TIME: Why Michael Moore Hates Capitalism

[marmar]

Q&A: Why Michael Moore Hates Capitalism

By Bill Saporito
Saturday, Sep. 26, 2009


Since his debut in 1979's Roger and Me, documentary filmmaker/agitator Michael Moore has aimed his blunderbuss of a lens against large American corporations and the institutions that he believes have flat-out screwed the working class. In his latest film, Capitalism, Moore ridicules the business philosophy that has blown up the economy, resulted in 6 million job losses and required more than a $1 trillion in bailout money to keep the banks afloat — while millions of people have lost their homes to foreclosure. He's a man who has made perpetual outrage an art form in every sense of the word. He had some choice words for TIME's business editor, Bill Saporito.

What brought you back to a film about the economy?
I've been thinking about this for about the entire 20 years I've been making movies. Most of the subject matter all comes back to the simple theme of an economic system that is unfair and unjust, in which a few people with a lot of money are making decisions that cause a lot misery and heartache for millions of people.

So it wasn't a specific incident?
The Republicans and the Right Wing gave permission for all of us to use words we haven't used before: capitalism and socialism. So let's have a discourse. They called Obama a socialist because he told Joe the plumber he wanted to spread the wealth around. Then we had the crash and a month later Bush is talking about the glories of capitalism. I don't' remember in my lifetime where the President starts off a speech says, "And now class, today's topic is capitalism." They started using these words, so now it's on the table. Let's talk about it.

Bank of America wants to give back the TARP money it borrowed. In one very funny sequence in Capitalism, you back up an armored truck to various banks and demand the return of our money. Maybe you were just a tad early?
And the AIG money? I don't think we're going to see any of that. You cannot steal money, and then invest the money and then give it back. You can't, let's say you are the president of the Kiwanis. You can't take the organization's money, go make a profitable investment and then slip it back. It's a felony. It's as if you beat up your spouse and then take your spouse to the hospital and then say: 'How about that: I took her all the way down to the hospital. That's the kind of guy I am.' ..........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1926356,00.html

[YOY]

1. Why did we ever let the fucking RW and Republicans redefine certain words:

"Liberal", "Family Values", "Christian", "Mercenary", "Socialism", "Patriotism", "Competence"

and of course "Reaganomics" = "Capitalism" and "Everything else" = "Socialism/communism"

[tavalon]

2. We don't "let" them, they are really, really good at the rebranding

We have one guy on our side trying to teach us about that technique and we don't listen (George Lakoff). It's strange to think of Repubs as being good at anything, but they are good at this. And whoever owns the language, to some extent, owns the reality.

[HughBeaumont]

15. That combined with media conglomerates as personal water carriers doesn't hurt.

[Touchdown]

3. How do these reporters get a paycheck? Roger & Me was 1989.

:grr:

[marmar]

4. I didn't even notice that......and from TIME magazine no less.

Oh well, it's just a NEWS magazine. It's not like facts are important. :)

[timeforpeace]

5. Because he's a hypocrite?

[girl gone mad]

6. Yeah, that never gets old.

:eyes:

[Touchdown]

8. I have to laugh! How big of a millionaire was John "Start a Revolution" Lennon anyhow?

Look at the above's avatar. Hypocrite to be sure.:rofl:

[KittyWampus]

16. check that poster's history... the comment and others made all add up.

[Canuckistanian]

7. If that's all you take from his message, then fine

It's the shallowest, most facile explanation of what MM is trying to say. Worthy of FR, in fact.

What MM is railing about is the ABUSE of capitalism, the rigging of the system, the CHEATING that pure, unadulterated, unregulated capitalism allows.

Does he make a lot of money? Fucking right he does. But that's becuase he makes something of value.

He doesn't sit on his ass waiting for dividend checks or check his stock portfolio to see how much money he's made today.

To quote an old TV show, he made his money the old-fashioned way - HE EARNED IT.

[HughBeaumont]

9. Because he believes that Milton Friedman's theories were cockamamie piles of crapola?

Because the Reagan brand of disaster corporanomics (which more or less borrow from the worst and most selfish of Friedman's, Hayek's and Strauss' ideas) has failed EVERYwhere it's been installed?

Because he doesn't believe laissez-fail corporatism works?

Because assured failure awaits undiverse economic systems that rotate everything around debt instruments, consumerism and war while sending all production of real items overseas?

Because he doesn't think "free trade", the way it's set up now, is great for anyone except the top 5%?

Because he believes that more equal societies simply fair far better than ones that aren't (for instance, the USA)??

Because he believes his own lying eyes just looking around his boarded up, weeded-parking lot state, and many others?

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

Time to wake up. You've been sold snake oil.

[armyowalgreens]

10. EPIC FAIL.

[HughMoran]

11. Still jabbing people with your one-liners?

I can't believe you even waste your time posting here - I can't think of 5 threads where you've posted anything other than a subject line.

[HughBeaumont]

12. Said poster believes Milton Friedman was correct.

Thus the sensitivity over anything that dares mess with his precious ingrained brand of corporatism.

[comtec]

13. said poster seems to be a freeper with liberal clothing

sad.
why don't we just ban his ass and be done with him?

[YOY]

14. Says a lot to keep dry humping that angle after all the evidence to the contrary.

n.t.