It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Michel Moore gets destroyed in a debate about capitalism

page: 10
36
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 




It may just be a debate of semantics, but in a true free market, that is a market of free choice and entrepreneurship, corporations would not exist. But what is a corporation? A corporation is defined by the State, that is a business merges with the State for certain benefits and legal status.

While some business incorporate out of necessity, like a mom and pop bakery to protect assets, big corporations have the ability to lobby the State for barriers to entry in markets. This is NOT capitalism, this is fascism.

A true free market would not allow for monopolies to for, at least for a long time. What people need is a more sound understanding of economic principles and not just the 101 they get from the MSM.

What the world has had for a long time, and just about in all places is varying degrees of fascism, and that is the issue, not capitalism.




posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ldyserenity
reply to post by dizzie56
 


Yeah we should all just work all day for free take no breaks and have no say in the way a company is run or have any health benefits offered to us so when we all die from illness or injury, you then have nobody else to work for you, sure let's give you all free reign...let me guess you probably don't believe in having workmen's comp ins either for those guys busting their A** In the heat all day doing work you yourself would never bother trying to do, while you sit and eat big macs and answer phone lines at a desk all day? Oh wait you won't even answer the phone lines that would mean getting your fat A** Off the chair at some point...don't start in about contractor businesses with me, My Hubby is a construction/contractor himself and because of foul practices of businesses like YOUR GRANDFATHERS the prices on licensing to even start contracting businesses is through the roof now...because of your unethical businesses. And all the scams these buinesses have been notorious for!!!!

[edit on 9-10-2009 by ldyserenity]


congrats, your a judgemental female that doesnt know anything about anything. where do you see that i am against workers comp in that post? what about health insurance? where do you get off saying that my grandfather's business does shaddy practices? DONT BE AN ARM CHAIR QUARTERBACK.

We treat our guys good. We also happen to be one of the few companies that are still in business in our area. We do strictly reroofing in Florida, a place that just happens to get hit with pretty large storms and then has nonlicensed contractors come in from out of state and take advantage of the elderly population here EVERY YEAR. After they take their customers money and run and their house is still leaking, we go out and clean up the mess from other guys. That is why the price of gettin started, at least in this state, is so high. Unlicensed, fly by night contractors that dont know what they are doing and strictly take advantage. Maybe, you should get off your "fat a$$" and learn a thing or two before you start throwing bricks.

No, i dont think that they guys that work for me and my family should or do have the right to tell me how to run my business. Its plain and simple. We provide an option to health care, have workers comp, pay them generously and fairly for their work, and keep them around for a long time if they do good work. We have, often times, even bailed some guys out when they need a little extra money or if they get into a little trouble. Our longest employee on record has been working for my family for over 20 years and I respect all of them for it and their loyalty. But do I have them come into meetings about where to spend our money in advertising or which company we will use to pick up our materials or which insurance company we are going to go with or stuff like that? No, that isnt there job. We listen to them about how the job they are working on is going and if there are any problems....thats how the world works hun. Maybe if you had a job you would learn that you cant just go walkin into the boss' office and tell him how to run stuff, it doesnt work like that nor should it.

Im sorry for your hubby's problems, but my family's company is far from the reason as to why he cant get a job. We werent even involved in any of the scandalous new construction that was goin on down here, or any of the fly by night guys that come in from other states to take advantage. We are actually one of the honest comany's that has been here for about 30 years that is still trying to make it thru this depression. So, again, dont throw stones when you dont know what your talking about.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by quackers
reply to post by dizzie56
 


Why shouldn't the people who work for the company be shareholders in the company? Is that socialism? Is it socialism when they compete in a free market with another company which is owned by it's employees? That doesn't really sound like socialism to me.

What difference does it make how much money Moore has? He is not stopping anyone else from making as much making their own films. That is a free market. What we have is corporate vacuums that suck up anything within financial range in an effort to thwart competition. That is what capitalism is, to be the biggest, the best and the only.


