This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
In Defense of Capitalism: a True Love Story
My writing is a byproduct of my investment process, I think through writing. I don’t do movie reviews and don’t watch Michael Moore’s movies. A Denver Post reporter invited me to a private showing of Moore’s latest flick last Monday Capitalism: a Love Story, it stirred up a lot of memories and I recently finished reading Atlas Shrugged which had a great impact on me. A combination of all those things motivated me to write this.
In the 1980s, in Soviet Russia, a few times a year, my class walked to a movie theater, where we were shown a documentary. Attendance was mandatory. The documentaries were different but the themes were the same: to the accompaniment of patriotic music, we learned about the righteousness of socialism, the greatness of Mother Russia, and the intelligence and foresight of our great leaders. To demonstrate how good we had it, we were shown images of “decaying” American capitalism. Of course, capitalism did not get the benefit of patriotic music as we were shown the poverty-stricken homeless, the KKK burning crosses and lynching blacks, and Russia-hating capitalists being poisoned by hamburgers (of course, later I learned this part about hamburgers was not a complete lie).
Past weekend Americans voluntarily spent a few million dollars to see a documentary by Michael Moore – Capitalism: the Love Story. But don’t kid yourself, this piece of work is not a documentary, it lacks objectivity and has no intention of seeking the truth, and it is anti-American and anti-capitalist propaganda. Mr. Moore is a talented propagandist; in Soviet Russia this documentary would have gotten him a medal and elevated him into a state hero.
A successful propaganda initiative has to have three elements: (1) to influence attitudes, instead of providing information, (2) to selectively present facts (i.e., lying by omission) to achieve a certain synthesis, and (3) to get an emotional rather than a rational response.
There is little information in this movie. Moore spends the bulk of the film going through our country’s trash and presenting it as the main course. For instance, a corrupt judge sentences innocent teenagers to spend months at a privately owned (i.e., for-profit, nongovernmental) youth-correction facility, while the judge is getting kickbacks from the facility owners. Moore interviews these poor teenagers, and we feel bad for them, as we should. We feel angry. Moore directs this anger towards capitalism (i.e., private enterprise): it is rotten and corrupt. Of course, the fact that corruption and bribery are the rare exception in the US, not the rule (as in Russia), is never mentioned.
Really, if you want to make a successful propaganda movie, you must evoke emotion and rightly or wrongly direct it at your subject of hate – in Moore’s case, capitalism. Moore shows families being evicted from their houses, in which some of them have lived for twenty years, and some of them have kids. Again, we feel bad for these people, we feel their pain, and we want to help. We are angry. That’s what Moore wants. But should we be angry at the bank that has given these people a loan? Or perhaps we should accept the fact that some people will make bad financial decisions, and they’ll pay a price. It is the easiest thing to blame a bank, or capitalism – they are not very popular today.
But let’s do the impossible, let’s humanize a bank. Let’s say you and I and a few friends put our life savings together and start a bank. We take deposits and make loans. Should we “forgive” a loan on a house to a person who overextended, made bad financial choices, or found himself facing hardship and unable to earn his way out of it? If we do enough of this “forgiving” we’ll go bankrupt, our kids won’t go to college, and we’ll need to ask someone else to “forgive” us for the loans on our houses, credit cards, etc. I am not even mentioning our depositors losing their money (and the FDIC – the taxpayer – bailing them out) and our employees losing their jobs.
So the heartless bank – you and I and a few friends – have to make a choice between sacrificing the well-being of our families for the sake of strangers. What would you do? See, this point is too rational and lacks the sensationalism of good propaganda; and thus Mr. Moore, who I am sure thought of it, omitted it.
Moore attacks BofA for not resorting to charity and not extending a loan to a factory in Michigan, even after BofA received TARP money. The same logic I just went through applies to the huge, unpopular BofA. Should BofA have thrown away money in a loan to the factory, knowing that the factory would not be able to repay it? Is this not what got us into the present problem in the first place?
