Michael Moore: "We're seeing ... the end of capitalism as we know it....And I say good riddance."

[marmar]

from CNN:



(Larry) KING: So since the principle was we'll have the cars built elsewhere -- and many of the cars are built elsewhere now -- what went wrong if they were paying less out of the country to build them?

MOORE: Well, what really went wrong is that General Motors has had this philosophy from the beginning that what's good for General Motors is good for the country. And so their attitude was we'll build it and you buy it. We'll tell you what to buy. You just buy it.

And eventually, the consumer got smart and said you know what, I'd like a car that gets a little better gas mileage. I'd like a car that's safer on the road. And so they started to buy other cars. And General Motors still wouldn't change. They still kept building the wrong cars. And more and more people stopped buying them.

And, at a certain point, you know, General Motors lost such a large part of the market share that there probably was -- there was a point of no return.

Now here we are, with this, you know, complete collapse -- on the verge of this collapse. And if General Motors collapses, then there goes hundreds of thousands of jobs, if not millions of jobs of the ripple effect of this.

.....(snip).....

KING: Your father worked at the A.C. Spark Plug factory in Flint for three decades. You gave us a couple photos of you shot there recently. And tell us why -- I think we'll put them up -- why they're so meaningful to you.

MOORE: Well, these were taken, actually, by "The New York Times" about a month or so ago. They're tearing down the factory, finally, where he worked, where tens of thousands of people worked over the years. And it was kind of an emotional moment just being there and thinking about all that we've lost in this country, how we've allowed a few people at the top to get filthy rich.

And I mean those guys that were testifying today, one of -- the Ford chairman is making something like $22 million a year and his company lost $2 billion last year. The G.M. chairman is making $15 million a year. His company lost $39 billion last year. And he's rewarded with a $15 million payout.

I mean this is -- this is just absolutely insane.

But I'll tell you what it really has proven to me, Larry, is that these guys, after all of that stuff they've been telling us all these years about go capitalism, free market, free enterprise, they don't believe in any of that.

They don't believe in free enterprise or a free market. They want -- they want socialism for themselves. They want a handout...

KING: Yes.

MOORE: ...and a net for themselves. To hell with everybody else, but give it to them.

KING: As...

MOORE: And I think, really, what we're seeing here right now with them, with the banks, we're seeing the end of capitalism -- the end of capitalism as we know it.

KING: Has...

MOORE: And I say good riddance. .......(more)

The complete piece is at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0811/19/lkl.01.html

[Richardo]

1. Dear Mike: Who cares what you think?

:eyes:

[YOY]

2. Quite a few people actually.

Feel free to follow up with "He's fat." The most stunning refute of his work that I have seen to date.

[marmar]

3. Seeing as how he has four of the biggest documentaries of all time, apparently many millions.....

.... N'est-ce pas?

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

5. I do.

I care a lot, and you know what? Mike's record on the important subjects he has tackled has been pretty spot-on.

So yeah, I care what he thinks.

[Lerkfish]

7. dear richardo, I do.

what he is saying is right on the money. you...not so much.

[DS1]

9. Count me in

I care what he thinks

[mike_c]

13. Michael Moore speaks for me....

Get back to us when half as many people gave a rat's buttocks what you think, 'k?

[Richardo]

15. Well, he *IS* a lot like many DUers...

...hysterical, sanctimonious, and prone to hyperbole.

[marmar]

17. "sanctimonious"

Projecting, are we?

[Richardo]

18. Meh. Maybe. Doesn't mean HE isn't, though.

He's a lot like Amy Goodman that way.

[yodermon]

19. Amy Goodman? Sanctimonious?

reread post 17.

[Richardo]

25. Have you ever heard her?

Yikes.

[deaniac21]

22. You have to admire how it got him rich though. You don't

think he really dislikes capitalism, do you? He thrives on it.

[Richardo]

27. Bingo.

I find him to be a manipulative blowhard.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

83. Oh, gee, there's the old Republican argument about how celebrities who

are left-leaning are hypocrites because they have money, while celebrities who are right-wing and have money are just "living the American dream."

Nice try.

[Richardo]

108. No, it's that Michael Moore is just as intellectually disingenuous as any RW foamer

He's just a LW foamer.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

114. For instance?

I mean a real for instance, not a generalized idea that you probably got from some right-wing friend?

[EvolveOrConvolve]

122. I'd also like an example

Ricky appears to be a blowhard himself.

[Mnemosyne]

54. So, Mike isn't entitiled to the "American Dream"? n/t

[deaniac21]

64. Sure he is. He just doesn't admit what he is.

[gtar100]

100. Being against capitalistic greed is not being against capitalism

[Mnemosyne]

116. I have never heard him say he isn't a capitalist. Have a link? thanks. n/t

[Dangerously Amused]

90. He got rich without screwing people over. BIG difference.

Also, he is (imho) obviously motivated by a search for justice rather than a desire to become filthy rich, and he does a lot of good, charitable stuff with the money he's made.

He is a capitalist by default, as are we all, because he lives in a capitalist society. He is not, however, a capitalist pig as you suggest.

[gtar100]

98. I guess you'll need an interpreter for the interview.

Your attitude towards Moore is clouding your understanding of what was said.

[gtar100]

101. And you're here for what reason?

Christ! Your annoying posts have diverted from the actual substance of what was being said in the OP. You've diverted it to a discussion on personality. You are so not worth the time. But I post this just to put it on record that many of us see through this bullshit. Your cynicism and troll-like behavior duly noted.

