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: 3
36
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by 30_seconds
Capitalism has one main problem:

It spirals into a state of affairs where nobody can get anything done that the rich don't want. Why? Because the rich own the corporations, the rich own the land, the rich own the politicians, the rich own the media, so the rich get what they want. Just as importantly, the rich get what you don't want - greater consolidation of their power.

Today you must make an appeal to a large corporation to find a job. You must get a license from the state to work there. You must pay taxes out the wazoo because you can't hire a team of lawyers to find the loopholes. You must borrow money at interest because you're not wealthy enough to pay your house off with a check. You must borrow money to send your kids to school, because college is only for the rich. Every time you turn around you find out that the corporations and the elites that own them have ridiculous advantage, and the people of this world who produce all the goods and services are paying a poor tax on everything in life.

Capitalism is based on the idea that to be anybody in this world, you've got to have money first. Isn't that undemocratic? Doesn't that put a newborn in a disadvantaged position? Think about it. What if they want land? Too bad... it's all been bought up. And if you want to take a piece of someone else's, you're going to have to put your labor (the only thing you own) up on a bidding block to get a job which pays nothing so that you can work your entire life just to (maybe) buy a tiny little piece of it.

Something is terribly terribly wrong. Why do people hold fast to the idea of capitalism like they hold onto religions?

There are much better solutions out there, and the answer is not a "communism vs capitalism" debate. These two choices have been thrust in our face to blind us to the possibilities. They've convinced the public that the only way to organize society is based on a spectrum between two very bad philosophies. There is a third way. (And a fourth, and a fifth...)

I see person after person attempt to laud the virtues of capitalism, but what I hear instead of a comment on the philosophy, is a drawn-out description of how hard they've worked their whole life, and the expectation that they deserve some luxuries and comforts for it... and they'll be damned if anyone is going to take that away from them. I have something to say to those people: you DO deserve so much. When people talk about the "rich" don't flatter yourself. They're not talking about you! Do you rub shoulders with world leaders? Do you create laws? Do you have assets pushing 10 figures? You're not rich!

This isn't about the guy who makes $100k a year being worried that the guy who makes $25k a year is going to take his tax money. It's about the superwealthy deciding for everyone what gets done and how things are going to be, because in a capitalistic world, people don't matter - votes don't matter - only money does. It's a system humanity created. We can un-create it and replace it with something better. Have some imagination, people.

Money was not invented as a tool of freedom, it was created as a weapon.




[edit on 9-10-2009 by 30_seconds]



You're absolutely right!

The problem is that most of these people don't want to have to think of anything new a new way of doing things they'd rather have the government think for them and they will happily say "BAAAAAAAAHHHH"




posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   
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.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   

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.


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.

The problem is that most corporations and their management tend to hog too much of the profits derived from their workers, rather than returning an equitable portion back to their employees in pay and benefits. Someone who works full time deserves to have a decent quality of life. A decent abode, adequate food healthcare, etc. It doesn't matter what job they work. They also need to be able to amass enough money for a decent retirement.

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.

Family of four monthly costs
$1,200 Rent (Mortgage /taxes)
$100 Dwelling insurance
$800 Food and household items
$1000 Health insurance
$300 Transportation
$100 Car Insurance
$300 Utilities ($150 Power, $100 Phone/TV/ Net, $50 water/ sewage
$300 Misc Expenses (Clothes, school supplies, Repairs, etc)
$250 month retirement savings

Basic living expenses for a family of four before tax $4350 per month

Taxes (Income 5% =SS and medicaire 7%) $535 per month

Total Income needed for a moderate and responsible existence in America is $4885 per month. This works out to $25 per hour.
Dual income? add in day care and a higher tax rate on all income. You still have two people working barely able to make ends meet.

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.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Not that he speaks for all Americans, but Michel Moore is a real credit to the USA and for that the world at large. He raises the point that capitalism doesn't abide by fair rules, capitalism is more of a no-holds barred street fight than a boxing match which is practically civil in comparison.

Look, there's no doubt that big corporations will try to influence the direction of the government, its in their interest to do so. The people sitting at the top tables of these corporations which we regard as the so called 'elite' of society, the wealthy rich, do they care or even think about the common man or are we just regarded as work horses or even worse clinical trial subjects for vaccinations? Its been said that the not too distant goal is to have a chip inside of all of us, the chip that will allow us to purchase goods, to do online shopping, to do banking - that is the way we are heading. Its not capitalism any more is it, it's a quasi-dictatorship! That's the message Michel is presenting, nothing more and nothing less.

