Wow...really misses the point of the film and, not surprising, degenerates into fear and paranoia combined with zombie like worship of capitalism. I think ol' Ann was probably personally offended at the hilarious (and spot on) bit regarding mass hypnosis, the free market, capitalism, and Jesus Christ.
I do agree, though, that Moore was off and just as bad as those who say that socialism is evil by calling capitalism evil. He contradicts himself both within the film and without...the film was financed by Viacom which is connected with Goldman Sachs. A few minor adjustments and his film would've been even more brilliant than it was.
I wonder if anyone here will have the sack to see it?
Mark, I have the sack (and more importantly, the contents) to watch "Two Girls, One Cup" but I don't, and for much the same reason as I won't be watching MM's latest dose of Leftist claptrap.
"I wonder if anyone here will have the sack to see it?"
Only if you can give a reasonable explanation about A) why I should give money to a known liar, and B) why I should engage in capitalist behavior with a guy who claims capitalism is evil.
Damn, you guys work cheap! My billing rate is $120/hr. (I don't get paid that, but my company does, the greedy ba*tards.) And as I've said before, I'm not willing to pick through his shit to find the kernels of corn. Those kernels are, after all, covered in shit.
I wouldn't know, I haven't seen it. However, the linked article isn't a review of the film in the first place, it merely uses a review of the film as a springboard to rationally discuss what he disagrees with about the underlying premise of collectivism in all its forms. You can call it "fear", "paranoia", "zombie-like" and "worship" all you like, but if you won't point to what you disagree with and articulate why, what's the point?
I wonder if anyone here will have the sack to see it?
To watch the quintessential wealthy fat cat tell me why wealthy fat cats are bad? Sure, I suppose it's possible it'll be amusing. But I'll be damned if I'm gonna pay him for the privilege.
Oh, and you can have me cheap too, my rate is only $20/hr. Granted, I get a 4 hour minimum....
"I wonder if anyone here will have the sack to see it?"
I wasn't going to comment on this, but since it's a hot topic: Mark, I feel discriminated against by this sexist comment. I await your apology. I am also deeply disturbed by the involuntary association this created in my mind of male equipment with both you and Michael Moore. I await your double-apology.
The word "capitalism" is largely a Marxist meme, and it distorts the idea of an unregulated marketplace into something that becomes a system, with planners, managers, economists, MBAs, CEOs, CFOs, and finally government bureaucrats -- who become collectively those who control "Capitalism."
...
That's because we all know what deregulation did, don't we?
Think about deregulation. What does it really mean? That something was regulated, and the regulations were eliminated or loosened. But in a true free market setting, there would be no need to talk in terms of deregulation, because there would have been little or no government regulation of the marketplace to begin with.
What really bothers me, though, is the way the current economic crisis is being spun as having been caused by deregulation (especially deregulation of the banking system) having run wild. In logic, this boils down to seeing the free market as the culprit, and the freer the market is, the more dangerous things will be. Naturally, the way out of this mess is to regulate, regulate, and re-regulate.
...
It used to be that you had to actually qualify for a loan. You had to demonstrate income, creditworthiness, equity in the home, that the downpayment wasn't borrowed, etc. before the stuffy uptight pinstriped guys would even think about giving you a loan. It was good that they were uptight. The "system" (for lack of a better word) worked.
...
The answer, as most of us know, is the government. It wasn't as if these guys just stripped off their pinstripes and dove into the economic orgy room; they did something that's really perfectly in character for stuffy uptight guys -- they did as they were told. And they were told not to ever under any circumstances do anything that might in any way be interpreted by anyone at ACORN to have so much as a smidgen of an appearance of anything resembling discrimination. (A word denoting pure, unmitigated evil.)
...
... meant that there really was no downside to anything, whether deliberate irresponsibility or government-mandated irresponsibility. The taxpayers would be responsible.
This may be many things, and it may of course be profoundly immoral, but to call it "deregulation" or "an excess of the free market" is absurd.
...
There is nothing free about being underwritten by the government, and because taxpayers are forced to foot the bill, it is in fact a profound distortion of the market. A market operating on money which people were forced by the government to pay in cannot be called free. And on a personal level, if I am given a financial guarantee that the taxpayers will be forced to bail me out of anything I do, nothing I do with that money (a guarantee is virtually money) is free, and it is absurd to characterize my behavior as the result of "deregulation."