[slampoet]

125. Says the person who has been making 13+ post per day FOR SIX YEARS

[TheWatcher]

132. Not to mention the useful content contained in said posts could not fill up a thimble.

[LanternWaste]

127. delete

delete

[Skittles]

37. we care more what he thinks than what YOU think

[lunatica]

41. I care. He's a true patriot and a hell of good documentary maker nt

[TroglodyteScholar]

42. I care what he says.

Like him or not as a person, agree or disagree with him, but the ideas he expresses are important.

[KG]

43. i care a whole lot more what he thinks, than what you think,

[prostock69]

80. Agree!

:toast:

[Grinchie]

45. I do.

Who the hell do you think makes the spark plugs that make your cars run? What about the poor shmuck that has to install them, but can't afford to because his job in the Spark Plug factory went oversears?

Another point is that is GM had continued with the EV-1, You know, that really popular Electric Vehicle that they produced and leases to a few people, then withdrew from the market, crushed into a pancake, then ground up into chunks of metal no bigger than a basketball, they would be well positioned in todays economy. But no, GM acts like it never had a production Electric Vehicle. Thats because it changed the industry radically, and these guys don't know how to deal with change.

Neither does America apparently, which is evident from the asinine remark from Ricardo, troll.

[DailyGrind51]

46. Unregulated capitalism is like cancer, it grows until it chokes out everything

healthy and then the nation dies!

[The Wizard]

95. This was addressed by Marx

in "Das Kapital" and Melville in "Moby Dick." Melville uses the metaphor of sharks on a feeding frenzy eventually eating each other. Both books were published within a year of each other. It was the Zeitgeist.

[trumad]

56. Dear Richardo---

and who the hell are you?

[QC]

67. I care what Mike thinks.

Your opinions, on the other hand, don't interest me at all.

[Jim Sagle]

69. Michael Moore RRRRAWWWWWXXXXX!!!!! You, not so much.

[fujiyama]

72. I do like many others

He has a unique perspective to share.

Do you? Or are you just deriding him for not being a corporate shill like everyone else in the media nowadays?

[earth mom]

77. Get a clue. Everyone except a few from the far right fringe cares what Mike has to say.

Mike wouldn't have made those millions the far right fringe is so jealous of otherwise, now would he?

And the best part is he uses those millions to expose the greed and lies of the right wing fringe. I love it! :evilgrin: :rofl:

[ekwhite]

85. Actually, one could say the same thing about you...

It sounds as if it was an interesting interview. We are in the middle of a sea change. Our economic system is changing before our eyes. I certainly don't know what will emerge from our current economic turmoil.

[Dangerously Amused]

89. Dude, seriously? Hello? Are you at all familiar with the man and his work?

MM has my deepest respect. I can't begin to imagine how you could find him inconsequential.

[Swamp Rat]

94. Dog pile on the rabbit! ... or slug.

:D

[gtar100]

96. I do. Consider reading the OP before posting.

You've proven to me your lack of judgment in character.

[ingac70]

103. Since we care about the exact same things...

yeah, I care what Michael Moore thinks.

[sandyd921]

107. I care. He is a truth teller.

Does he make money through his work? Sure. Does that detract from the themes of social and economic justice and the honesty of his work? No. In fact, we could have used a lot more people like him over the last few decades, celebrity or not. Maybe we wouldn't have ended up where we are right now.

[Terry in Austin]

111. Dear Ricardo: speak for yourself

To answer your rhetorical question: I care what Mike thinks.

[Zhade]

120. Intelligent, well-informed people. Low-info conservative shmucks, not so much.

NT!

[demodonkey]

121. I do. And I care a lot more about what Mike thinks than what Richardo thinks. nt

[Dukkha]

128. Dear Richardo: Who cares what you think?

A: Nobody. So you may go away now.

[TheWatcher]

131. Infinitely more people than the number who could give a rat's ass about your thoughts.

Thanks for bullhorning a reminder about your irrelevance though.

[Warpy]

4. Capitalism as we've come to know it for the past 40 years

is unsustainable.

Only when liberals were in power did we have a regulated capitalism combined with a mechanism to prevent the accumulation of obscene amounts of wealth that worked for all of us. Well, all of us but the obscenely rich who wanted to become more so more quickly.

What people forget about New Deal capitalism is that the rich who wisely invested did get richer, albeit more slowly. The ones who inherited wealth and partied it away found themselves slipping down a class or two.

Now the classes are ossified, very little movement from one to the other is ever allowed and wealth generates more wealth with very little attention from the wealthy.

This is what Moore is talking about, this conservative capitalism, and good riddance to it. It only worked for the few and only for a short time. It needs to die and the sooner the better.

[FredStembottom]

12. Warpy, you touch on the meme I want EVERY democrat......

.....in this country to know and say to any other American that will listen, every day:

We only need to go back to what we already had. To what worked. To the thing that was purposely destroyed.

Regulated Capitalism.

Thanks!
:hi:

P.S. We could begin by putting that simple idea into Pelosi and Reid's mailboxes about a thousand times a day.

[Jim Sagle]

70. That means WE'RE the conservatives. So what are the righties?

Nothing but destroyers.

[FredStembottom]

97. Thanks for bringing this up.

It's one of my favorite "hidden" facts. They are - officially, in academic terms -Economic Liberals. That's the term. Always has been. But the Cons have gone to great lengths to push that little tidbit down the memory hole. Some over-all Liberals insist on the label "Neo-liberal" for the Cons economic side - to make it less confusing.

And, yes, we actually are economic conservatives. We want to conserve, protect, modify economic let-it-all-hang-out-ness.

Crunchy and interesting, yes?

