Michael Moore on CNN Talks About His "Christian Values"
At Deadline Hollywood, Nikki Finke says that Michael Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story "looks like its domestic total will fail to crack $20M and end up his worst performing film since his Oscar-winner Bowling For Columbine in 2002." This might seem like the opening weekend of a box office flop—Capitalism finished in seventh place—but are these bad numbers for a documentary that calls for the abolition of the free market?
For all of his kvetching about the corporate media, it's perhaps worth noting that, in the past week, Moore has appeared on CNN shows hosted by Anderson Cooper, Larry King, and Wolf Blitzer to promote his incoherent excoriation of capitalism (the market should be replaced by "democracy," he says).
One of the problems with his shtick (beyond being painfully unfunny) is that rather than the aw-schucks working man character he cultivated for Roger and Me, Moore sounds increasingly like a man running for office, desperate to disguise his radical politics while trying to coax people into the theater. During his sit down with Blitzer, Moore mentioned repeatedly that he was "a Christian" and that viewers will "walk out of this film saying, Michael Moore loves this country. Michael Moore is a true patriot. He loves democracy. Michael Moore is following through on the values that his parents and the nuns and the priests gave him as a child."
In case those Red Staters missed it, this film is merely "following through on the religious principles that I was raised with"; allowing the rich to get richer is "not part of our Judeo-Christian ethic"; Obama is approaching the health care debate "with those same Christian values" that Moore was raised with. During an appearance in San Francisco last week, Moore compared Obama to an "amateur basketball player" who was "faking right and going left." He appears to be doing the same.
Moore recently told a reporter that "evil" capitalism "has done nothing for me." It was, apparently, some other economic system that made him fabulously wealthy and bought his Upper West Side penthouse. Go figure. So let's do our part and help Moore strike a blow against the mustache-twisting movie executives by liberating his intellectual property from capitalism (i.e. downloading his movie at PirateBay).
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
The Christian values of the poor should inherit the earth and the democratic value of for the people by the people etc are trashed under capitalism, otherwise known as "The Free Market." One of the points Moore makes is that bailing out the banks is not the free market, it is socialism for the rich, but even that is an oxymoron because socialism is a cooperative society and the free market is a dog eat dog society. The corporation is run as a dictatorship, with employees earning a tiny fraction of the CEO pay, and not having a say in how they are run (into the ground in the case of auto companies) and Moore gives some examples of companies run by workers , not for profits for investors.
Moore made some money through his films, but the producers made more, and his point is not that no one should make money, but that it should not be at the expense of the majority. Government regulations should be for the good of the society, not to keep the rich obscenely rich.
If people have free minds, they would reject the free market, because it is not really free anyway, it is rigged for the wealthy, and it has taken over our government as well by buying the elected officials.
There will always be people who fare better, even much better, than everyone else in any system. You can't do away with greed, or even fairness in any system, and that's why socialism and communism are way worse than free market capitalism.
At least in the free market, if you have a good enough idea, you can become one of those obscenely wealthy folks. And believe it or not, there's nothing wrong with being rich. Hell, most of the people who make the biggest stink about capitalism, are the ones who benefit the most from it. Make no mistake about it, Michael Moore is rich, and he's not giving that money to you or me.
"Government regulations should be for the good of the society , not to keep the rich obscenely rich."
This would work great if the government wasn't run by the very people you say regulations shouldn't be made for. The problem is that there are no poor politicians in Washington, and they certainly are not going to make any laws that change that fact. That's why they vote in their own pay raises, have the best retirement plans in the history of the world, have health care plans that make the "Cadillac" plans they scream about look pathetic, and if they are sent out to pasture by the voters, they get ridiculous sums of money to speak at all kinds of events. Again, it's human nature, and it's flawed.
"If people have free minds, they would reject the free market, because it is not really free anyway, it is rigged for the wealthy, and it has taken over our government as well by buying the elected officials."
But it's the only system where you even have a chance of moving up. For better or worse, it's much better than the alternative. It's also more sustainable than the alternatives. And you assertion that if you think the free market is the best then you can't possibly have a free mind is insulting and absurd. Don't confuse your opinion with fact.
Finally, it's the meek that shall inherit the earth, not the poor. Oh, and Moore is an idiot.
