I agree, Tina. The problem is that it is so difficult to compete and get our message across because truth (and sound economics) takes longer to explain than emotional soundbytes. Obama made a decision that he was going to give a speech to the school children of the country and then easily made it happen. It takes a great deal of effort to counter that. Maybe thats why statism has always been the status quo and true freedom, such a rarity.

I own “Broke” and think it’s worth the price. Give it a look.

Did he find the word socialism in the constitution?

BTW … Here is how to govern under the Michael Moore plan:

U.K. Faced ‘Bank Runs, Riots’ as RBS and HBOS Neared Collapse

A year ago today, Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc and HBOS Plc were close to collapse, causing a chain reaction that could have ended with riots in U.K. cities, security analysts and economists said … Bank failures would have forced the government to cancel police leave and deploy troops …

So under plan (a) the govt gets to declare martial law and deploy the army on the streets, suspend habeus corpus, clamp down on telecommunications and internet. Under plan (b) the govt gets to seize control of the banking sector and socialize everyone’s savings, investments and mortgages.

That’s what I call a win-win! (for the govt)

You see why central banks are considered to play an absolutely essential role in civilization? (by the govt) Without them, it’s a lot harder to find reasons to rob and plunder the populace.

For Henry,

“The unpaid debt will lead to bankruptcy of banks, which will have to be nationalized, and the State will have to take the road which will eventually lead to communism.”
— Karl Marx, 1867, Das Kapital

Moore tried to get into GM to “share some of his ideas” yet he had none. He is nothing more than an agitator.

As far as the word Socialism being in the Constitution, he pointed to the words “general welfare” which was put in there by Madison. (i think) And Madison made it clear that if you took that in the literal sense it would lead to a perversion of the Constitution. I believe the exact word he used was “metamorphosis.”

The “promote the general welfare” clause is one of the most important and misunderstood parts of the Constitution. It is the concept that the government doesn’t treat anyone different based on gentry or economic class.

By contrast, a Socialist Congressman from Vermont that Moore interviewed claims that “the government is supposed to work for the poor and working class, not the rich.”

Basically, the clause means “equality” not “equalization.” And before the term “Capitalist,” they were referred to as “the owners of Capital” because that’s all it means. It wasn’t until 1900 that Capitalism became known as an actual economic ideology by some German anti-Semite economist.

It is interesting that Michael Moore is becoming a paradox of himself.

It may be this living conflict that makes him so principally, so emotionally and in all likelihood physically weak. He lives in an irony within himeself. As a psychiatrist, his films may be the result of his unconscious conflict of sacrificing (either knowingly or unknowingly) integrity for the sake of fame. As a result, he projects this internal anger into “energy” to make a film against the very principle that has made him a very wealthy man. In the end, he is more worried about the film being a “hit” than being accurate. But recognize, it is through this film that we see the soul of the man beneath. In that, this film can be very instructive. As if this is the case with Mr. Moore, could it be the case psychologically with many who feel the same way??? I’m interested in your thoughts.

Why anyone gives him the celebrity is beyond me. His films are pure propaganda. The reality (and irony) is that the free market of demand is working very well for Michael Moore. “Capitalism has done nothing for me…” is an unbelievable testament to his ignorance that it instantly undermines his credibility. Why did he not petition that taxes be used for the making of his film if he is so skeptic of capitalism?? Why doesn’t he get the government to adopt regulations that would compel us to watch the film?? Why does he rely on the individual if principally he doesn’t believe in him??

The fact that Moore’s film – a film against the force that will make his film a likely success – really shows you the power of a free market (and the individual) if we allow it to thrive. We allow the individual person – acting as a consumer – to decide who succeeds and fails. Even an ill-concieved and unsupported film can succeed in a free market model. It is up to you, to me, to us to make it a success (or a failure). Let us not equate capitalism with corporatism. To do so exposes your ignorance only.

I don’t say this in criticism of Michael Moore because I disagree with his conclusions per se, I say that because his conclusions can be soundly invalidated with only a modicum of a forebrain. The rest is dogma. Let’s just not pretend this film explains capitalism. I am only holding him to the same standard he held President Bush to in demanding we know the FULL TRUTH about the invasion of Iraq in previous films.