[carnie_sf]

124. reactionaries nt

[Nederland]

20. This part is wrong

Now the classes are ossified, very little movement from one to the other is ever allowed and wealth generates more wealth with very little attention from the wealthy.

This part is wrong. In America, classes are more fluid than almost anywhere else in the world. Numerous studies have shown that people in this country move in an out of income brackets in huge numbers over the medium and even short term.

[Warpy]

21. That used to be very true

Now it isn't.

[marmar]

24. That's not true anymore.....Americans are now less likely to "move up" than fellow Westerners....

Do a web search. There were a number of stories on that recently.

[Nederland]

29. I did a search

This is what I came up with:



http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/briefingpapers_inequality_inequality


What did you find?

[marmar]

55. This story from AlterNet:

The American Dream Is Alive and Well ... in Finland!

By Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted December 11, 2007.

It's harder to move up the economic ladder in the United States than in other wealthy countries. What happened to the American dream?



Fewer than 1 percent of Americans are millionaires, but almost one in three believe they'll end up among that group at some point.

The belief that our chance of moving up the economic ladder is limited only by our innate abilities and our appetite for hard work is almost universal in the United States. When you define the "American Dream" as the ability of working-class families to afford a decent life -- to put their kids through school, have access to quality healthcare and a secure retirement -- most will tell you it simply doesn't exist anymore. In stark contrast, when you define it according to mobility, the picture is radically different; according to a study of public opinion in 25 rich countries, Americans are almost twice as likely to believe that "people get rewarded for intelligence and skill" than working people in other advanced economies (PDF). At the same time, fewer than one in five say that coming from a wealthy family is "essential" or "very important" to getting ahead -- significantly lower than the 25-country average.

It's impossible to overstate the impact that has on our policy debates. Americans are less than half as likely as people in other advanced economies to believe that it's "the responsibility of government to reduce differences in income." Working Americans are parties to a unique social contract: They give up much of the economic security that citizens of other wealthy countries take for granted in exchange for a more "dynamic," meritorious economy that offers opportunity that's limited only by their own desire to get ahead. Of course, it's never explicitly stated, and most of us don't know about the deal, but it's reinforced all the time in our economic discourse.

But new research suggests the United States' much-ballyhooed upward mobility is a myth, and one that's slipping further from reality with each new generation. On average, younger Americans are not doing better than their parents did, it's harder to move up the economic ladder in the United States than it is in a number of other wealthy countries, and a person in today's work force is as likely to experience downward mobility as he or she is to move up.

Moreover, the single greatest predictor of how much an American will earn is how much their parents make. In short, the United States, contrary to popular belief, is not a true meritocracy, and the American worker is getting a bum deal, the worst of both worlds. Not only is a significant portion of the middle class hanging on by the narrowest of threads, not only do fewer working people have secure retirements to look forward to, not only are nearly one in seven Americans uninsured, but working people also enjoy less opportunity to pull themselves up by their bootstraps than those in a number of other advanced economies.

Moving on up?

Researchers look at two kinds of economic mobility: "absolute mobility," which is the degree to which one generation does better than the one before it, and "relative mobility," or how easy it is to move up in society through smarts, talent, hard work, etc.

New research by Julia Isaacs, a fellow with the Economic Mobility Project, looked at both measures using a unique set of data that allowed her to directly compare how people were doing in the late 1990s and early 2000s with the incomes of their parents in the late 1960s. ......(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.alternet.org/workplace/70103/the_american_dream_is_alive_and_well_..._in_finland%21/

[Nederland]

59. Your link proves my point

From your link:

Isaacs categorized American families as belonging to one of four groups: the "upwardly mobile" who do better relative to their parents, those "riding the tide" -- families that earn more than their parents but remain in the same relative position on the economic ladder -- those "falling despite the tide," a small group who are earning more than their parents but who nonetheless fell into a lower position on the ladder, and those who are "downwardly mobile." The key take-away is that American families are just as likely to be downwardly mobile -- 33 percent fall into the group -- as they are to join the 34 percent who move up.

Add these two numbers together, 33% and 34%, and you see that a sizable majority of people do not stay in the same class they were born into. In other words, my original assertion is correct: America is a very fluid place when it comes to class.

[marmar]

68. So just as likely to be downwardly mobile is a good example of changing class?

Uh, okay. :crazy:

[Nederland]

91. Hello clueless

It is mathematically impossible for everyone to move upwards.

[marmar]

92. What the f**k is your point precisely? Or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?

n/t

[Nederland]

93. My point is this:

In America, class is very fluid.

[ekwhite]

88. That was true in the 1970's and 1980's

How about some data from this decade?

[paulk]

30. this is no longer true

here's an interesting read -

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/b1579981.html

from the study -

"By international standards, the United States has an unusually low level of intergenerational mobility: our parents’ income is highly predictive of our incomes as adults. Intergenerational mobility in the United States is lower than in France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway and Denmark. Among high-income countries for which comparable estimates are available, only the United Kingdom had a lower rate of mobility than the United States."


ps - this doesn't mean I agree with Mr. Moore's reading of the situation

[Nederland]

31. Your statistic is for "Intergenerational" mobility

That is not what I was referring to. I was referring to mobility in general.

[girl gone mad]

36. But intergenerational mobility is mobility.

If your class is predetermined by what your parents earned, then that implies immobility.

You're making a semantic argument here.

[Nederland]

51. See post #50 (nt)

[paulk]

49. isn't that a distinction without a difference?

the study I referenced shows that Americans are not moving up in economic class from one generation to another. I don't really see how that can't be extrapolated to mobility in general.