Banks and Wall Street in general played a role in today’s crisis, but they were just one of many responsible players. Consumers in pursuit of keeping up with the Joneses overextended themselves (with the exception of cases of outright fraud, no one was forced to buy a bigger house). Rating agencies were getting paid by the customers they were rating. The Federal Reserve kept rates at very low levels for too long, politicians pressured lending at any cost, regulators were not regulating – and the list goes on. Vilifying banks as the only culprit is intellectually dishonest and a very myopic way to look at this complex problem, and Mr. Moore does just that!
Moore brought a brigade of priests to proclaim: “Capitalism is evil, immoral”; “Jesus doesn’t like the rich”; “the rich will have a hard time getting into heaven.” Two employees from a factory, talking on camera, made a really important point about capitalism. They said something along the lines of, “Maybe we should start a cooperative or something, but no, we cannot; we don’t have the money, we are not capitalists.”
Ayn Rand said it well in Atlas Shrugged: “But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able at the expense of the incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy?”
Moore neglects to admit that capitalism has brought people out of poverty and socialism sunk them there. He blames rising health-care costs on HMOs, though HMOs are just a pass-through vehicle between payers and service providers. He accuses capitalism as a system that “allows getting away with paying so little.”
He offers no alternative to our “broken” capitalism system other than let’s have “democracy.” This is laughable, as democracy is not a market system, it is a political system. What he wants is a command-based economy – the Soviet Russia that failed so miserably. He wants Mr. Mouch from Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, a mediocre bureaucrat who failed at everything in his life, to be put in charge of Mr. Moore’s version of a “democratic” economy (still not sure what that means). Mr. Mouch decided how much everyone produced, at what prices goods were sold, and what “fair” wages everyone got paid. In the end, despite sacrifice after sacrifice, Mr. Mouch’s economy collapses. Mr. Mouch’s visible “fair” hand fails to accomplish what the invisible “impartial” hand of the free market accomplishes so effortlessly.
Mr. Moore’s propaganda flick ends with pictures of the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. The images are powerful, full of emotion, and again in his final misdirection Moore manages to blame it on capitalism.
Vitaliy N. Katsenelson, CFA, is a portfolio manager/director of research at Investment Management Associates in Denver, Colo. He is the author of “Active Value Investing: Making Money in Range-Bound Markets” (Wiley 2007). To receive Vitaliy’s future articles my email, click here.
- advertisements -
"He offers no alternative to our “broken” capitalism system other than let’s have “democracy.” This is laughable, as democracy is not a market system, it is a political system"
he is not offering democracy a replacement for capitalism, of course that wouldn't work. rather his democracy alternative is for the government, as he feels capitalism is driving the govt, not democracy. his issue is not capitalism itself, but its hand in government.
Michael Moore is a Communist. He plays to the Far Left.
The most devastating mistake Moore makes in the movie is to equate capitalism with the big banks such as Goldman Sachs. To pretend that his yellow tape for a crime scene is the crime of capitalism is the mark of a Communist.
Anybody can pick out crimes people commit and say that’s because they’re capitalists. And, of course, the Left loves it and celebrates it.
Thanks for a great review, Vitaliy. You are right, and you would know--in Soviet Russia this documentary would have gotten Moore a medal and elevated him into a state hero. Which is why he’s a favorite of America’s "mainstream" media.
Well put arguments all through. The imperfections of the US political and economic systems are well documented. What counts is the American spirit and individualism. No better system has been created outside these borders.
Sweden
Vitaly I stopped reading the rest of your article when I've read that 'corruption and bribery are the rare exception in the US'. Were you born yesteday??
"Here's a solution: write your congressperson and demand mandatory public finance in all federal elections"
Hmmm...a tax to pay for campaigns to elect people who control how much we are taxed. I can't see anything that could possibly go wrong with that.
you had me til "atlas shrugged"
"A successful propaganda initiative has to have three elements: (1) to influence attitudes, instead of providing information, (2) to selectively present facts (i.e., lying by omission) to achieve a certain synthesis, and (3) to get an emotional rather than a rational response."
Damn, you should trademark this because so many people, including myself, are going to be quoting it from now on as THE classic definition of a propaganda film. Man, you'll collect enough in royalties to afford a nifty little dacha in the country - you capitalistic pig, you. ;>)
Why is it that everybody on Zero Hedge whines about the undue influence that Wall Street has in D.C., but nobody proposes the obvious: we need major campaign finance reform. Rep. Alan Grayson, purported hero of ZH, sent a form letter out to everybody on his mailing list asking for campaign donations because "big banks are going to bankroll my opponent to the tune of millions, because let's face it, I'm the kind of Congressman who causes them too much trouble."