The people that work for our company are more than welcome to be shareholders in our company if:

A) They shares were actually up for sale
and
B) They had the money to put into it.

Why should we just give away control of our company that we worked hard to get for almost 30 years for free? What sense does that make?



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by sligtlyskeptical

Originally posted by dizzie56

Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1837
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

And if you call handing over control of a company that you worked your whole life towards getting than that is not "fairness"...thats called robbery.


1) Just where does Moore advocate any of this? I think thou can just not pass up any chance to insinuate that any steps to make corporations more responsible is socialism. A big thumbs down to you.


2) Did your family always provide this to their employees? Or did they amass their success by denying this to their workers? Paying them the lowest wage they could get away with, and abandoning them when they were too old to do the work? After all, that has become the American way.


Use to be, the husband could provide for a family of four on their own. Now two people can hardy do the same. in the meantime corprorate profits have risen a hundred fold. And you don't think we need to make some changes? Dispicable.



1) Guess that pesky reading comp slipped thru your fingers when you were giving me that big thumbs down huh? He advocates giving away the companys control for free to the people that work in it thru government legislation. Yeah, id say that is socialsim. I guess, big thumbs down to you? Dont really get that, guess its cause im new here.

2) We pay our guys fairly. We are not a huge corporation as to what you think, just a decent sized roofing company in florida that does reroofing. If they spend their money on booze instead of their bills (which happens sometimes), how is it my fault? And we dont abandon people when they are older, we have people that are in their 60's and 70's that still work here. We keep them because they are valuable to the company in that they do REALLY good work. Somebody that would fire them because of their age is obviously a dimwit. Why should i fire them, hire somebody younger and have to train them for years to even be on a mediocre level compared to the guy i fired? Doesnt make any sense really.

3) Didnt say that changes didnt need to be made. Just dont think that advocating robbery is that good. Im dispicable? Guess so if i want to keep the business that my family has built. If you had a business that you built or your father built, wouldnt you want to see it run properly or would you give all control over to the employees?



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Is he really as stupid as he sounds? "The people unanimously want universal healthcare"? He is speaking in the U.S. to U.S. citizens right?

His perfect vision of "democracy" is actually socialism based on his descriptions of how "it should be"!! "Free" college? Do I really need to make the point that nothing is free?!?!?!?!

moore is the epitome of Utopian dreamers who cannot discern reality from fantasy. He uses the warped/manipulated definitions of words in the distorted context that is typical of what the young impressionable minds in this audience get from so many sources in their lives It is good to see that not all youngins not lost the ability for critical thinking.

Could you see the look on the question askers face? He appears to be getting as confused as moore is! Thats how they do it, the "lefts" views are so warped, so slippery and contradictory and they are so "sure" of what they are saying they can make those who do think straight question their own sanity.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by really

Originally posted by Donny 4 million

Originally posted by malcr

Originally posted by kozmo
reply to post by SpacePunk
 


NEWS FLASH: Capitalism allowed Michael Moore to earn $25M dollars! DOH!
If the country were Socialist, which this idiot is seen advocating, he wouldn't be permitted to make the kind of money he has made. So, what we have here is called HYPOCRISY. Yes, Michael Moore is a hypocrite - oh, and a moron!

Not true, however, I suspect that this is the perennial fault with US folks who time and time again totally fail to understand the difference between socialism and communism.

They are different.....try a dictionary!


One in the same pal.
Try reality!


.... no, they're not.


Got something here to back this belief up?
A link, a definition? An explaination?
Or are you just trying to say Communists practice socialism?



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Donny 4 million

Originally posted by really

Originally posted by Donny 4 million

Originally posted by malcr

Originally posted by kozmo
reply to post by SpacePunk
 


NEWS FLASH: Capitalism allowed Michael Moore to earn $25M dollars! DOH!
If the country were Socialist, which this idiot is seen advocating, he wouldn't be permitted to make the kind of money he has made. So, what we have here is called HYPOCRISY. Yes, Michael Moore is a hypocrite - oh, and a moron!

