a country always have to have something happen before we accept a truth? Its like we have to be put in our place before we get over this "best country on earth" BS.

I agree. I mean, the United States is a nice place, it offers a lot of opportunities to people that live there, and it is a pretty good country. But I don't think you can say it is better per se than any other place. Germany is a great country too, it offers lots of opportunities and it has its problems, just like America. So is France, so Spain, so is Japan, the list could go on for a while. We're all human, we shouldn't be act like we're defined by the nation we come from. I'm American, sure, but so what? I relate pretty well to most people I've met from any other country in the world, Tanzania, France, England, etc. Why is that? It's because we're people! We're human, we have similar emotions, we have similar urges, and a lot of the time we have similar experiences. That should be far more important than what country your birth certificate and passport have stamped on them. That is not to say there are countries I would not particularly want to live in, but as a people, Americans certainly aren't any better than anyone else, and when it comes to many countries neither is our government or quality of life.

I also find ironic how a country that claims to be as Christian as American, can fall into the worst of the deadly sins, pride, so easily.

[NT1440]

I agree. I mean, the United States is a nice place, it offers a lot of opportunities to people that live there, and it is a pretty good country. But I don't think you can say it is better per se than any other place. Germany is a great country too, it offers lots of opportunities and it has its problems, just like America. So is France, so Spain, so is Japan, the list could go on for a while. We're all human, we shouldn't be act like we're defined by the nation we come from. I'm American, sure, but so what? I relate pretty well to most people I've met from any other country in the world, Tanzania, France, England, etc. Why is that? It's because we're people! We're human, we have similar emotions, we have similar urges, and a lot of the time we have similar experiences. That should be far more important than what country your birth certificate and passport have stamped on them. That is not to say there are countries I would not particularly want to live in, but as a people, Americans certainly aren't any better than anyone else, and when it comes to many countries neither is our government or quality of life.

I also find ironic how a country that claims to be as Christian as American, can fall into the worst of the deadly sins, pride, so easily.
I agree with your whole post except the end. I wish people would stop considering this nation to be christian.

[Zombie Acorn]

It seems to me that you have no idea what it takes for something to be "true".

The difference is that I don't need to search google for articles to know that I am right.

http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Collectivist_and_individualist_cultures/id/1992049

Collectivist and individualist cultures - Examples of Countries with Generally Collectivistic Cultures

* Argentina
* Brazil
* China
* Vietnam
* Egypt
* Greece
* India
* Japan
* Korea
* Mexico

Collectivist and individualist cultures - Examples of Countries with Generally Individualistic Cultures

* Canada
* Australia
* England
* France
* Ireland
* Italy
* New Zealand
* United States

Collectivist and individualist cultures - Traits of Collectivism

* "We" not "me" orientation.
* Each person is encouraged to conform to society, to do what is best for the group and to not openly express opinions or beliefs that go against it.
* Group, family or rights for the common good seen as most important than the rights of inviduals.
* Rules promote stability, order, obedience.
* Fitting in or conforming to group or society is required.
* Distinctions made between in-group and out-group.
* Working with others and cooperating is the norm. Refusal to cooperate and wanting to be independent or stand out is seen as shameful. Everyone must rely on others for support.

Collectivist and individualist cultures - Traits of Individualism

* "I" identity.
* Promotes individual goals, initiative and achievement.
* Each person is encouraged to stand out, be unique and express themselves.
* Individual rights seen as most important. Rules attempt to ensure independence, choices and freedom of speech.
* No need to fit in or conform to group or society.
* Less distinction between in-group and out-group.
* Relying or being dependent on others is seen as shameful. People are encouraged to do things on their own, to rely on themselves.

[Eraserhead]

The difference is that I don't need to search google for articles to know that I am right.

http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Collectivist_and_individualist_cultures/id/1992049

That is "sourced" from a Wikipedia article that doesn't actually appear to exist...

[Zombie Acorn]

That is "sourced" from a Wikipedia article that doesn't actually appear to exist...

I have a macroeconomics book that states the exact same thing. Are you really trying to argue that the US is more of a collectivist society than Argentina?

These are basic definitions and countries that fall under them.

[.Andy]

I have a macroeconomics book that states the exact same thing.
Which macroeconomics textbook?