People, let's face it: we exist in a political system where money buys elections. Until that is altered, GS and others are going to dominate the political debate.
My biggest critique of Michael Moore is that he spent two hours decrying the obvious flaws in our political system, but, true to form, he proposed no solution. Here's a solution: write your congressperson and demand mandatory public finance in all federal elections. Publicampaign.org is an advocacy group with a similar goal (their platform is certainly not perfect - they support public matching).
Anyway - if you have time to write an article about why Michael Moore is not a documentarian, you have too much time on your hands. That should be perfectly honest to everyone by now.
At the end of the movie, Michael essentially pleads with the American public to join him in action. To be fair to your comment though, I'm not sure where he want's to meet up? I checked out his website and it seems vague. Maybe I am missing something...but I was ready to hit the bricks. I hope that kind of empowerment/momentum isn't lost...
"A successful propaganda initiative has to have three elements: (1) to influence attitudes, instead of providing information, (2) to selectively present facts (i.e., lying by omission) to achieve a certain synthesis, and (3) to get an emotional rather than a rational response."
Damn, you should trademark this because so many people, including myself, are going to be quoting it from now on as THE classic definition of a propaganda film. (Man, you'll collect enough in royalties to afford a nifty little dacha in the country.)
I don't go to Moore's films because I'm educated on the topics he discusses. I think his point of view is correct but I agree he is a sensationalist. But then again. So what? He's a film maker not a politician. And it takes an appeal to emotions to light the fire under some people.
Also you are biased. Your personal history is influencing your rationalization of this country. Anyone who's been through something terrible as you have will see the grass as greener ANYWHERE else, even if it's only better on a superficial level. That doesn't mean this country isn't broken. Take it from some born and raised here whose only point of reference is this countries history. It's broken. The propaganda (slight of hand) is just better here.
you confuse political system with economic system. USSR was totalitarian, and socialistic or communistic. There are socialistic countries that are open, and indeed most content on any world scale, i.e. Sweden.
If you have a crappy political system, it will most likely contain a crappy economic system as well.
Mortgages are merely a vehicle to ensure that the banks always end up with physical assets, therefore they should be avoided whenever possible.
One of the reasons some banks are refusing to seize properties (apart from the mark-to-market issues which would render them instantly insolvent) is because prices would be driven down to a point where property can be paid for in cash with little or no need for financing, for those with enough foresight to have cash on hand.
True ownership, free of bank liens or property taxes that ensure that no person ever truly holds his own land, should be the goal. This is of course at odds with the Federal Reserve, who has intentionally destroyed the value of the dollar in order to make financing the only possible path to private ownership.
You are guilty of the same slanted propaganda you are claiming to expose.
Not that you are at fault for that, it is difficult to evade it in the human condition.
Argument on one particular point (havn't seen the movie so I'll reserve judgement on those points):
"But let’s do the impossible, let’s humanize a bank. Let’s say you and I and a few friends put our life savings together and start a bank. We take deposits and make loans. Should we “forgive” a loan on a house to a person who overextended, made bad financial choices, or found himself facing hardship and unable to earn his way out of it?"
I'm sure, based on your perspective, that your devils advocacy must stop at the fine line where both parties are responsible for these transgressions.
It IS on a case-by-case basis, but generally YES. It ias your civic duty to perform due diligence in making a loan. Are you required to back-stop every defaulted loan, no - but you are required by the rules of real capitalism to exercise fiscal prudence in conducting business so that losses do not exceed expectations or excess reserves (or you deserve to go out of business)
The bottom line is, those who hold the $$ and made mistakes are backstopped by the federal government. Those who wanted nothing more than a sound future for their families (and knowingly or unknowingly overextended themselves to get it) are stuck without a home.
Sure no one forced anyone to take more loan than they could afford, but - the moral hazard lies entirely with the banks, who are by definition contractually obligated (by continued charter) to be well-informed enough to make prudent judgments in this arena - where the average individual may not have a full capacity of understanding their ability to pay back a loan.
