Reaction thread to Capitalism: A Love Story

Early on, we see footage of people being evicted from their homes. What I don't get is why people feel entitled to their homes, even when they don't pay? For some reason, because their great grandpa built the house, or because they've lived there for 40 years, or because they have no where else to go they feel like they're entitled to break property rules which everyone is subject to. If people were not forced to pay rent or mortgages, the prices of homes would skyrocket and only those in the very top socioeconomic classes would be able to afford housing. Unless people are forced to pay for what they own or consume, those resources would have to be allocated by something/someone other than the market. And using Russia as a case study, I don't think that's something we want.

What makes American great is that more so than any other nation in the world, you get what you provide to society. But the flip side is, if you don't provide anything, you don't get a job, housing, food, etc.

"People who buy and sell repossessed homes only to make a profit are "taking advantage of the misfortune of others."" Is this misfortune the inability to pay for something that you entered into a legal contract to pay for?

Moore highlights the 90% top tax rate during the post WWII years as something great, which allowed government to improve infrastructure, build schools and hospitals, and provide free medical and dental. He does highlight the fact that America was thriving mainly because Germany and Japan had just had their nations and economies crippled as a result of the war.

He claims that the tax cuts enacted by Reagan were nothing more than a push for short term profit for big business, spurred on by secretary of the treasury Don Regan. Americans were now "encouraged to use credit." Encouraged yes, but no one is compelled to use credit. It's one's own fault if he spends beyond his means. Moore uses the statistic of the ratio CEO pay to workers pay, which increased by 649%. The American public just doesn't realize how good CEO's are at their jobs, the stress they endure, they lack of job security they are subject to; and can't accept the fact that someone can be paid so much more than themselves. Should I be able to accept that LeBron James has about 1000% more athletic ability than me? Should I be able to accept the fact that most foreigners are 250% more fluent in more languages than myself? Should I be able to accept the fact that Steve Jobs is unbelievably more qualified to run Apple than myself? Or are these simply injustices that make their monetary incomes a crime against humanity?

Moore discusses Flint and Detroit and the impacts of capitalism there, namely the large profits for the car companies in the midst of large layoffs in the 90's. I guess the reality that labor was cheaper in places other than East Michigan was too complex to understand; it's easier to just blame big business.

Moore hit the nail on the head in this respects. After decades of fantastic profits for GM, Germany and Japan rebuilt their car manufacturers and produced cars that were "safer, more fuel efficient, and rarely broke down." That's why they failed, not some breakdown in capitalism.

Moore relies heavily on individual stories, using emotion in an attempt to sway the viewer. But no one should base decisions, change their beliefs, or pass legislation because of individual stories. I'm sure there are many cases where someone was killed who fully deserved it. We haven't made murder legal. In cases of rape or incest, abortions are the better option. We haven't made abortion legal. I'm sure some people need the food in my refrigerator a whole lot more than I do. We haven't made theft legal. I'm sure many people who were good at their jobs got laid off. But we allow private business to conduct itself in the way it sees fit. If a worker wants more job security that they currently have, they are free to pursue alternative employment. That employment will likely pass less or require different skills, in order to compensate for the added job security they are providing.

America was founded by people who wanted a better life than the one they had. So with little more than the clothes on their backs, they risked their lives to travel here and begin a new life. Everything they gained was a result of their own work. They didn't feel entitled to anything. They weren't entitled to anything. Yet in today's age, people living in American feel they are entitled to all kinds of things, simply because they live here. A living wage, job security, a house, food, healthcare. These are all things that are not rights, they are privileges granted to those who earn them. I have no compassion for the worker who gets laid off and complains about the injustice of it all, instead of bettering himself. I have no compassion for the illegal immigrant who cannot obtain housing. You're worth to the country is only what you can provide to society. On being laid off in Detroit, "I don't think anyone at this plant deserves what they are doing to us." Yet another worker who feels entitled to his job, regardless of his value to the company.

"Pat Andrews has been looking for work. Every morning she scans the classifieds in vain." She had a very limited set of skills and she was not willing to move. Still, it's a great injustice and a failure of capitalism that she could not find a job. The unwillingness to use logic and common sense astounds me.

Moore tells the story of Wilkesbury, PA, where the local juvenile facility was privatized. Here is one place capitalism should not be. There should not be a monetary incentive involved with the legal system. Corruption in the legal system and in local law enforcement needs to be curbed. Moore does claim that "6500 children were unjustly convicted." I guess he knows what's right in every single case.

Moore talks about pilots, and the small incomes they make, some as low as 17,000. NEWS FLASH: Any pilot who can make more than that in another job is free to leave! If you don't leave, you either love your job enough to warrant the less pay....or you aren't qualified to get another job so complaining is unwarranted. "There would be no discussion in the media about why we have an economic system that allow a pilot to be paid less than a manager at Taco Bell." Any pilot can take that job at Taco Bell. A few pilots talk about their student loans, from 80,000 to 100,000. No one forced you to go to school. You did that in hopes of it being a wise investment. If, in light of what you now make, it wasn't a good investment, then maybe your market research and due diligence was lacking. But of course you should be bailed out from that, it wasn't your responsibility to make an informed decision about your future. I realize now that going to Hope College was a poor investment decision, and that's something I take full responsibility for. I don't blame other for my poor choice. I am now taking steps to improve myself in the eyes of employers, and hope to be compensated for that, not compensated out of pity.

Moore also raised the point that companies can take out insurance policies against their employees, naming themselves as the beneficiaries. He thinks this is somehow wrong, when it is no different than any other life insurance policy. The companies have a vested interest in protecting their asset. The companies are not profiting off their employees' deaths; they are paying the premiums demanded by insurance companies to protect their assets. Insurance companies hire the brightest mathematicians to be their actuaries, figuring out what premiums to charge based on the size of policy and the the life expectancy of the covered.