Can’t have it both ways, Mr Moore. At least not without sacrificing your credibility. Psychologically, we get it Michael, you can’t blame yorself.

Just don’t blame us Austrians. Even WE believe in your ability to succeed in the free market. Your success already is a testament of your strength. Just come to terms with the demos within.

You – and your fans – will be happier and truly more informed.

And in the end, that is a very good thing for Truth in America.

So lovely,
Peter

LONG LIVE LUDWIG VON MISES!!!!!!!!!

Very nice distinction between capitalism and corporatism. I find myself having to distinguish these two socio-economic systems for some of my professors. Needless to say, they don’t heed the advice.

The choice isn’t between capitalism and socialism but rather between laissez-faire and state-capitalism.

Tina Brewer wrote:

“I’m speculating here, but in my view, one of the reasons people cannot distinguish between corporatism and free-market economics is that free market advocates tend not to make a lot of noise about corporatist abuses. They make a LOT of noise about the prospect of leftish-style socialism, though.”

Part of the problem here is that a lot of the big names in so-called free market advocacy (the Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck types) are in reality anything but. These guys wouldn’t know a free market if it bit them on the arse, but they consider themselves free marketeers, and most people accept that. I heard Hannity promoting a Congress-critter a while ago, whose great plan for getting the housing market back on track was to put a 4% interest rate ceiling on mortgages! So according to a “free market advocate”, price control is the answer? Easy money for homes is the answer to a problem that was caused by too much easy money for homes? Ridiculous!

“Before someone comes along and proposes fully or further socializing medicine, the airwaves are silent in terms of free-marketeers passionately calling for market based reforms on behalf of the little guy.”

This is true, also. And part of this is also because too many “free market advocates” are in reality anything but. But another part of the problem, I think, is that there are too many fronts to fight on at the same time. When the ship is leaking, there is no time to do anything other than bailing water. Now imagine a ship designed such that once a hole gets shot in its hull, you can’t fix it! That’s what we seem to have with Social Security, Medicare, etc., today. They “can’t” be fixed, because doing so would involve dismantling the programs, which would be political suicide. Too many people are dependent on these programs, and/or would rightfully feel cheated if they got nothing back after years of paying into those systems.

“Also confounding this definition is the fact that a contingent of libertarians/free-marketeers are also Randians.”

Most people are for capitalism, but… It’s the buts that are the killers, because there are so many of them (education, the poor, the uninsured, children, the elderly, the environment, blah blah blah). Most people don’t even know how to begin picturing a really small (much less non-existent) state. Even a limited government type like myself who favors things like drug legalization or privatized education is too much for most people. Forget about most people taking an anarcho-libertarian or Randian seriously; not only would they not be taken seriously, they aren’t even on most peoples’ radar.

Pia Varma,

“We allow Keynesian economics to rule the day because its easier to do nothing.”

So what should we do Pia ? Tell us, don’t be shy !

Ms. V,

I think you’re being generous when you likened that opening sequence of armed robberies to the government ripping off the taxpayers.

I think Moore was comparing it to Capitalism. He said as much in the ‘condo vulture’ portion. “this is straight up Capitalism.” then he made the sound of a gun cocking and firing.

That’s some savvy marketing imagery. Of course the opposite is true. If you don’t pay your taxes, guess who is going to show up at your door with guns drawn.

“…we are all in some way to blame even if we have the right ideas — .through our complacency. There is no reason right now that our philosophy should be left out of universities, the media etc. We allow Keynesian economics to rule the day because it’s easier to do nothing.” – Pia Varma

It is challenging enough to raise one generation of children in a home where there are only two primary teachers who may disagree at times and it can be very daunting. But the problem becomes exponentially more difficult in a multigenerational society where a great mass of supposed responsible adults have become deeply emotionally invested in myths and lies which they perpetuate to fulfill the needs of their unhealthy psyches.