Human nature I would argue does not so much flaw all systems as forces them into compromise. Social and economic systems are results of human ingenuity and therefor can't be flawed because in reality they have never been perfect. Furthermore, you can't really argue that the free market is better than socialism or capitalism because once again in reality none have existed without compromise. Free market capitalism would have no qualms with slavery, prostitution , or the drug trade yet most would argue that these are not allowed because this kind of economic activity is either wrong or presents a negative outcome for society .
I think that by now we all know that having a good idea does not in fact guarantee you success and riches. We say that we believe firmly in free market economics yet our history shows that not only do we in fact need government regulations for the economy but we also need them for society. The racially motivated laws of the past in fact put many in a disadvantaged state that kept them from fully participating in capitalism. Moving up is not a guarantee. Also, the free market is most certainly not the most sustainable system.
It is true that there are no poor politicians in Washington. This statement however makes a very poor argument if your intent is to argue in favor of free market.
"Human nature I would argue does not so much flaw all systems as forces them into compromise. Social and economic systems are results of human ingenuity and therefor can't be flawed because in reality they have never been perfect."
A compromise in itself is a flaw. If you listed all the conditions that work best for you, then list all the conditions that work best for me and then said, OK, make that the law , there would be places where our interests conflict. Therefore you wouldn't be able to make laws for both. In some form, there would be a compromise. Either I would get my way, you would get yours, or there would be a medium agreement reached. Either way, one of us doesn't get what's best. That's a flaw. It happens in all systems and it is inevitable.
And to the second half of that quotation. Just because something has never been perfect doesn't mean there can't be flaws. As a matter of fact, the very definition of being flawed means that it is not perfect. It doesn't matter that it never was, it just matters that it isn't now. It's flawed.
"I think that by now we all know that having a good idea does not in fact guarantee you success and riches. "
Which is precisely why I didn't say it guaranteed anything. I said you have a chance. You can present your idea to the market, and if the market likes it, voila! Lots of good ideas go unrewarded, but the opposite is also true.
"Moving up is not a guarantee.'
Which is why I didn't say that either.
"Also, the free market is most certainly not the most sustainable system."
Then what is?
"It is true that there are no poor politicians in Washington. This statement however makes a very poor argument if your intent is to argue in favor of free market."
You batting 1000. That wasn't my argument. My statement about politicians being rich was in response to a statement about the government regulating the rich. That's a government problem, not a free market problem.
"We say that we believe firmly in free market economics yet our history shows that not only do we in fact need government regulations for the economy but we also need them for society ."
Hey, I'm not a anarchist, but I also don't believe the government needs to regulate every facet of life. They are simply there to do things the free market can't, shouldn't, or won't. The free market certainly can sell you a product, they should, and they will. So the government's involvement should be minimal at best. Things like anti-monopolistic practices, for example, maybe should be discouraged by the government. But they don't need to be doing things like firing CEO's of private companies. That's waaaaaaay beyond being any of their damn business. Of course that's just a hypothetical example, right?
The funny thing about government regulations is the private sector almost always finds innovative ways to circumvent them and the government can't keep up. See: Our government was far behind in the obvious need to regulate the private-sector financial innovations of adjustable rate mortgages; mortgage-backed securities; credit default swaps; and collateralize debt obligations.
Anyway, I don't know what Michael Moore is talking about. Because the government failed to properly regulate financial institutions; rating agencies (who are corrupt and should be prosecuted); and the "shadow banks " doesn't mean to dispense with the capitalist-driven marketplace. It means you reform it to make it so the market place has a proper referee to make sure we don't see financial disaster.
Opposing huge corporations making money at the expense of the poor (which is Moore's message) sounds to be inline with the Christian ideal to me.
I do agree with their 'painfully unfunny' part...
Stop listening to what people say just because they made a movie. For that matter stop listening to politicians. Maybe read a little bit o' history.
You failed to demonstrate how Michael Moore is, according to the inference of your teaser, anyway, not promoting Christian values. Or were you just reporting that he IS promoting them?
it's the Rea$on Foundation...
Cause Free Mind$ and Free Market$ are involved in modern capitalism, anywhere on Earth?
or not...
I'd have to $ay that your analy$i$ $ound$ about right.