It was believed that capitalism would cure the worlds ills, while its a more natural system to us westerners than communism we need to identify its flaws if we are ever going to improve matters for future generations.

Never forget you sorry lot, we the people! Unless you fancy a take over by the new world 'elites' who would make your former overlords look like civilised, tea drinking gentiles! (joking here)



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Micheal came across like the intelligent , thoughtful film maker that he is. Iv met him in person and hes a great guy IMO . Did your hear him say that the average ceo of a large company makes 500 times that of his employees? Thats just nuts. He is one of us , but with a louder voice.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by FredMcWoozy
 



Did you know in France if you wanted to start your own business, art gallery, bakery, business services you are not allowed....People leave the country so they can start there own business.


Really?????
Starting a Business in France

You cant just make things up in an attempt to make a point. People are absolutely allowed to start a business in France. Please provide a link to show that residents of France are not allowed to start a business.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by asmall89
Moore is so off base it's not even funny. I just loved the big Democrat sign behind him as he was talking about capitalism, and how wonderful France is, and so on... He says he doesn't want socialism but it's obvious he does. Just using France as an example is proof.
Socialism is just as easily corruptible as Capitalism. Both can be subject to corporate interests. This student is absolutely correct, and Moore a fool. Most of our problems would be fixed with getting rid of the Federal Reserve, putting a sound monetary system in place, and getting rid of lobbyists. Lets address these problems first then see where we are before we decide if we want socialism.


well, france has corporations and capitalistic businesses. they have banks, and currency. they have the rich, the middle class, and the poor. the difference is that the government has put in controls and regulations that do not let corporations get out of control. they don't let let them rip off workers, they don't let them rip off consumers, and they don't let them rip off the government. now bashing france for their particuler type of government, where the people of the country come first and not private wealth is not something that should be dismissed as being bad. like moore said...you don't see tax revolts in the streets, because the people see what they are getting for their taxes and believe it to be in their interest.

[edit on 9-10-2009 by jimmyx]



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by sligtlyskeptical
 


Well said. Maybe we need a new term, I mean perhaps none of the existing terms, capitalism, socialism, communism, ect, maybe none of them fit the answer because none of them are the answer. Maybe what Moore and others propose requires its own term, and its own definition. Maybe we've just lost the ability to think to the point that we can't even think of a new name? Meanwhile people argue semantics and do nothing.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Hahaha, oh I love it.

Just watching Michael Moore slip up...priceless. What a joker; what a buffoon.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 01:18 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.


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.

The problem is that most corporations and their management tend to hog too much of the profits derived from their workers, rather than returning an equitable portion back to their employees in pay and benefits. Someone who works full time deserves to have a decent quality of life. A decent abode, adequate food healthcare, etc. It doesn't matter what job they work. They also need to be able to amass enough money for a decent retirement.

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.

Family of four monthly costs
$1,200 Rent (Mortgage /taxes)
$100 Dwelling insurance
$800 Food and household items
$1000 Health insurance
$300 Transportation
$100 Car Insurance
$300 Utilities ($150 Power, $100 Phone/TV/ Net, $50 water/ sewage
$300 Misc Expenses (Clothes, school supplies, Repairs, etc)
$250 month retirement savings

Basic living expenses for a family of four before tax $4350 per month

Taxes (Income 5% =SS and medicaire 7%) $535 per month

Total Income needed for a moderate and responsible existence in America is $4885 per month. This works out to $25 per hour.
Dual income? add in day care and a higher tax rate on all income. You still have two people working barely able to make ends meet.

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.




Thank you, that was exactly the point I was trying to make when I said we sould all work for free and get no breaks or benefits!!! You however,put it very eloquently and truthfully!

And if my coputer wasn't being so retarded today I may have been able to add some, but right now I am fighting a losing battle with it!



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by AnonymousMoose
 


You are suggesting that workers democratically working within a company to macke decisions is communism, i disagree. There are many shades to this situation, and they are not all designed to take away your sovereignty.

No, the running of a company by the workers within it is a co-operative, and there are many many examples of these companies all over the world. in the UK we have a chain of relatively low-cost supermarkets called simply The Co-operative society. They also do reasonably priced funerals. most fair-sized towns have a co-op supermarket. they have been running for many many years and are a part of the UK psyche.