Furthermore, by definition the bank had a legal and moral obligation to understand the products they were selling, and their predatory ramifications. Specifically, they all saw it coming and either criminally sat by silent or ignorantly did the same.
Either way, the rules of competition and capitalism demand they deserve to lose their jobs and go out of business, the only question remains is whether or not they are going to jail.
So tell me this - if these banks were forced out of business (through all channels), individuals did not have to make payments on their loans in the interim (due to court order, confusion, or lack of an entity to pay, etc.), got to stay in their houses in the interim, and then were contractually allowed to refinance under the new lender who bought the fallen company's assets (the way it would have worked in an honest system) - how would your story change?
Would you still be singing this song of a utilitarian personal responsibility?
Why do ex Soviet-bloc types who have become westernized always say Americans don't know how good we have it while US ex-pats have the same bad things to say about America?
Screw the banks. They made bad loans. Moore isolates an instance where a yokel farmer who didn't understand his refinance had his mortgage payment more than double on his existing home and land (no upgrade). I find it hard to believe the bank didn't understand what they were selling to the farmer. But yet the banks are receiving the govt money while the farmer is out of his house and land.
Moore is emotional and a lot of this pseudo documentary was unnecessary. But this doesn't mean the underlying problem of unequality regarding banks, borrowers, and the bailout doesn't exist.
Personally I find Rand kind of hard to get through, but Atlas Shrugged is proving to be prophetic in many ways.
Except that there are no Hank Reardens. No one acting independently of the government, creating game-changing technologies. If we had any they were long ago corrupted by government collusion, or taxed and regulated into oblivion.
We have a bunch of little Dagny Taggarts who are merely trying to run their businesses despite the actions of a centralized bureaucracy that, piece by piece, makes it harder and harder to run a business efficiently or turn an honest profit.
Imagine the construction company owner who is forced to subsidize the retirement and health care of every single one of his employees, as opposed to simply paying them a fair price for their labor. Whatever profit he scratches out is taxed to hell, and the employees blame him when he has to lay them off instead of blaming the government that makes keeping them employed too costly. These are our Dagny Taggarts, and they're all over the place.
Where our are John Galts? I don't think they exist, not yet at least. I see a lot more productive members of society merely giving up, exiting the system as best they can or becoming one of the "looters". Perhaps when we see 30% unemployment, a worthless dollar, and food riots we'll finally see some Galts appear.
Moore's big failing is in his unrelenting faith in centralized government (populated with like-minded people of course) to solve our problems and arrest the bad guys.
He still doesn't quite get that centralized government is the enemy. His rantings on the supposed glory of nationalized health care remind me of the question Milton Friedman asked Phil Donahue; "Where are you going to find these angels who will organize society for us?"
You can't concentrate that much power and authority in one place and expect anything good to come out of it. Moore in his naivete expects this, if only we could get the "right people" in there.
" Triumph of the sWill"
Es schließe mich ganz aufrichtig.
It's not Moore's fault that the Banksters "double-speaked" the word Capitalism, to make us think that Debt and Socialism For The Banksters was Capitalism, when it is in fact Capitalism's exact opposite. The problem is that, once a word has been "double-speaked", do you use the word in its new "double-speaked" meaning, or do you take time to explain that the word has been "double-speaked". I might have gone a different way....
Not to worry the popular joke in Russia is now!
All said by the communists about comunism were lies ,but unfortunatly all said by the comunists about caitalism was the truth.
Would add never think that we are living capitalism,sociologists and antropologist will find find a name for it. When the street has already found slang words for it.
Can Ayn Rand's badly written books be laid to rest?
I agree. But I'll add this: Aynd Rand championed the CREATORS of things. Railroads, Steel, Architects, even the owner of a burger joint. Not the money shufflers and bailout babies that are in bed with government and get supported by a federal reserve that prints free money at will for banks to relend at exorbitant costs. What a racket.
Capitalism would be an interesting experiment. Someone should try it someday.
pravda butchered the article and MM so if you need a good laugh check it out. I enjoyed the article here since it was written in honest clarity of the author volition.
Your experience in the Soviet Union has ZERO (i.e. nothing) to do with any argument Moore, or any other American, might make against our current version of "Capitalism."