[Nederland]

50. I guess it is semantic

However, even looking at things generationally I think the data from your own link supports my assertion. For example, look at Table 3 on page 14 of the full report. It shows that if your family is in the bottom quintile of wage earners, you have a 58.5% chance of getting out of that quintile. Likewise, if your family is in the upper quintile of wage earners, you have a 58.1% chance of dropping down into a lower income quintile. In others words, a majority of those born poor will not remain poor, and a majority of those born rich will not remain rich. When you look at the numbers for the middle three quintiles, the percentages are even greater. In those three quintiles, people have ~75% chance of ending up in a different income bracket than their parents.

When a sizeable majority of people born into a class do not remain there, I don't see how you can say class in America is rigid.

I will concede that perhaps other countries experience even more class shift than we do. I seem to remember reading some studies to that effect, but after a great deal of searching I've come up empty. Regardless though, I fail to understand why anyone would look at the raw data in your report and come to the conclusion that class is a rigid concept in America.

[DailyGrind51]

47. "numerous studies"? Who conducted them, the CATO Institute, the Rand Corp., the American Enterprise

Institute? Where are the links?

[Nederland]

52. Center for American Progress

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/b1579981.html

[DailyGrind51]

57. Did you read your own link, it says just the opposite from what you assert?

"Understanding Mobility in America

April 26, 2006



This report discusses two aspects of economic mobility in the United States. The first is the question of intergenerational mobility, or the degree to which the economic success of children is independent of the economic status of their parents. A higher level of intergenerational mobility is often interpreted as a sign of greater fairness, or equality of opportunity, in a society.

The second aspect is the short-term question of the amount by which family incomes change from year to year. By studying short-term mobility we can determine whether incomes are rising or falling for families at different points in the income distribution. We can also determine whether the size of these income variations, or the level of annual income volatility, is changing over time. Increased volatility is undesirable to the extent that it represents an increase in economic insecurity.

The key findings relating to intergenerational mobility include the following:

*
Children from low-income families have only a 1 percent chance of reaching the top 5 percent of the income distribution, versus children of the rich who have about a 22 percent chance.
*
Children born to the middle quintile of parental family income ($42,000 to $54,300) had about the same chance of ending up in a lower quintile than their parents (39.5 percent) as they did of moving to a higher quintile (36.5 percent). Their chances of attaining the top five percentiles of the income distribution were just 1.8 percent.
*
Education, race, health and state of residence are four key channels by which economic status is transmitted from parent to child.
*
African American children who are born in the bottom quartile are nearly twice as likely to remain there as adults than are white children whose parents had identical incomes, and are four times less likely to attain the top quartile.
*
The difference in mobility for blacks and whites persists even after controlling for a host of parental background factors, children’s education and health, as well as whether the household was female-headed or receiving public assistance.
*
After controlling for a host of parental background variables, upward mobility varied by region of origin, and is highest (in percentage terms) for those who grew up in the South Atlantic and East South Central regions, and lowest for those raised in the West South Central and Mountain regions.
*
By international standards, the United States has an unusually low level of intergenerational mobility: our parents’ income is highly predictive of our incomes as adults. Intergenerational mobility in the United States is lower than in France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway and Denmark. Among high-income countries for which comparable estimates are available, only the United Kingdom had a lower rate of mobility than the United States.

Key findings relating to short-run, year-to-year income movements include the following:

*
The overall volatility of household income increased significantly between 1990-91 and 1997-98 and again in 2003-04.
*
Since 1990-91, there has been an increase in the share of households who experienced significant downward short-term mobility. The share that saw their incomes decline by $20,000 or more (in real terms) rose from 13.0 percent in 1990-91 to 14.8 percent in 1997-98 to 16.6 percent in 2003-04.
*
The middle class is experiencing more insecurity of income, while the top decile is experiencing less. From 1997-98 to 2003-04, the increase in downward short-term mobility was driven by the experiences of middle-class households (those earning between $34,510 and $89,300 in 2004 dollars). Households in the top quintile saw no increase in downward short-term mobility, and households in the top decile ($122,880 and up) saw a reduction in the frequency of large negative income shocks.
*
For the middle class, an increase in income volatility has led to an increase in the frequency of large negative income shocks, which may be expected to translate to an increase in financial distress.
*
The median household was no more upwardly mobile in 2003-04, a year when GDP grew strongly, than it was it was during the recession of 1990-91.
*
Upward short-term mobility for those in the bottom quintile has improved since 1990-91, with no significant offsetting increase in downward short-term mobility.
*
Households whose adult members all worked more than 40 hours per week for two years in a row were more upwardly mobile in 1990-91 and 1997-98 than households who worked fewer hours. Yet this was not true in 2003-04, suggesting that people who work long hours on a consistent basis no longer appear to be able to generate much upward mobility for their families.

Read the full report (PDF)
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/b1579981.html

[Nederland]

60. No it doesn't

I merely asserted that America was a very fluid place when it comes to class--I said nothing about the inherent fairness of income distribution. As your own snip shows, only 22 percent of those whose parents are rich will end up rich. Taken the other way around, a whopping 78% percent of those whose parent's are rich end up NOT being rich. When a sizable majority of people born into a class do not remain there, I don't see how you can say class in America is rigid.

[DailyGrind51]

81. I didn't say it, Michael Moore did, but I agree with him.

Because of America's lack of an adequate social safety net, any major event, long-term unemployment, serious illness, divorce, etc. can destroy any semblance of financial security. Half of all personal bankruptcies are due to medical bills, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6895896/. Contrast this with England, where a single mother can take care of her own infant while nursing a cup of coffee and writing children's stories on yellow legal pads, knowing that she and her child have an income, healthcare, and the time to create a multi-billion dollar industry.