To amplify your point: "capitalism," strictly speaking can go on in free or unfree markets. It is a means of organizing the deployment of economic resources so that they are governed by the flows of "capital," and the institutions designed to handle it.
If you have banks, you have capitalism. If you have stock markets, you have capitalism. Capitalism is practically orthogonal to the freedom of an economy.
That we were suckered into equating capitalism with free markets is one more piece of evidence for the co-option of classical liberals by the plutocrats, who will use us when convenient and then run straight to the government teat when conditions change.
Money is only virtuous in that it represents value added by, wait for it..
Work.
Work is performed by people using something they own, their life.
They own their life - they own their work and what they accept in exchange for their work - - money.
Money is virtuous, because it is ennobled by man's labor.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2009/10/quote-of-day-socialism-edition.html (21 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
I think I'll be pulling QotD's from this piece for the next several days.
Somehow I thought you might.
Wow...really misses the point of the film and, not surprising, degenerates into fear and paranoia combined with zombie like worship of capitalism. I think ol' Ann was probably personally offended at the hilarious (and spot on) bit regarding mass hypnosis, the free market, capitalism, and Jesus Christ.
I do agree, though, that Moore was off and just as bad as those who say that socialism is evil by calling capitalism evil. He contradicts himself both within the film and without...the film was financed by Viacom which is connected with Goldman Sachs. A few minor adjustments and his film would've been even more brilliant than it was.
I wonder if anyone here will have the sack to see it?
combined with zombie like worship
I'd get a faraday cage, were I you, Ralph.
I wonder if anyone here will have the sack to see it?
Actually, yes, yes I do have those sacks.
I carry 3 in my flight bag at all times - just in case there's some turbulence and passengers need them.
Annnnd cue Marky!
When he isn't busy defending the sex traders at ACORN, you can find him sucking up to Moore.
At least, in this regard, he is consistent.
P.J. O'Rourke: "When the legislature controls what is bought and sold the first thing that is bought and sold is legislators"
Mark, I have the sack (and more importantly, the contents) to watch "Two Girls, One Cup" but I don't, and for much the same reason as I won't be watching MM's latest dose of Leftist claptrap.
Marky,
"I wonder if anyone here will have the sack to see it?"
Only if you can give a reasonable explanation about A) why I should give money to a known liar, and B) why I should engage in capitalist behavior with a guy who claims capitalism is evil.
You buying, Wormtongue? I'll see it for the price of a ticket plus my standard freelance rate, $85 per hour. Payable in advance.
"I do agree, though, that Moore was off and just as bad as those who say that socialism is evil by calling capitalism evil."
And yet you described his film as "brilliant". You stated:
"And, yes, I did see the new Moore film last night with last in line (who will be reviewing the film on my blog soon). It was brilliant."
Yet again, you wallow in self-contradiction to avoid admitting error. Same old shit, different day.
Good idea, Ken. Don't forget the analysis time and access to the materials necessary for the analysis. (A copy of the movie.)
For the record, my standard rate is $90/hour.
Marky, you now have options on who to hire to review Moore Distortion's latest movie. Capitalism at work! ;)
Damn, you guys work cheap! My billing rate is $120/hr. (I don't get paid that, but my company does, the greedy ba*tards.) And as I've said before, I'm not willing to pick through his shit to find the kernels of corn. Those kernels are, after all, covered in shit.
I'm self employed. No big company overhead. Just small company overhead. And no safety net. :)
What the heck, put me down for a viewing, too. $100/hr + ticket + snacks.
If Mark's not up for it, then I'll just wait until I can see the free-of-charge "Special People's Edition" on DVD.
I wonder if anyone here will have the sack to see it?
Sure I'll see it, when it doesn't cost me anything but my time.
Wouldn't want to contribute to that evil capitalism or any of that nasty profit to MM.
"Sack to see it" -WTF? Are we back in 5th grade or something??
...really misses the point of the film...