Co-operativism is neither fascist (corporatism) nor communist. it is a by-the-people for-the-people concept (all members - including staff members and many many customers - are stakeholders and all receive dividends) but it is run like a regular business. In as much as they can, they source foods that are fair-trade, free-range and organic, and supply these at a reasonable price.

The system works, has worked, and will continue to work. There are many other ways to run companies and businesses. this is just one other.

On Topic, I don't Moore has been "destroyed" by this student at all. Your personal likes or dislikes don't alter the fact that his movies will wake up many americans to see the ugly truth behind the glamourous posters and adverts that litter your lives, and maybe get angry enough to start looking for alternatives themselves. After all americans are supposed to be pioneers, or did that spirit leave as soon as the mayflower actually landed?

Is it because he's fat?

[edit on 2009-10-9 by pr0metheu5]



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dea_Ex_Machina
Hahaha, oh I love it.

Just watching Michael Moore slip up...priceless. What a joker; what a buffoon.


why do you have to call him names..i've seen him slip up many, many times. the points that he has made with his films, have been well recieved around the world, and has provided a different point of view, that alot of other people have felt, but never have been able to express in such a large way. it is obvious that moore is not a socialist or communist by his own admission that he has made alot of money from the films. he is not advocating an extreme, he IS advocatiing for more regulations for corporations and businesses, that will benefit the MAJORITY of people in america and not just a few.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by pr0metheu5
 


A co-operative democracy where banks do nothing except store money.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Exactly.

Michael Moore is not against capitalism; he's against the corruption that occurs in these corporations.

When an executive gets millions of dollars in bonuses, how does that help people? How is that going to change things?

When these companies waste for their top dogs, it's pathetic...



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   
I am a bit more objective here. What this man has to say is right in many areas. The wealthy 1% do control all of the money. Can you debate this? No you can't. He is also right about health care. Compared to the rest of the world we are the 3rd worst!! Even though we have the most technology. Does this make sense to you?

I think many people here just simply dislike this man and therefore don't listen because they don't like the messenger. It is a shame. Personally I did not like him or his style for a long time. Then as I researched more and more the message stands out, not the man. Yes he makes money on hi films. This money then goes towards living and making more films. Is there something wrong with that?

I am personally glad that there is someone out there raising important questions. I glad someone can challenge TPTB in this way, publicly. Do I wish Noam Chomski was able to get this same media attention ABSOLUTELY. The simple fact is, he cannot. That is because M.Moore adds some fun and drama to his films where others like Noam are more serious and to the point. This has to do with what the avg. citizen wants to see. Drama.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   
I really don't see how someone wearing a 'Capitalism' T-shirt with the Coca-Cola typefont, whining about the name of the movie 'owned' as you put it, Michael Moore...



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Some people absolutely amaze me on here. I'm guessing when the Member wrote the OP and said Moore was destroyed, he must of been joking.

I'm not a big Moore fan either. I find his motivations are largely political and anyone can give a one sided look at things, but this video actually had the opposite effect on me. If this is him getting destroyed I must have watched something else.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Wimbly
 


Ha Ha does anyone believe he is not in with the NWO now. He just preached Obamas line. No CEO should make more money, Give the little guy a chance. You mean give it to the little guy, The non-American from Mexico who happens to be the least educated and deserving right.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   
Geez, he loves France so much, yet he still lives in the US and hangs out with his Capitalist buddies.
Pay no attention to the fat man wearing the cap.

Hey wait a sec, he looks just like the KoolAid character.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Wimbly
 


We must have seen a different video. Michael Moore is not destroyed in this, but has problems with both the government and the corporations. Basically, the government we "elect" is run by the corporations. Senator Max Baucus received over $8,000,000 from big Pharma and other health corporations to defeat any type of public option or choice. He did insert in the bill a plan to fine people who did not buy the health insurance from the huge corporations out there.

Is Max Baucus working for the people, or for the corporations?

Mr Moore also doesn't have the solutions and says so. But he is very correct in saying the system does not care about us, just the fat cats who run it and the people they pick to run for office.

We have found out that communism doesn't work, and now see the problems with capitalism unchecked. I too am for free markets, but the system of capitalism we have is anything but free market. Just tell that to all those Mom and Pop stores put out of business by Wally World.



new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join