Moore talks to a few priests and bishops who called capitalism "immoral and a radical evil." First of all, it's easy for those who are not subject to capitalism to criticize it. Secondly, capitalism exists because most people are not religious and do not have morals. If everyone did, socialism would be the best option and would provide utopia. But as history shows us, people are not that way, and socialism did not results in utopia. One priest quotes that Jesus said "blessed are the poor." Jesus did say that, and it's every Christians responsibility to look out for the poor. It's not something that government can mandate.

Paul Krugman

I think Paul Krugman is an idiot, so I'm going to offer my critique of some of his articles.

In this article, Krugman talks about how many on both the right and the left are criticizing Obama for focusing on healthcare and forgetting the economy. He contends that either Obama only had a choice back in 2009, or he was doomed on the economy all along. I guess he was doomed all along because he doesn't really have the mindset to improve the economy. But to contend that his only chance to choose between focusing on healthcare or the economy was back in 2009 in just dead wrong.

The problem is that the ways to actually help the economy are ways that liberals and democrats think don't work. They would never cut taxes, especially on businesses, (those greedy bastards). They would never decrease the minimum wage. They would never release restriction and regulation on businesses, especially small businesses. They would never alter tax laws and regulation to make it easier for companies to invest in R & D. They would never lift restrictions on banks so that credit is more readily available to companies.

Instead, they'll raise the minimum wage, in the misguided belief that it helps workers. They'll encourage unions to form, facilitate more power for the unions. They'll enact tariffs and embargoes on foreign imports. They'll tax big business more. They'll add restrictions on those preparing our taxes (wait, they already did that). They'll do many on these things and then be baffled when the economy continues to worsen.

Hopefully the citizens of every state will follow the citizens of Massachusetts' lead, actually thinking about the issues that affect them and voting accordingly. As our economy continues to decline, people will realize that focusing on social issues like healthcare, poverty, social security, etc are surefire ways to weaken and destroy economies. Hopefully. I'm not counting on it.

*****

In this article, he write about the conundrum that is Ben Bernanke's confirmation. This is actually a good article, highlighting both sides of the issue with remarkable clarity and lucidity for Krugman.

*****

In this article, he talks about how the democrats are planning to push the healthcare bill through. He claims that at least the democrats are standing for "something." So standing for "something" that increases the national deficit, and lowers the level of healthcare provided to all is better than standing for "nothing?" Glad to know he's such a respected mind.

*****

In this article, he writes how an unexpected outcome of Massachusetts was a turn against Geithner, Summers, and Bernanke. I certainly can't contest the fact that it's happening, but can contest the fact that they're the only ones to blame for the state of the economy. Oh right, Obama's absolved because of all the jobs he "saved." How can I forget the great work he's done on the economy. It's pretty convenient to laud yourself for something unquantifiable.

*****

Here's another one. I guess now the president isn't too keen on backing the healthcare plan. Maybe he's concerned about what the public thinks. They don't really like it. It's really impressive how well Krugman checks his facts, making sure he writes with integrity.

And another related one.

*****

In closing, as informed, critical-thinking members of society, we are truly blessed to have such an educated, bi-partisan, critical-thinking, unbiased, member of the academic and news groups to write about important issues. If you aren't able to detect my tone, you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Rights

Walter Williams speaks my language. While some may take issue with his definition of a "right" (The New Oxford Dictionary's first listing for nouns is: "that which is morally correct, just, or honorable" which obviously has implications different than what Williams is saying) decent housing, free healthcare, a steady job are simply not "rights" in a free economy. If you can't afford beef, you substitute chicken; if you can't afford chicken, you substitute potatoes or something else. Now I'm not saying a type of dinner is on the same scale as healthcare, but the fact is, if you can't pay for it, you don't get it. If you really want it, you'll have to get smarter, work harder, or decide against something else. Also, you get what you pay for. In every country that rates higher than the US in healthcare, most have some sort of private healthcare, paid for by individuals. And without fail, everyone that can pay for it, even if it straps their budgets, do. They know the best healthcare is the private one; they know from experience. It will be no different here. Government run healthcare will be free, slow, inefficient, and mostly inept. To hope differently is not glass-half full or optimistic, it's utopian, uneducated, and crippling.

Check this out. The highlight, "The idea that every life is infinitely precious and therefore everyone deserves the same kind of optimal medical care is a fine religious sentiment and moral ideal. As political and economic policy, it is vainglorious delusion. Rich and educated people not only receive better goods and services in all areas of life than do poor and uneducated people, they also tend to take better care of themselves and their possessions, which in turn leads to better health." Was that too harsh? Szasz doesn't think so, and neither do I. That last sentence is the key one, and one that people do not want to admit.

Uh oh

This isn't good. If Obama is being too optimistic regarding the economy (he is being too optimistic, he's running it into the ground..zing!) then all this government spending should have us really worried. Let's say that some health care bill passes, which would entail enormous spending. It's entirely possible that out economy is still struggling one year, two years, from now. There will be a massive deficit. What will we do? Print more money, eroding the purchasing power of the money Americans already have? Raise taxes to ridiculous levels on the rich, diminishing their incentive to work, invest, and create jobs? Raise taxes on everyone, gasp? The options are all bleak.

Wow

I'm going to agree with the Amateur Economist on this one. Attempting to get rid of the "monopolizing effects of privately provided healthcare" by moving toward government/public provided healthcare is so idiotic and inane, you have to wonder how she blundered into her current position. I wouldn't hire her to run a gas station, much less to improve our healthcare system. It'd be really nice if unqualified people who can't think critically like Ms. Sibelius never got to make important decisions.