Russia was (and is) a facist dictatorship (and always has been as far as I know). It's experiment with "Communism" (which many would argue had little to do with what Marx imagined) has little to inform us about the excesses of OUR bankrupt (both morally and financially) "capitalist" economic system.
Democracy has nothing to do with any particular economic philosophy. And there is nothing magical about "capitalism" as we know it, that promotes democracy (which should be the minimal standard of any system codified into law in our country).
The apparent attempt to "justify" capitalism based on the Soviet Union's horrendous history is nonsensical.
I haven't watched the movie, but this review prompted me to make my first post on here...so take that for what it's worth.
First off, I don't plan on wasting my money to watch this movie. If I ever do see it out of morbid curiosity, it will not be done using the capitalist system to make him money i.e. buying a DVD or paying for a movie ticket. (Did anyone else find that ironic by the way?)
I get the impression that Michael Moore is an angry and boorish person. His movies are a consistent theme of backseat-driver-ism. He just waits and watches for any mistake and relishes in it, while ignoring all the positives. All complaints and no solutions. If he were given the wheel, he'd run us all into a wall faster than he downs a double cheeseburger. It was said once that Democracy is the worst government in the world...except for all the others. I believe the same can be said for capitalism.
But to switch gears and hit on the Ayn Rand Atlas Shrugged comments, I just finished that book myself, but with a much different impression. To put it simply, my basic impression was that Atlas Shrugged was Capitalism's bible. ...but not in that it is infallible, sacred and sent from the Gods (and I'm sure I'm going to lose most of you here) but instead that it is illogical, preachy, contradictory, hypocritical, not very captivating, long and somehow has been put on a pedestal by the masses. (I could go into why I feel this way, but the post is already long enough.)
But the most ironic thing to me is that so many people have compared the current economic crisis to Atlas Shrugged and point the finger at the Wesley Mooches of the government. I think it's become pretty clear that the crisis was caused by reckless behavior in the face of deregulation, which ironically is exactly the opposite of what happened in the book. Those that read the book, know it was originally called "the Strike" and a giant crisis was caused because too many rules forced the "men of the mind" to stop working. Anyone using Atlas Shrugged as a model for "see, she told us what would happen!!" is just shooting themselves in the foot. This may sound controversial to some, but to those that use logic (which was one of Rand's highest virtues), would agree that A is not B.
I haven't watched the movie, but this review prompted me to make my first post on here...so take that for what it's worth.
First off, I don't plan on wasting my money to watch this movie. If I ever do see it out of morbid curiosity, it will not be done using the capitalist system to make him money i.e. buying a DVD or paying for a movie ticket. (Did anyone else find that ironic by the way?)
I get the impression that Michael Moore is an angry and boorish person. His movies are a consistent theme of backseat-driver-ism. He just waits and watches for any mistake and relishes in it, while ignoring all the positives. All complaints and no solutions. If he were given the wheel, he'd run us all into a wall faster than he downs a double cheeseburger. It was said once that Democracy is the worst government in the world...except for all the others. I believe the same can be said for capitalism.
But to switch gears and hit on the Ayn Rand Atlas Shrugged comments, I just finished that book myself, but with a much different impression. To put it simply, my basic impression was that Atlas Shrugged was Capitalism's bible. ...but not in that it is infallible, sacred and sent from the Gods (and I'm sure I'm going to lose most of you here) but instead that it is illogical, preachy, contradictory, hypocritical, not very captivating, long and somehow has been put on a pedestal by the masses. (I could go into why I feel this way, but the post is already long enough.)
But the most ironic thing to me is that so many people have compared the current economic crisis to Atlas Shrugged and point the finger at the Wesley Mooches of the government. I think it's become pretty clear that the crisis was caused by reckless behavior in the face of deregulation, which ironically is exactly the opposite of what happened in the book. Those that read the book, know it was originally called "the Strike" and a giant crisis was caused because too many rules forced the "men of the mind" to stop working. Anyone using Atlas Shrugged as a model for "see, she told us what would happen!!" is just shooting themselves in the foot. This may sound controversial to some, but to those that use logic (which was one of Rand's highest virtues), would agree that A is not B.