[callmemike20]

I agree with your whole post except the end. I wish people would stop considering this nation to be christian.

America was founded on Judeo-Christian values, thus America herself is a christian. That doesn't mean you have to be because under the first amendment, you can be any religion you want to be and won't be criticized for it.

It's like going to a christian bake sale. Just because you aren't christian, it doesn't make the bake sale not christian.

[NT1440]

America was founded on Judeo-Christian values, thus America herself is a christian. That doesn't mean you have to be because under the first amendment, you can be any religion you want to be and won't be criticized for it.

It's like going to a christian bake sale. Just because you aren't christian, it doesn't make the bake sale not christian.

Uh, actually it wasn't founded upon Judeo-Christian values, this has been debunked many times in these very forums. Just because the majority of people may have been christian does not a christian nation make. For it to be, it would have to have direct influence in the way the nation is run.

[callmemike20]

Uh, actually it wasn't founded upon Judeo-Christian values, this has been debunked many times in these very forums. Just because the majority of people may have been christian does not a christian nation make. For it to be, it would have to have direct influence in the way the nation is run.

These forums...right. You can find info to debunk anything...

[NT1440]

These forums...right. You can find info to debunk anything...

Because people LINK to information, in compliance with the rules. I'm not saying because USERX says something its true. :rolleyes:

[.Andy]

America was founded on Judeo-Christian values
What are these judeo-christian values?

[NT1440]

What are these judeo-christian values?

I'd like to know as well. Also, where in our constitution does it say we are set up to follow christianity? If it doesn't, i hate to break it to you, then at best you have a country started BY some Christians (many of the founding fathers have very interesting ideas on religion in general, you should read up Callmemike). That in no way makes this based upon those values and ideals.

This country is/was based on reason.

[hulugu]

America was founded on Judeo-Christian values, thus America herself is a christian.

I've met America, she was a nice Catholic girl from Barrio de la Raza. But, I don't understand what she has to do with the founding fathers.

It's like going to a christian bake sale. Just because you aren't christian, it doesn't make the bake sale not christian.

This assumes that the bake sale was indeed Christian, rather than a Unitarian church running out of a strip mall where the cookies were served on Enlightenment-label paper-goods.

[Eraserhead]

Are you really trying to argue that the US is more of a collectivist society than Argentina?

Probably, for example Argentina has a worse gap between rich and poor than the US.

[Thomas Veil]

America was founded on Judeo-Christian values, thus America herself is a christian....

It's like going to a christian bake sale. Just because you aren't christian, it doesn't make the bake sale not christian.Um, no.

It's more like: there's a new Barnes & Noble store down the street, and just because a lot of the construction workers who built it happened to be Christian, doesn't make the B&N a Christian book store.

[NT1440]

Um, no.

It's more like: there's a new Barnes & Noble store down the street, and just because a lot of the construction workers who built it happened to be Christian, doesn't make the B&N a Christian book store.

Its one of those things that really irks me, "If we say it enough, it means its true!"

[Wotan31]

Moore is such a joke. Does anyone even take him seriously any more?

[opinioncircle]

Uh, actually it wasn't founded upon Judeo-Christian values, this has been debunked many times in these very forums. Just because the majority of people may have been christian does not a christian nation make. For it to be, it would have to have direct influence in the way the nation is run.

Well "One Nation Under God", "God Bless America", the freaks at Fox News, President Bush using God as his guidance, I beg to differ with you.

Christianity has directly influenced the way America has worked, and still continue to do so...

[Gelfin]

While true, these issues apply to the vast majority of of other developing countries as well, and undoubtably they applied to us when we were developing too.

These issues don't mean that the Chinese government doesn't care about their people at all, or is that what you mean by "eating crow"?

I've paused and given a fair amount of thought to my position on this, and accordingly my answer isn't simple. To begin with, I clearly overstated the case, mostly in reaction to the bizarre irony of our most flag-waving drum-beating boosters of American Capitalism saying the People's Republic of China is their favorite country.

I realize in hindsight that this reaction may have looked like classic Red Scare or Yellow Peril sneaky expansionist empire out to dominate the Earth sort of talk. I want to make it clear that is not the case. Further, I don't want to make it sound as if I believe they take no interest whatsoever in the welfare of their citizens.