Not true, however, I suspect that this is the perennial fault with US folks who time and time again totally fail to understand the difference between socialism and communism.

They are different.....try a dictionary!


One in the same pal.
Try reality!


.... no, they're not.


Got something here to back this belief up?
A link, a definition? An explaination?
Or are you just trying to say Communists practice socialism?


Here's one that took me two seconds to find on google. Here is one difference listed:


One point that is frequently raised to distinguish socialism from communism is that socialism generally refers to an economic system, while communism generally refers to both an economic and a political system. As an economic system, socialism seeks to manage the economy through deliberate and collective social control. Communism, however, seeks to manage both the economy and the society by ensuring that property is owned collectively, and that control over the distribution of property is centralized in order to achieve both classlessness and statelessness. Both socialism and communism are similar in that they seek to prevent the ill effects that are sometimes produced by capitalism.


Just look at Sweden. They've practiced DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM.

www.wisegeek.com...

You know what I love most about people like you, Donny. You'll make a remark like, "Communism and Socialism are the same thing," not back it up at all and then when someone says that you are wrong ask for sources. You're lazy.

[edit on 12-10-2009 by really]

[edit on 12-10-2009 by really]



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   
"One point that is frequently raised to distinguish socialism from communism is that socialism generally refers to an economic system, while communism generally refers to both an economic and a political system. As an economic system, socialism seeks to manage the economy through deliberate and collective social control. Communism, however, seeks to manage both the economy and the society by ensuring that property is owned collectively, and that control over the distribution of property is centralized in order to achieve both classlessness and statelessness. Both socialism and communism are similar in that they seek to prevent the ill effects that are sometimes produced by capitalism."

And the big distinction between the two are????? Did you really read what you posted???? Just because in the beginning of the paragraph it says there is a distinction, you believe it without processing the mumbo jumbo they give as evidence of the distinction?

BOTH "SYSTEMS" CENTRALIZE PROPERTY/WEALTH AND POWER!!!!!!!!!!

The only difference historically has been "communist" countries have been controlled by dictator and the non-communist socialist countries people willingly give an oligarchy control and vote their freedoms away or are not really given much choice. Chavez claims to have a democracy, I bet you buy that also?



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by I_am_Spartacus
 


Yeah, I did read it. Did you? One is economic the other both political and economic. That means you can have socialism in a democracy or a republic or a totalitarian regime.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by I_am_Spartacus


The only difference historically has been "communist" countries have been controlled by dictator and the non-communist socialist countries people willingly give an oligarchy control and vote their freedoms away or are not really given much choice. Chavez claims to have a democracy, I bet you buy that also?


First of all, I never mentioned anything about Chavez so don't put words into my mouth. I'd actually like to go there and see for myself. For a group of people who purport not to believe the MSM, so many ATSers rely on them for their info.
Secondly, if you don't think the US has become an oligarchy it's time for you to wake up.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by really

Originally posted by I_am_Spartacus


The only difference historically has been "communist" countries have been controlled by dictator and the non-communist socialist countries people willingly give an oligarchy control and vote their freedoms away or are not really given much choice. Chavez claims to have a democracy, I bet you buy that also?


First of all, I never mentioned anything about Chavez so don't put words into my mouth. I'd actually like to go there and see for myself. For a group of people who purport not to believe the MSM, so many ATSers rely on them for their info.
Secondly, if you don't think the US has become an oligarchy it's time for you to wake up.


and you think that everyone that argues with you doesn't believe this? you are trying to argue against our point with our point. I think you are either terribly confused, have no idea what you are trying to say, or just like to argue for argument sake. weird..........



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by I_am_Spartacus

Originally posted by really

Originally posted by I_am_Spartacus


The only difference historically has been "communist" countries have been controlled by dictator and the non-communist socialist countries people willingly give an oligarchy control and vote their freedoms away or are not really given much choice. Chavez claims to have a democracy, I bet you buy that also?