" I think it's become pretty clear that the crisis was caused by reckless behavior in the face of deregulation, which ironically is exactly the opposite of what happened in the book."
What is this deregulation that you speak of? If the government wasn't meddling, like giving bailouts, then this wreckless behavior would've been put in check. All those bankers would be unemployed, but thanks to regulation, they're getting record bonuses -- wake up!
Perhaps you need reminding that companies like Fannie and Freddie, which were backed by the government, were encouraged by the government to make loans. The goal was for everyone to be a house owner, affordability be damned. The SEC, master regulator, contributed to moral hazards through its existence, which pacified investors into thinking that regulators will be on the lookout for lawlessness (which they either ignored like Madoff, or were too incompetent). What about the Fed's manipulation of interest rates? What about ACORN? What about Moody's/S&P in-bed relationship with the Gov and subsequent monopoly on the credit rating markets? This list doesn't even scratch the surface of the regulations that exist.
Since the founding of this country there have been more and more regulation. Those that blithely claim 'deregulation' as the cause of for this collapse, without even citing what that alleged deregulation is, are simply obfuscating the debate with mindless rhetoric.
"What is this deregulation that you speak of?"
I stopped reading right there. If you know *that* little about the causes of the current economic downturn, you're an idiot.
""What is this deregulation that you speak of?"
I stopped reading right there. If you know *that* little about the causes of the current economic downturn, you're an idiot."
Are you a politician? I only ask because you cleverly managed to refute my point without even addressing it. Sh*t, without even reading it! LoL.
While I relish an intellectual discussion, I don't think I can argue with a straw man argument of your caliber, for I fear that you'll bring me down to your level and beat me with experience.
Well put! Jolly good show. I have to say I like your comments on this thread, because they are good defenses of the ideology that I would like to think you and I share. Seeing you write is much better than someone like glenn beck setting up the aforementioned straw men for idiots to knock down with flaming arrows from across the county. It's not good enough to have people agree with you, but they also have to explain themselves rationally, and without the reliance on raw emotion and drivel. Cheers Daedal for doing both.
<bow>, and right back at you, aldousd! I must warn you though; I'm easily susceptible to flattery.
The baseline is that we pay to have others think for us........it's human nature........and less work to pay as opposed to think.
OK, the "have you seen the movie" poll was a staged question - I admit it. It's just that many people, for whatever reason, seem to have a "Pavlovian" response whenever MM's name is mentioned.
I SAW the movie (along with numerous interviews) and two big misconceptions, as I see them are:
1. MM isn't calling for the demise/end of capitalism. If fact, I hear him saying that the capitalism that we once knew is not what we have today - and as such, is distorting the true definition.
2. Socialism isn't the call to arms in this movie. Rather, with all the wealth that has been created in this country, can't we "capitalists" do a better job of taking care of the people who work for us, and still find a way to make ungodly profits?
My background would lead most people to believe that I also see MM as the Antichrist. But I'll tell you what, this guy did all of us who hate what is happening to our government/financial system, and way of life, a BIG favor. Sqworl is right (paraphrasing here), this movie will give the average person, shit, above average person, the ability to get his/her head around the problem. But what do I know - I am the village idiot. Go see the movie - and then you can slather like a dog.
To answer both your questions, I'll reference the movie. Michael Moore lays crime scene tape around Goldman Sachs and asks for our money back, yet he does no ask himself how it is that GS got the tax payer money -- the problem is not with Goldman Sachs taking a handout per se, but rather with our Government giving it one. Moore should've been laying crime scene tape around the White House and Capitol building instead.
I just walked in from watching Capitalism by Micheal Moore.
I think everybody should see this film. It will make them standup and do something to stop the continued fleecing of our country. ZH has provided an excellent public forum to expose the corruption in government and total control of that government by Goldman Sachs.
I heard people just gasp! One guy cursed the screen when Paulson and Dodd were shown. The average Joe in this country should see this film. It will give them incentive to demonstrate against "The Axis of Evil" in our own country!!! Our military should come home and take our country back and hunt these banksters and shoot them.
Nah, I'm good
I have to say no. If it was only about the banksters, then yes. But here is a nice, long review (I will not ever give a penny to Moore via his propaganda in the theaters):
http://mises.org/story/3751
I haven't read through this thread, but would like to know how many of you, author aside, have seen the movie? Lets see a show of hands.