[bobbolink]

61. Actually, you're mistaken about that.

Very mistaken.

There is more fluidity in other developed countries than there is in the U.S.

[Nederland]

62. Link?

I've been trying to find anything on this subject and come up empty. Read my post #50.

[bobbolink]

63. You first.

[Nederland]

65. Like I said

I looked but came up empty. See post #50.

[bobbolink]

117. then don't demand "proof" from other people.

[Nederland]

123. Actually

I wasn't trying to be accusatory, I was hoping you could help out. I'd like to know what the truth is, one way or another. I think I've established rather convincingly that class in America is very fluid, but whether or not it's more fluid than in other countries is something we haven't figured out yet. I'd actually like to know. Read post #50.

[Two Americas]

129. it 's a wonderful life, you betcha

All those who are fighting for justice and equality should move to Iran and see how they like it there. Hey, America may have its faults, but it is still the greatest country anywhere. Sure, capitalism is not perfect, but just look at the progress and prosperity it has produced.

Anyone can get rich in America, and those whiners who complain all the time are just a bunch of lazy losers. If people don't want to be rich, if they don't want to get out there and climb to the top of the heap, if they do not want to make their lives revolve around amassing material wealth, well then they have no one to blame but themselves.

Who cares how people become winners, who cares what damage is done in the process, who cares about those who are left out and left behind? Compete or die, strive or lose, eat or be eaten. That is just the reality, no matter how much people want to deny that. Everyone wants to be rich, rich, rich and those who are not just like to make up excuses and blame others for their own failures and shortcomings.

America was founded on the idea that all restrictions should be removed from the most aggressive, the most exploitative, the most self-centered and the biggest bullies and the most domineering and clever people among us. That is freedom baby! The losers need to get with the program and stop whining. Survival of the fittest! This is a law of nature. This what made America great!

People need to get off their butts and get to work. Teachers, for example - hey get out there and sell your services on that "free market" and stop complaining that you are being paid enough! And that goes for a whole bunch of losers - nurses, EMS workers, researchers and scientists, farmers. It is not the fault of "society" if people do not "choose" to pay you what you think you should have. The market has put a price on whatever it is you think you have to offer, and that is just the way it is. Just get another job or start a business if you aren't happy. Why should the rest if us winners subsidize you? Who needs farmers, teachers, nurses and the rest of these parasites anyway? Just because you want to keep making buggy whips is no reason why the rest of us should have to pay to support your fantasy. Adapt or die! People won't pay for your services because they don't care about health, food or education anymore - they are obsolete. We have moved on from all of that old-fashioned stuff now. Guess what? You lose, but you are free to move on. No one is stopping you. Free enterprise can provide all of those services, and do a better job of it.

[midnight]

133. I don't know if you are being sarcastic? I think you are?

People won't pay for your services because they don't care about health, food or education anymore - they are obsolete. In other words those people who are walking through the doors of the hospitals, going to college, and shopping for organic don't care? I find that people care more than ever. I hope you were being sarcastic?

[Two Americas]

134. yes

I tried to lay the bs on so thick that it would be obvious that I was being sarcastic.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

84. Exactly, we now have less social mobility than any country in Western Europe

except that we're about even with the UK, where, not so coincidentally, they had Thatchernomics while we had Reaganomics.

[ekwhite]

87. All of the Republicans who wanted to dismantle the New Deal...

forgot one thing. The New Deal was put in place to keep capitalism from collapsing. George W. Bush succeeded in dismantling most of what Roosevelt, and then Johnson, put into place, allowing the current economic catastrophe.

[sandyd921]

110. Love the JK Galbraith quotation in your sig line

Pretty much sums up what you said in your post and actually the whole mess these people have created.

[GreenEyedLefty]

6. I wonder if there was a bit of a conspiracy to fail in order to break the unions once and for all.

I mean, these guys are being PAID to FAIL.

Fuck 'em.

Rock on, Michael Moore.

[Leopolds Ghost]

74. Of course there is, it's called Demolition by Neglect.

In real estate development it's known as waiting until a neighborhood is fully depreciated.

A core part of Blue America's cap rates plan for urban revitalization, that one is.

In politics it's known as wearing down the opposition until they reach a tipping point and
the remainder can be expelled without protest, like Barack Obama and the Clintonites
are doing to Dean and the antiwar left.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

8. K and R

eom

[snappyturtle]

10. I liked what he said in the interview. He supported the union, he thinks the

CEO's need to go and that PE Obama needs to use the auto industry to create not only better cars, cars that people will buy due to their fuel efficiency but light rail! Great idea in my book. I think MM is right on. He doesn't want bankruptcy for the companies. He supports the bailout if the companies use the money to build the future.

[qwertyMike]

11. Corporate Socialism is what we have

also when the Gov bailed out Freddie and Fannie, that was in effect Nationlization, such as we had in post-war socialist Britain.

The last dying accusation against Obama from the McCain team was "He wants tp Spread the Wealth" - duh.

Isn't that what we're supposed to do?

Don't equate socialism with communism.

I remember the last (Polish) Pope saying that Communism had the seeds of its own destruction sewn into it. He said he and Lech Walesa just shook the tree a little bit and eventually brought Communism down. Not Reagan, he was just a bystander and Gorbachev just let it happen.

Now didn't K. Marx say the same about Capitalism? I think we're seeing it.
Social Democracy is the only way to go. See: UK, Scandinavia, most of western Europe, Australia, NZ etc.