I wouldn't know, I haven't seen it. However, the linked article isn't a review of the film in the first place, it merely uses a review of the film as a springboard to rationally discuss what he disagrees with about the underlying premise of collectivism in all its forms. You can call it "fear", "paranoia", "zombie-like" and "worship" all you like, but if you won't point to what you disagree with and articulate why, what's the point?
I wonder if anyone here will have the sack to see it?
To watch the quintessential wealthy fat cat tell me why wealthy fat cats are bad? Sure, I suppose it's possible it'll be amusing. But I'll be damned if I'm gonna pay him for the privilege.
Oh, and you can have me cheap too, my rate is only $20/hr. Granted, I get a 4 hour minimum....
"I wonder if anyone here will have the sack to see it?"
Said the little boy who doesn't have the sack to admit his own errors.
"I wonder if anyone here will have the sack to see it?"
I wasn't going to comment on this, but since it's a hot topic: Mark, I feel discriminated against by this sexist comment. I await your apology. I am also deeply disturbed by the involuntary association this created in my mind of male equipment with both you and Michael Moore. I await your double-apology.
Kev:
Might have some competition for that piece for QOTD...
http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2009/10/was_it_really_d.html
The word "capitalism" is largely a Marxist meme, and it distorts the idea of an unregulated marketplace into something that becomes a system, with planners, managers, economists, MBAs, CEOs, CFOs, and finally government bureaucrats -- who become collectively those who control "Capitalism."
...
That's because we all know what deregulation did, don't we?
Think about deregulation. What does it really mean? That something was regulated, and the regulations were eliminated or loosened. But in a true free market setting, there would be no need to talk in terms of deregulation, because there would have been little or no government regulation of the marketplace to begin with.
What really bothers me, though, is the way the current economic crisis is being spun as having been caused by deregulation (especially deregulation of the banking system) having run wild. In logic, this boils down to seeing the free market as the culprit, and the freer the market is, the more dangerous things will be. Naturally, the way out of this mess is to regulate, regulate, and re-regulate.
...
It used to be that you had to actually qualify for a loan. You had to demonstrate income, creditworthiness, equity in the home, that the downpayment wasn't borrowed, etc. before the stuffy uptight pinstriped guys would even think about giving you a loan. It was good that they were uptight. The "system" (for lack of a better word) worked.
...
The answer, as most of us know, is the government. It wasn't as if these guys just stripped off their pinstripes and dove into the economic orgy room; they did something that's really perfectly in character for stuffy uptight guys -- they did as they were told. And they were told not to ever under any circumstances do anything that might in any way be interpreted by anyone at ACORN to have so much as a smidgen of an appearance of anything resembling discrimination. (A word denoting pure, unmitigated evil.)
...
... meant that there really was no downside to anything, whether deliberate irresponsibility or government-mandated irresponsibility. The taxpayers would be responsible.
This may be many things, and it may of course be profoundly immoral, but to call it "deregulation" or "an excess of the free market" is absurd.
...
There is nothing free about being underwritten by the government, and because taxpayers are forced to foot the bill, it is in fact a profound distortion of the market. A market operating on money which people were forced by the government to pay in cannot be called free. And on a personal level, if I am given a financial guarantee that the taxpayers will be forced to bail me out of anything I do, nothing I do with that money (a guarantee is virtually money) is free, and it is absurd to characterize my behavior as the result of "deregulation."
UJ,
To amplify your point: "capitalism," strictly speaking can go on in free or unfree markets. It is a means of organizing the deployment of economic resources so that they are governed by the flows of "capital," and the institutions designed to handle it.
If you have banks, you have capitalism. If you have stock markets, you have capitalism. Capitalism is practically orthogonal to the freedom of an economy.
That we were suckered into equating capitalism with free markets is one more piece of evidence for the co-option of classical liberals by the plutocrats, who will use us when convenient and then run straight to the government teat when conditions change.
HAAAAAMMMMIIIIILLLLLTOONNNNNNNNN!!!!!![/capnkirk]
Money is only virtuous in that it represents value added by, wait for it..
Work.
Work is performed by people using something they own, their life.
They own their life - they own their work and what they accept in exchange for their work - - money.
Money is virtuous, because it is ennobled by man's labor.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>