First of all, I never mentioned anything about Chavez so don't put words into my mouth. I'd actually like to go there and see for myself. For a group of people who purport not to believe the MSM, so many ATSers rely on them for their info.
Secondly, if you don't think the US has become an oligarchy it's time for you to wake up.


and you think that everyone that argues with you doesn't believe this? you are trying to argue against our point with our point. I think you are either terribly confused, have no idea what you are trying to say, or just like to argue for argument sake. weird..........


Who was arguing with you? My comment was for Donny 4 million who asked ME a question. I answered it. I think you are the one who was confused. I hope this helps.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by really

Originally posted by I_am_Spartacus

Originally posted by really

Originally posted by I_am_Spartacus


The only difference historically has been "communist" countries have been controlled by dictator and the non-communist socialist countries people willingly give an oligarchy control and vote their freedoms away or are not really given much choice. Chavez claims to have a democracy, I bet you buy that also?


First of all, I never mentioned anything about Chavez so don't put words into my mouth. I'd actually like to go there and see for myself. For a group of people who purport not to believe the MSM, so many ATSers rely on them for their info.
Secondly, if you don't think the US has become an oligarchy it's time for you to wake up.


and you think that everyone that argues with you doesn't believe this? you are trying to argue against our point with our point. I think you are either terribly confused, have no idea what you are trying to say, or just like to argue for argument sake. weird..........


Who was arguing with you? My comment was for Donny 4 million who asked ME a question. I answered it. I think you are the one who was confused. I hope this helps.


No you were "trying" to make the point that there is a big difference between socialism and communism (they are both based on marxism). This has come up because so many of us call the current administration an oligarchal marxist/socialist/communistic administration. I was saying your quote and reply only proved donny's point that they are the same and proved the other point point that we under becoming more and more under the thumb of an oligarchy.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by really
reply to post by I_am_Spartacus
 


Yeah, I did read it. Did you? One is economic the other both political and economic. That means you can have socialism in a democracy or a republic or a totalitarian regime.


any "system" that takes from some to give to others is totalitarian to some degree. Just because some of the population votes for the fascism doesn't make it not so. You are playing word games, the concept is the same, its just a matter of degrees.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by I_am_Spartacus

Originally posted by really
reply to post by I_am_Spartacus
 


Yeah, I did read it. Did you? One is economic the other both political and economic. That means you can have socialism in a democracy or a republic or a totalitarian regime.


any "system" that takes from some to give to others is totalitarian to some degree. Just because some of the population votes for the fascism doesn't make it not so. You are playing word games, the concept is the same, its just a matter of degrees.


You are mixing words. Donny asked for a difference between communism and socialism and I a gave it. By the way, now you're mixing fascism in. That again is a different political ideology. ("any "system" that takes from some to give to others is totalitarian to some degree. Just because some of the population votes for the fascism doesn't make it not so.").
Just two seconds ago you were saying that I was confused and arguing the same thing as you. Now, you're saying that I am arguing something different?
I'm not playing any word games. Unless you consider giving the definitions of ideologies word games. If a group of people want socialism (and some do) that is not totalitarianism. Some people do NOT want the economic system we currently live under.... does that make this a totalitarian regime?
Here is a definition of totalitarianism. It doesn't seem to jive with your definition:

n.a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state.

www.answers.com...

Here's another:
1. the practices and principles of a totalitarian regime.
2. absolute control by the state or a governing branch of a highly centralized institution.
3. the character or quality of an autocratic or authoritarian individual, group, or government: the totalitarianism of the father.
dictionary.reference.com...

I'm not playing with words. I'm giving the definitions. Perhaps, you don't know what you think you know. Open a dictionary. It's easy to make up definitions of words to argue the point you want.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 08:07 PM
link   
Forget the stale ISMs-thisism or thatism.
America is the most creative, innovative country on the planet.
The USA has the best original minds.
Can't we come up with a new system that is fair to all?
Or do we go into the 21st century always looking in the rear view mirror?

It's not fair when some businessmen make 340 times the salary of the workers.
It means that greedy person doesn't play well with others.
If you don't question that then you are a mentally dead peasant.