I'm waiting for the death rattle and bringing out my red flag :)

Mike

[JVS]

14. Mike knows the score.

[newtothegame]

16. Thanks for posting n/t

[deaniac21]

23. That Larry King is one TOUGH interviewer!

[galaxy21]

26. Saying stuff like this does Mike no favours

I'm not against capitalism, but I am against greed. And, yes, I do believe there's a distinct difference, even if those two do seem to get mixed up a lot.

In recent years Michael's went from being a well respected writer, to someone's that's seen by many as a bit of a kook. I'm not saying he is, but I think a lot of people (even a few democrats) are down on him at the moment.

[Ysabel]

32. capitalism IS greed...

capitalism is the profit of one entity at the expense of / loss of / power over another entity...

btw (to put it distinctly) it's "gone" from / furthermore / ahem: "a bit of a kook"..."i'm not saying he is" additional: "a lot of people (even a few democrats)" just who are these (other) people ("a lot") of whom you speak eh...?

perhaps i ought reword that: just who are you speaking "for"...?

- weasel words much...?

[galaxy21]

34. "capitalism is the profit of one entity at the expense of / loss of / power over another entity."

I do think if you work hard and play by the rules, you should get rewarded for it. And while I wasn't an ecomonies major I don't think that always has to come at someone else's expense. Obviously, there are times when it does, and that usually co-incides with the spilling over into greed. I don't think capitalism always has to be 100% evil, but it does need to be strongly regulated. And it's not like there's any other practical options, anyway.

"btw (to put it distinctly) it's "gone" from / furthermore / ahem: "a bit of a kook"..."i'm not saying he is" additional: "a lot of people (even a few democrats)" just who are these (other) people ("a lot") of whom you speak eh...?

perhaps i ought reword that: just who are you speaking "for"...?

- weasel words much...?"


Democrats that have been critical of Michael Moore? The first ones that spring to mind are Jean Luc Goard and Anna Misiak. Marilyn Manson was pretty critical of Moore after bowling for columbine, and I assume he's a democrat or at least, definetly not a republican. Heck, I've heard people on here be critical of him (people are even criticising him on this very thread!)


Also, I have friends that are as liberal as I am, but they're quite critical of his filming methods (the bank skit in bowling for columbine was revealed to be a scam, or at least not as simple as Moore was making it out to be, and there have been other times Moore has been accused of dodgy editing skills)Questionable tactics aside, I've actually defended him to them on more than one occasion. (Like I said, I think he has a lot to offer, but needs to reign it in a little)


If I was being careful with my words its because I didn't want to offend anyone in the cult of Mike. There can be such a kneejerk reaction on here, if you question anything about St Michael Moore. Sort of like your kneejerk reaction. Funny that, isn't it?

[Ysabel]

39. i was asking about those "others" of whom you spoke...

you wrote of / suggested / claimed that there are others / other than democrats (as well as "a few democrats") who think michael moore is "a bit of a kook"...

again i ask: who...?

...(actually my question is rhetorical so you really needn't bother answering b'sides you seem to have a bit of trouble with reading comprehension)...

and finally (i'm done with this / i've got other things to do):

- i disagree that you were being "careful"...

---------------------

...(typo)...

[Ysabel]

40. additional...

there are practical options of which you are obviously unaware...

- imo you should educate yourself / now i'm really done...

[galaxy21]

48. There are no other practical options that the American people would accept

Anything else would be too alien/odd to them. I don't doubt there are better options, but none that would be suited to current climate. Do the best with what you have.

As far as Moore is concerned: Moore isn't exactly beloved by mainstream America. He's still a very polarizing figure to many, even if he is speaking on behalf of them and working for them. I know the guys at south park can't stand him (although I'm not what political affiliation they are)

[HughBeaumont]

66. The guys at South Park are right-leaning libertarians . . .

Of course they're not jazzed about him.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

86. Most of the people who "hate" Micheal Moore have never seen his films

and "hate" him only because their right-wing radio mind controllers tell them to.

And yes, the South Park guys are right-wing libertarians, which is another word for grown-up brats whose only creed is "I wanna do what I wanna do at all times and I don't care about anyone else."

[galaxy21]

112. Only republicans who have never seen his films dislike Michael Moore?

Then how do you explain all the people (many of them democrats) that have seen his films, and still criticise his tactics?

I'm not denying there's a kneejerk reaction amongst Freepers who just hate him for the sake of it, but that's not where ALL his criticism comes from. Check out rotten tomatoes, first of all. Not everyone whose given him a negative review is a republican.


Just this idea that if you're a democrat you can't question anything Moore does is ridiculous. That would make us no different than the freepers who lap up everything hannity/oreilly/Coulter say just because their famous personalities. The guy leaves himself open to criticism, and if anyone's going to call him on it, it may as well be us rather than the enemy camp.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

113. I really have to wonder about "Democrats" who hate Michael Moore

Are they really "stick up for ordinary people" Democrats, or are they "I'm for personal freedom like the Democrats, but leave my money alone" type of Democrats.

If you don't like his approach, fine, but you can't fault his basic messages: Corporations have no qualms about sacrificing whole communities to the almighty dollar, there's too much violence in America, our health care system is a mess, and the Bush administration is made up of crass criminals.

No one else is bringing those messages into mainstream venues. There's a reason the right-wing media hate him so much.

[galaxy21]

115. I think its his approachs most dems dislike, rather than his message

I overwhelmingly agree with what he's saying (gun control, universal health, Bush is as asshole..etc) but I'm don't neccessary think that makes me willing to accept his "artistic license." that he uses in certian films.