I read one of his books, given to me by a friend. I will not give another cent to him. He is too much of a socialist. I also do not like "banksters", but I happen to believe that their activities are not capitalism, but rather monopolistic, oligarchic and cartel behavior condoned by a government that has lost sight of upholding laws and principals of capitalism and, either looks the other way while criminal behavior continues, or outright condones the behavior as their election coffers are filled by these criminals. That is corruption and not capitalism. It has occurred throughout history long before capitalism was ever heard of and happens in every other country in the world, most of them worse than the United States.
I can't believe that people criticize Ayn Rand for believing in a perfect man. While it may have described a utopian society which possibly could not exist, it did show how those with true ability should be rewarded - not those whose primary ability is making connections.
If there was no federal reserve, which is about anti-capitalist as it gets, there wouldn't have been the punch bowl for the drunken excessive risk taking. Any entity that can inflate the value of an individual's savings to 0 is not capitalistic. Capitalism is founded firmly in liberty, private property and that no individual may make a decision with other men's property. If failure was possible and there was no fed reserve that can create currency ad infinitum (instead of some kind of standard of honest money), would we have had such a monumental collapse?
My parents and I immigrated to the U.S. a long time ago but I only recently received my citizenship (due to repeated misplaced paperwork on the INS's behalf). My family came here from Europe because of capitalism and because it was the land opportunity (California in particular). You had more freedom here to become successful through your own intelligence and hard work than anywhere else in the world. I have many friends from multiple nationalities all over the world that have also immigrated (or their parents immigrated) for the same reasons. None of us expected, nor received handouts from the government. My family was not well off and only had a Volkswagon Beetle and some personal items when we came here. We stayed with relatives of friends until we got on our feet.
Michael Moore has it wrong. Yes there is a lot of corruption. However, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the concept of capitalism. It holds more freedom and possibility for the average person than any economic model. Corruption is not the fault of capitalism. It existed in history long before capitalism was ever heard of, and continues to exist in every country in the world (most much worse than the U.S.). Criminal and egomaniacal elements are naturally attracted to power and money. What we have today in the U.S. is a highly diluted form of capitalism, seriously polluted by individuals with their own greedy ulterior motives that increasingly own our elected politicians. Government-condoned forms of monopolies, cartels, cabals, oligarchies, etc., have infiltrated businesses and every level of government. The biggest failing has been the lack of the governments' upholding and enforcing the principals of capitalism and the refusal to prosecute those who violate our laws.
In the past decade or so, "Social justice" and "political correctness" have also become an excuse not to prosecute criminals and to making increasing exceptions to upholding laws. Politicians regularly interfere in attempts to prosecute criminals. (Such interference should be a crime and should be prosecuted.) Rather, elected officials are in bed with the criminals who line their election coffers. Goldman Sachs and their monopolistic or cartel-like privileges, the continued violation of anti-trust laws by allowing an increasing number of too-big-to-fail mergers (e.g. BlackRock & Barclays' Investment Unit), and the rewarding of ex Countrywide executives through PennyMac, are all perfect examples of what has gone wrong and eaten away at capitalism.
What we need to do is: go back to the principals of freedom and capitalism; teach our youth the principles of reward and success through education and hard work, the concept of personal responsibility, and real history (without P.C. dilutions); and, above all, enforce laws and prosecute all of those that violate them. If you polled high school students in this country (not to mention their parents), how many do you think know that the FED is not part of the federal government, what fiat money is, how fractional reserve banking works, etc.? Is anyone willing to take the other side of a bet that it is less than 1%? And money is so fundamental to our everyday lives. If I were education Czar, it would be the first thing I would add as mandatory curriculum.
I think your summary rivals that of Vitaliy. My parents also emigrated to the US. Get this: when we came (1990), the most amount of money you can bring with you was $600. My parents didn't know the language and were in this country with $600. Now they would be considered upper middle class in terms of income. Had they stayed in Russia they would not even be able to afford a car, much less a house.