There are plenty of reasons why Michael Moore’s movies are more popular in this society than movies such as “Broke” and why ideologies of reason are being ignored or sneered at in most universities. Many people, just like water, will take path of least resistance. Convenient half truths and irrational fantasies that pacify are much easier to teach and accept than reality is, and it only becomes easier for these as these falsies to be passed on as their number grow. There are now multiple generations that are invested in this practice and they grow so does their boldness.

While I agree that we must all quit enabling this process as best we can and do what we can do to correct it, at some point, the problem may become insurmountable. There could come a point where no fact or pointing at reality will change their minds, and it could become dangerously irrational to even try. There is a point where all that you can rationally do is accept the reality, to paraphrase an old west cowboy saying – that a horse will either drink the water on its own or it will parish. And, as long as you have done everything that you reasonably could do to prevent it, then, while you have every right to feel grief, you have no valid reason to feel guilt or shame.

I mangled a couple of lines in my prior post so I offer this correction and short addition.

“…we are all in some way to blame even if we have the right ideas — .through our complacency. There is no reason right now that our philosophy should be left out of universities, the media etc. We allow Keynesian economics to rule the day because it’s easier to do nothing.” – Pia Varma

It is challenging enough to raise one generation of children in a home where there are only two primary teachers who may disagree at times and it can be very daunting. But the problem becomes exponentially more difficult in a multigenerational society where a great mass of supposed responsible adults have become deeply emotionally invested in myths and lies which they perpetuate to fulfill the needs of their unhealthy psyches.

There are plenty of reasons why Michael Moore’s movies are more popular in this society than movies such as “Broke” and why ideologies of reason are being ignored or sneered at in most universities. Many people, just like water, will take path of least resistance. Convenient half truths and irrational fantasies that pacify are much easier to teach and accept than reality is, and it only becomes easier for them as these falsies are passed on and there number grows. There are now multiple generations that are invested in this practice and as they grow so does their confidence and boldness. There is only one thing that will solve this in the end and that is reality… but as they are made to face it, it may not be pretty.

While I agree that we must all quit enabling this process as best we can and do what we can do to correct it, at some point, the problem may become insurmountable. There could come a point where no fact or pointing at reality will change their minds, and it could become dangerously irrational to even try. There is a point where all that you can rationally do is accept the reality — to paraphrase an old west cowboy saying – that a horse will either drink the water on its own or it will parish. And, as long as you have done everything that you reasonably could do to prevent it, then, while you have every right to feel grief, you have no valid reason to feel guilt or shame.

Only when human beings stay grounded in reality do they grow. As they become detached they destroy themselves, and as their detachment grows so does their desperate grasp at the life they can’t deal with, until they end up either completely destroying themselves, or worse, destroy the others that they irrationally blame for their misery.

By Moore’s logic, if a Social program is abused and/or people profit from it, then Socials programs are wrong. But we know that never happens.

And since Moore loves trade unionism, here’s a quote from Teacher’s Union founder and raging Socialist intellectual, Albert Shanker:

“When school children start paying union dues, that ‘s when I’ll start representing the interests of school children.”

And they call themselves Progressive. Methinks the protest too much.

Amit, there are better rock stars than me…http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiKh9Ko3mw4

Although I can sing a mean ‘Lose your love’ by Outfield at the karaoke bar!

Ayn Rand’s book, The Romantic Manifesto, says that art is a reflection of the artists view of man. So what does Michael Moore’s movie tell us about his view of man compared to Covel’s? Indeed.

Also, a point about Moore’s movie . . . he states that since we love Democracy so much, why doesn’t that extend to the work place? Hasn’t every child tried to use the Democracy argument at home? Never works, does it?

Covel, on the other hand, walks us through large concepts and ideas. Everything is transparent, simple, and clear. He begins with a quick synopsis of what led to our current situation: the Fed lowered interest rates to get us out of the dot-com crash and so money was cheap, which led to the subsequent housing boom.

Did this author and I even view the same film?

I get the feeling there is a real want to have Covel’s be something useful and good, but it simply isn’t…and this review is really reaching, to say the least. See my review on the Mises blog page for Broke: The New American Dream here.