Let's create a new system that favors those with an aptitude for compassion and fairness.
Like the Alvarado Bread Company in Michael Moore's new movie.
Call it compassionate capitalism.

Michael Moore is a hero for questioning the stagnant paradigm that exists now.
He never says he has all the answers but at least he's smart enough to question
the spoon-fed, received conditioning of medieval serfdom that US capitalism has become.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pathos

Originally posted by DangrousDave20
reply to post by Pathos
 


Well wouldn't it be nice if education was a norm and not a luxury like it is here in the U.S.? If it works in countries like France why wouldn't work here?

No. If education was a norm in the US or other countries, the value of the education would shrink drastically. Your worth would be in pennies.

Instead of obtaining $50,000 a year, you will only get $100 a year. People go to school to make their lives better. Since it is a gateway to a better way of life, making it a norm will diminish it's worth.





[edit on 10-10-2009 by Pathos]



I disagree with some of what you have said only in the idea that a US college education has become a "normal" thing. I don't want to lump sum all US citizens by saying they all want to or do go to college, but, in my area, a large percentage of high school students do go on to college. Finishing college would be a whole other idea.

A college education (extended eduction past high school) seems to have become a requirement for any job "good" job in the US.
www.progressiveu.org...


This article generalizes that about 1/3rd of US high school graduates go on to college. 1 in 3 seems like pretty good odds for a "pay for it yourself" kind of schooling like a College. The article goes into some depth though and is an interesting read.

wiki.answers.com...

www.careonecredit.com...#


And here is one on the future expense of a US college education:
www.nytimes.com...

I would be in favor of conituing education for anyone in the US if they so desired. The problem would become: "Who can do what?" Not all of us can be lawyers, doctors or garbage men.

[edit on 12-10-2009 by wdkirk]



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 03:07 AM
link   
Moore is an entertainer. I don't know of many people who take his documentaries seriously as its schlocky journalism at best.

He uses a clever mix of bold interviews then mixes known facts with his heavy handed opinion. To the point its hard to conclude the facts from fiction. He's readily admitted he includes questionable material and conclusions to get people to discuss issues - promote his agenda. Hes the Oliver Stone of social documentaries.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Electricneo
Forget the stale ISMs-thisism or thatism.
America is the most creative, innovative country on the planet.
The USA has the best original minds.
Can't we come up with a new system that is fair to all?
Or do we go into the 21st century always looking in the rear view mirror?

It's not fair when some businessmen make 340 times the salary of the workers.
It means that greedy person doesn't play well with others.
If you don't question that then you are a mentally dead peasant.

Let's create a new system that favors those with an aptitude for compassion and fairness.
Like the Alvarado Bread Company in Michael Moore's new movie.
Call it compassionate capitalism.

Michael Moore is a hero for questioning the stagnant paradigm that exists now.
He never says he has all the answers but at least he's smart enough to question
the spoon-fed, received conditioning of medieval serfdom that US capitalism has become.


Honestly, if he likes it so much than why doesnt he start giving away his millions and control of how his company is run? HE IS A CAPITALIST. He might feel real dirty for makin that money, but he sure sleeps ok enough to not give it away.

Id like to see everyone that is for this to start giving away there money and control of their lives first before i give away mine. The best way to get something done is to actually stand up and start to do it yourself, not point fingers when you are doing the same shady stuff as everybody else. Lead by example and if people agree with it, they are more than welcome to do so. But we shouldnt make everybody give up what they have worked for their whole lives just because a couple of hypocrites say it should be like this or that.

With the freedom that is here in the united states people are more than capable of giving away control of their companies to their workers. Its not illegal. Why dont we see the ones that are calling for this to be mandatory not even trying to do it themselves in the first place? Because they are just as greedy, if not more, than the ones they are pointing their fingers at. Plain and simple. If they truly believe that it would work they should start by looking in the mirror before going after somebody else.

Hypocrites make me sick to my stomach.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Do you think that this movie will actually even have an impact? It's just something for people to watch to curb the boredom.




top topics



 
36
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join