Michael Moore gets away with his propaganda b/c most Americans have no frame of reference. Most poor people in America have standards of living that far exceed the middle class my family was a part of in Russia, where something like a 'full refrigerator' is an absurd concept, or the fact that we had to stand in line on particular day of the week to buy meat, or toilet paper (and I assure you, the quality was less like Charmin and more like that stuff you buy at Home Depot to smooth out chipped wood). And their health care... g zus christ, they recycled needles without even proper dysinfection techniques!
What irks me is when people bash capitalism while they enjoy the fruits that capitalism has alotted them. As you mentioned, there's many, many, problems but they exist precisely b/c of a government that blatantly ignores and works against capitalist principals.
When I express these views, I find people often retort, 'if you don't like it here, why don't you go back to Russia." My answer is simple: It's precisely b/c I love it here and hated Russia that I don't want USA to become USSA"
"What irks me is when people bash capitalism while they enjoy the fruits that capitalism has alotted them." And from your perspective, America is indeed the land of milk and honey.
But times they are a changing, perhaps it is difficult for foreigners with their awe of America to grasp that. Yes, we don't want the USA to become like Soviet Russia, we can all agree on that. It's your frame of reference that is off. So it sucks, but it doesn't suck bad is the message? Michael Moore has an unpleasant message, but don't confuse that with propaganda, that's owned by Fox and the rest of the main stream media, trotting out experts like "Cramer", telling you to invest, the markets never been better, our prospects have never been so good, rah rah, our 5 year plan exceeded expectations, grain harvest is wonderful - see the similarity to the Pravda of old?
If this were Soviet Russia, Moore would long ago have been hauled off to the Gulag, he's the Doestoyevsky, the agitator, the trouble maker, the Zero Hedger.
Speaking of fruits, let me offer a simple example. To a Soviet, Yugoslavia might have seemed a wonderous, rich country - it has bananas! Looking upon the relatively well stocked marketplace, yeah, it's ok.
We have higher standards though. Reused needles - no, were not there yet. Crumbling infrastructure? Bridges collapsing in Minneapolis? Has anyone been to Asia and seen their gleaming metropolises?
We can do better. After all, we landed on the moon. And now we have the discovery of water on the moon by whom? India. The torch has passed. Get used to it.
I agree. They do not know what they have and have not lived under the socialistic circumstances that they misguidedly consider to be Utopian. I agree with capitalism. But I also want to stop the fleecing of America by the criminals using oligarchic, monopolistic and criminal behaviors, such as Goldman Sachs, the FED and many others. Personally, I think that career politicians should be banned. If you want to run for public office, you must have experience working for a private-sector, for-profit business, and have demonstrated fiscal responsibility. You can dedicate no more that 8 consecutive years to one or multiple publicly-elected position(s) without going back to the private sector for 8 years before becoming eligible again. I would also happily exclude or limit millionaires and billionaires because they are often fraught with conflicts of interest.
the problem americans have is that their "leaders" does nothing to protect them from predatory capitalist. for example insurance companies that refuse to cover sick people or try to weasel out of their obligations.
corporate profits have become more importantant than american citizens lives and the sheeple accept this. one out of six can´t get the medical care their doctors recommend and elected officials explain it cant be helped because of plunging profitmargins for the insurance companies.
seriously you can have capitalism without the weak in society getting assraped and left for dead on a daily basis. we have it in scandinavia, if your leaders were better people you would too.
Dear Vitalik, your reminiscences of: "In the 1980s, in Soviet Russia, a few times a year, my class walked to a movie theater, where we were shown a documentary. Attendance was mandatory. The documentaries were different but the themes were the same, blah, blah, blah.... - is a pure bullshit, and you know it, you're as naive and infantile as you probably were in the 1980s. I wouldn't even go into commenting on your review of MM movie. However, I will stop reading your blog, since you're, you know, infantile.
Sorry, Ayn Rand Fanboy, every system has winners and losers. Bribery and corruption know no bounds - the underlying ideology is irrelevant. The original capitalists were smart enough to give enough concessions to create a middle class (New Deal), whereas the Soviets resorted to increasing brutality. This time around, it might be the US declaring martial law and the Russians giving away money and jobs. On the bright side, maybe you can be a dissident journalist who keeps a diary while in Guantanamo, and after 10 years escapes to Russia and be a national hero.