I agree its good to have someone bringing the message to mainstream viewers, but it doesn't help when right wingers say "Moore's films are full of lies" and then people do the research and there are one of two examples of overreaching or stretching the truth or some amount of dishonestly.

The problem is Moore's film are 70% the truth, 30% exaggerations and hyperbole. And its the 30% that ruins it for me.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

118. One or two examples of hyperbole, oh, the horror!

As compared to 100% hyperbole from the right wing.

[Flatulo]

119. Do you really believe that wealth is a zero-sum game?

"capitalism is the profit of one entity at the expense of / loss of / power over another entity..."

This statement seems to indicate so. This would require that the world had a finite amount of wealth at some point in time, and that it has only been moved around. This is obviously not true as new wealth is being created all the time. Wealth can disappear just as quickly, as evidenced by the market's recent slide.

When you go to a bank and borrow money to start a company, and that company sells its products at a profit, wealth has been created from nothing. Presuming that you did not force anyone to buy your product, a willing exchange between two free entities took place.

Capitalism is the most wonderful thing ever invented. Without it, we have only the rule of brute force. People who are forced to produce for the sake of others are slaves.

[eridani]

44. Give an example of something "kooky" that he has said in the last couple of years n/t

[Leopolds Ghost]

75. Is cap rates capitalism?

Quit using abstract, meaningless catch-phrases and lets get specific.

"Greed" is very general. To avoid hypocritical thinking, yes, all
capitalism and more generally, materialism and free-market philosophy
are based on individualist utilitarianism which is a form of greed.

American politics is a competition between greed and groupthink.

[Better Believe It]

28. Too Bad Moore Has Turned Into An Enemy Of The Auto Workers & Union Movement

Bottom line is he is siding with the anti-union corporate financed politicians who oppose any federal aide to domestic automakers.

Thanks Mike!

Perhaps you can get on the payroll of Honda or Toyota who you love so much.

[JVS]

71. The problem is that the UAW has become the toady of the big three.

The UAW has already accepted and will continue to accept austerity measures from the big three.

The UAW seems to view the difficulty of unionizing non-big 3 plants in the US as a reason to favor the big 3 rather than keeping in perspective that unionization of the big 3 plants was difficult and that the struggle to unionize these factories will be as well. Ultimately it is the responsibility of the UAW to try to unite all auto workers, not just those of a few firms.

The problem is that the UAW has become a "house union". Remember the speech by Malcolm X "If the master's house caught on fire, the house Negro would fight harder to put the blaze out than the master would. If the master got sick, the house Negro would say, "What's the matter, boss, we sick?" We sick! He identified himself with his master, more than his master identified with himself.... That house Negro loved his master, but that field Negro — remember, they were in the majority, and they hated the master. When the house caught on fire, he didn't try to put it out; that field Negro prayed for a wind, for a breeze. When the master got sick, the field Negro prayed that he'd die" http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Malcolm_X The UAW has been infected by the same kind of mentality.

Now you might ask, "what's wrong with the UAW being concerned for the well being of the big 3?" The answer is quite simple. Once a union has made the ongoing prosperity of their company a goal, they can no longer negotiate on anything approaching a level playing field (which is pretty hard to get before that even). The big three ownership does not care a whit for the ongoing existence of the companies. They care about an increase in their money. If they could profitably dismember the companies, they'd do it in a heartbeat.

Unionism is grounded in the idea that it is the worker who creates the value and is important, not the company. When the union starts worrying about the company, about the institution formed with the purpose of profiting from the workers, and worries about the ongoing then they are conceding this point. They are sending a strong message that they're luckier to have Ford, GM, and Chrysler than the companies are to have the workers. That is a recipe for failure.

[Leopolds Ghost]

76. Interesting points. They've become an "industrial union" like the Knights of Labor.

Representing the dying old men who want to retire with their pensions intact and screw the incomer (percieved to be a foreigner who doesn't deserve union protection) just like every other American union industry.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. A blessing much to be wished for. K&R

[Truth Teller]

35. "capitalism as we know it"

Not capitalism, unqualified.

[davidthegnome]

38. Hmmmm

I'd be lying if I said that Mike's appearance didn't put me off. The man is always poorly dressed, looks like he hasn't showered or shaved in a good while, and being overweight is only the tiniest part of it. I believe he should make an effort to make himself presentable. I don't consider myself a shallow person, but I think that someone who's going to be appearing on public television should have a care for their appearance.

With that said, I also think he has a first rate mind. A lot of the things he has said over the years have been right on, he has revealed a great deal of corporate, and government corruption. I think he's right on this one too. Capitalism isn't dead yet, but it's dying, and I don't know where it's fall will lead us. A lack of regulations ultimately causes the same problem as too much regulation. The middle ground is hard (if not impossible) to find. Moderation is the key, I think.

I know I won't weep for capitalism when it fails, but I will weep for the people who suffer as a result. I'm just not sure what should replace it. We cannot create a Utopia that will please everyone, communism and socialism (IMO) have as many drawbacks as capitalism does. Perhaps it's time for a new philosophy... what that may be, I don't know.

[fascisthunter]

53. Here's One more Kick

Capitalism in its present form needs massive revision.

I think capitalism is dead unless it can be regulated.

[lonestarnot]

58. Another!

K & R!

[Hubert Flottz]

73. Deregulation gave capitalism all the rope it needed to hang...

itself.

Next, the Wall Street Gangsters need to be brought to justice for their crimes, or the "Rule Of Law" is just a fake front for this lawless hollow hulk, that was once the United States of America.