Those caveats in mind, I think I need to stand by my conclusion a bit insofar as improving their citizens' lives is ancillary to controlling their citizens' lives. We are still talking about one of the most repressive and ideologically intolerant regimes on Earth, a single-party nation whose human rights abuses are legion and whose interest in citizen welfare seems limited to that which most effectively minimizes challenges to party authority.

I particularly wish to call out the word "developing." In the context of China this is a weasel word particularly tuned to excusing exploitation of workers and natural resources in the name of economic expansion. China has the money, the manpower and the technical resources to be developed, but instead the word developing, a word more properly applied to emerging regional economies, is used to excuse lack of same. The economic effects of indulging China's "developing" status are felt around the world. China will not wither and die from being held to the same standards as every other world-class economic power. Americans may have less cheap credit and less shoddy crap from Wal-Mart as a result, but those things are the bread and circuses of the American empire to begin with.

Inasmuch as I have recently called out my own government for subjugating the interests of their constituents to their own interest in retaining political power (most recently in the form of fealty to health insurance lobbyists), I hardly think it unreasonable of me to criticize an even more overtly manipulative government for not having their citizens' well-being foremost in their minds.

Truthfully I see the U.S. and China as locked in a slow economic death spiral, engaging in mutual cannibalism, but the lie of it is hidden in the economic ether between the two countries. This provides all the "not my problem" needed for the responsible parties, who are making out quite well in the short term, to blind themselves to the unsustainability of it.

[Zombie Acorn]

Which macroeconomics textbook?

Principles of Macroeconomics - Mankiw

[NT1440]

Well "One Nation Under God", "God Bless America", the freaks at Fox News, President Bush using God as his guidance, I beg to differ with you.

Christianity has directly influenced the way America has worked, and still continue to do so...

So which god are we reffering to? :rolleyes:

Also, yes there is an influence, but only because the powers at be have exploited there way into being able to do so.

[yg17]

Um, no.

It's more like: there's a new Barnes & Noble store down the street, and just because a lot of the construction workers who built it happened to be Christian, doesn't make the B&N a Christian book store.

Well, to be historically accurate, the construction workers weren't really Christian, they may have been deist and had a belief in god, but they wouldn't consider themselves Christians, and then 200 years later, some morons made the false claim that those who built the B&N were Christian, and thus, the B&N is a Christian bookstore. And because one of the construction workers may have said "Jesus H. Christ it's hot out here, lord almighty, I'm sweating my balls off. I just can't wait to get home and have a god damn beer" during the contruction phase, suddenly the B&N was built on Christian principles.

[Gelfin]

Well, to be historically accurate, the construction workers weren't really Christian, they may have been deist and had a belief in god, but they wouldn't consider themselves Christians, and then 200 years later, some morons made the false claim that those who built the B&N were Christian, and thus, the B&N is a Christian bookstore. And because one of the construction workers may have said "Jesus H. Christ it's hot out here, lord almighty, I'm sweating my balls off. I just can't wait to get home and have a god damn beer" during the contruction phase, suddenly the B&N was built on Christian principles.

Moreover, many of the construction workers had made the wise observation, "hey, those guys in the past who tried to make sure everybody only read one sort of book were kind of a-holes, so no matter what sorts of books I personally like, I think it's more important to have a bookstore that serves everybody."

[.Andy]

Principles of Macroeconomics - Mankiw
Thanks. My library has it and it's on the shelf so I can check it out today. A comparison of the collectivist/individualistic nature of countries and its impact on the economy sounds like an interesting read :).

edit: Zombie Acorn I couldn't find any sections relating to this. Any chance of some page numbers to help out?

[opinioncircle]

So which god are we reffering to? :rolleyes:

Also, yes there is an influence, but only because the powers at be have exploited there way into being able to do so.

Well yeah try to explain a "different" God than the one in the Christian belief to some people who can't even look up the word socialism or communism. You'll see how the roots of the Christian faith are deep.

I agree religion is a vote getter. However a guy like Bush Jr was deep into his beliefs system.

[Rt&Dzine]

I wasn't planning on seeing this movie, but saw a clip of it last night. The old film footage of Regan ordering Ronald Reagan around was interesting. Reagan changed the relationship of government and corporate America. Think I will go see it now.