[scarface2004]

78. it s called crony capitalism!

it s not capitalism! capitalism is ok, crony capitalism is what we re seeing the results of!

[dothemath]

79. So you think the taxpayers should give GM money ...........

Over the past several weeks, quite a few people have opined GM has been wrong for 40 years. It is true - and I offer the following.

The exact date when GM sold 1 of every 2 cars bought in this country is not important. It was 40 years ago, give or take a few years. Now, they are down to 1 of every 5. Actually, it is a less than that, considering they are not selling much of anything these days.

Let's use 40 years. The Japanese do not have the basic resources to be the mighty industrial giants they are, just like they didn't when the USA, in the '30s, decided to slice off a bigger chunk of this largesse. The USA started to put the squeeze on in the form of withholding iron and steel products - and the Japanese were so flummoxed, they woke up the 'sleeping tiger' with a 'shot across the bow' and attacked Pearl Harbor. The Japanese don't make many mistakes. And they don't make the same one twice. So, there was a setback lasting about 15 years. But, they weren't sitting on their hands during that period.

They came up with two critically important things. One, they pioneered the making of iron and steel using electric furnaces instead of 'blast' furnaces and, two, their broad search for a better way uncovered Johnathan W. Demmings.
Google Mr. Demmings - you will be fascinated. Suffice to say for this post, Mr. Demmings, after being told by the big three, particularly GM, that they didn't need any help, was hired by many Japanese industrialists to 'show them the way'. And he did.

Included among the many things he taught them was a 'social contract' between the manufacturers and their employees was a good thing and another was there were 10 things that were critical for success - and the first 9 were quality.

Around about that time, GM, et. al. sealed their doom. Yes, it took awhile, but it happened and it is here and it is time for GM, et. al. in their current configuration to go away. And good riddance.

[Flatulo]

109. Minor nit... it's W. Edwards Deming, not Jonathan. nt

[KG]

82. moore never claims to have the answers, but he has the nerve to publically ask the hard questions.

[goforit]

99. Yes, Michael...CAPITAL without regulations since Reagan! Before Reagan we had

REGULATION!!!

Capitalism with regulation.......works!!!!

[Wind Dancer]

102. Excellent.........

Thanks for sharing - would recommend but it's too late. Mike nails it, yet again!

[DissedByBush]

104. Moore is an idiot

He right about the attitude that General Motors took. But their downfall was caused by capitalism as the foreign manufacturers, with a capitalistic attitude, built better cars at better prices that the people wanted to buy. Capitalism is still winning, just not GM.

[marmar]

126. Umm, the foreign manufacturers are laying off people and downsizing too.....

..... because people aren't buying cars, period. Unregulated capitalism is eating itself alive. Please stop drinking the Koolaid.

[DesertFlower]

105. i agree with michael moore. nt

[Flatulo]

106. I disagree with one of MM's major points...

Namely that GM et al 'forced' big, fuel-guzzling SUVs down the throats of consumers.

Starting in the mid-nineties, Detroit realized that Americans wanted large heavy vehicles for the perceived attributes of size, safety and status. At the peak of the reign of the SUV, 50% of American vehicles purchased were light trucks and SUVs. About 30% of the buying public resisted this trend and continued to buy high-quality foreign models. But Detroit was making huge margins on SUVs (which are essentially a very cheap light truck body with a lot of leather and power accessories).

Detroit had to sell as many as 20 small models to make the margin they could get on one SUV. So surprise, they built SUVs. Lots of them, and made a ton of money on every one they sold. What a shocker. Making a profit for your shareholders.

Where they failed was that they were not putting nearly the development $$$ into the small models that their foreign competitors were.

Fact: Toyota has a development budget of $60 billion for 30 models. GM has a budget of $30 billion for 60 models. So Toyota spends 4X as much engineering each model as GM does. Guess who is going to build a better small car?

So what happened to all the money made on SUVs? Instead of investing it in designing a fleet of world-class efficient models, management pocketed most of it. In this regard, MM is correct. The idiots that run the Big Three cannot see beyond the next quarter, while the Japanese have 20 year plans, and the Chinese have 50 year plans.

Ford had a development program in the 90's called "Blue", the goal of which was to develop the finest small cars in the world. They had the skill and the resources to pull this off. Instead, they pulled the funding and put the money into management's (and the shareholders') pockets.

The problem is not capitalism. The problem is America's corporate culture of short-sightedness and an entitlement mentality among managament.

The current mess in Detroit has no good ending. I certainly do not want government bureaucrats telling designers what vehicles to build. Ever see the vehicles that came out of the former Soviet states? They were complete and utter pieces of shit because there were no competitive products to buy.

One scenario I can envision is that smarter capitalists, like Audi and BMW and Honda, will buy the assets of Detroit and use them to produce the vehicles that the Big Three failed to build. The car business is extremely capital-intensive, and the factories are re-usable to build products that people will actually want to buy when the price of gas (inevitably) rises again.

Full Disclaimer: I drive an eight-year old Audi S4 Quattro. It is the most wonderful vehicle I've ever owned, and I've had 35 cars in my life. This car is built like a tank and after eight years it still feels brand new. The last American model I owned was a '96 GM, which was a complete piece of shit and had 23 visits to the dealer in its first year.

[lelgt60]

130. Hm...the last Audi I owned was a piece of shit and my 5 year old Chevy has never had a problem

I guess your mileage may vary, so you might be careful when generalizing...

On edit: on re-reading - you didn't generalize...so I change my comment to: "so you might be careful not to generalize"