Michael Moore - Capitalism
(Senior Monkey, 92
Points)
on 4/20/10 at 5:40am
Just watching Moores Capitalism movie
heres a HQ link for anyone interest: http://xtshare.com/toshare.php?Id=19922
It got me thinking, there isnt really any way to solve income inequality, there will always be people who are smarter/more endowed etc, who can accumulate the other peoples wealth.
For fellow econ nerds, no matter where you start off in the edgeworth box with initial endowments, it seems the natural process will always drive the equilibrium towards a corner point.
I dont see this due to an ypolicies or strucutres of society, it seems like its simply an evolutionary type process.
Rant over, enjoy the vid, always enjoy a Moore flick, whether i love or hate it.
http://convertyourbond.com
Free market commentary and trading insights to help with interviews
whatever the form of society,
whatever the form of society, there will be 1% people who'll have all the power:
Capitalism: power = money
socialism: power = high political office
I watch Moore's movies bc
I watch Moore's movies bc they never fail to disappoint. His standard recipe is:
1. make a semi-valid point, then poison it with his liberal bias.
2. leave out or ignore key informational details in his examples.
3. interview the dumbest/craziest people he can find.
Just a few quick points. When he has the guy explaining what a derivative is and the guy uses the textbook definitiion..it makes it sound complicated, but it's finance lingo and any sophomore business student can tell you what an option is. I don't know anything about cars and if a person starts using more detailed words than engine bloc or fuel line I would have no idea what he was talking about either, does that mean a car is impossibly complicated........no.
Capitalism is an economic system, Democracy is a political system....There is a difference, Moore is a dumbass.
Anyone who says that Capitalism is evil and should be completely destroyed needs a history lesson, but of course Moore is a big supporter of dictators and socialists like Chavez and Castro....I'm amazed Cuba and Venezuela are such dominate world powers and not third world shit holes (no offense to people trying to leave those countries or overthrow the government.....you have my support in both endeavors.)
OP: I agree with your conclusion, but Moore/a Liberal will never agree with you...just as long as they are the ones who say what everyone gets.
"Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, for knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind. And greed, you mark my words, will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA."
Short answer:
Short answer: Distributism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism
Gekko21 wrote: I watch
I watch Moore's movies bc they never fail to disappoint. His standard recipe is:
1. make a semi-valid point, then poison it with his liberal bias.
2. leave out or ignore key informational details in his examples.
3. interview the dumbest/craziest people he can find.
Just a few quick points. When he has the guy explaining what a derivative is and the guy uses the textbook definitiion..it makes it sound complicated, but it's finance lingo and any sophomore business student can tell you what an option is. I don't know anything about cars and if a person starts using more detailed words than engine bloc or fuel line I would have no idea what he was talking about either, does that mean a car is impossibly complicated........no.
Capitalism is an economic system, Democracy is a political system....There is a difference, Moore is a dumbass.
Anyone who says that Capitalism is evil and should be completely destroyed needs a history lesson, but of course Moore is a big supporter of dictators and socialists like Chavez and Castro....I'm amazed Cuba and Venezuela are such dominate world powers and not third world shit holes (no offense to people trying to leave those countries or overthrow the government.....you have my support in both endeavors.)
OP: I agree with your conclusion, but Moore/a Liberal will never agree with you...just as long as they are the ones who say what everyone gets.
Yes any business sophomore can tell you, but the average person on the street wont so you do have to keep that in mind, altho that Lehman guy was shockingly bad at explaining what they are (probs done for the effect).
The extremist nature of the US, whether it be the idiots at FOX/Republicans, or extremely liberal people, is one of the reason I am happy in Europe. In the US, no side will ever adopt an idea from the other even if its a good idea, simply because they cannot stray from those core beliefs.
http://convertyourbond.com
Free market commentary and trading insights to help with interviews
Convert Your Bond wrote: For
For fellow econ nerds, no matter where you start off in the edgeworth box with initial endowments, it seems the natural process will always drive the equilibrium towards a corner point.
I like the Edgeworth box reference. But where's the evidence that we always wide up towards the corner?
For my aspiring Entrepreneurial Nomads, check out my blog.
econ wrote: Convert Your
For fellow econ nerds, no matter where you start off in the edgeworth box with initial endowments, it seems the natural process will always drive the equilibrium towards a corner point.
I like the Edgeworth box reference. But where's the evidence that we always wide up towards the corner?
I meant it in terms of a thought process. If two people are in the box and one is more intelligent/greedier then through time and exchanges you will shift towards the corner.
Also if you look at societies throughout time, societies with a normal distribution of wealth arent the norm, the norm is a much more skewed distribution of wealth which you could take as analogous to a more corner point in the edgeworth box.
http://convertyourbond.com
Free market commentary and trading insights to help with interviews
I don't think trade, free
I don't think trade, free markets, capitalism leads to inequality. It may seem that smarter or prettier people will always game the less fortunate. But consider Ricardos comparative advantage of free trade - even though one party dominates in every area, both parties prosper and no wealth transfer happens. I think the only reason for getting to the corner of the box is some sort of violent redistribution occuring, be it private or public in nature.
*****************************
***************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************THAT VIDEO HAS A VIRUS
Why is inequality wrong? If
Why is inequality wrong? If one works harder and produces more, then why shouldn't they have the right to the fruits of their labor, which may very well exceed those of another individual? In fact, I believe it is morally wrong for those that don't produce or contribute to society to take from those that do (i.e., progressive taxation) based on some arbitrary definition of their "need." We all know there is some disagreement over the value bankers provide to society, so I'll use a doctor as an example. Why should a doctor who's spent 10 years in the hardest schooling imaginable and worked his/her ass off afterward have to help a poor person upgrade his dinner from ramen to chicken or his 13" TV to a 27" TV? Why is that the doctor's responsibility to have his wealth taken from him simply because somebody else believes they have a "need" despite having made no meaningful contributions to society and working only 35 hours per week, instead of the doctor who works 60?
If you truly believe in equality, then we should be sending money to Zimbabwe until its income level is equivalent to ours. What purpose would that solve, other than to make people in the U.S. less productive and teach the Zimbabweans that they don't ever need to work because the U.S. will always help out?
Why would someone bother learn to fish if someone else were to simply give them a fish for free everyday? Why would the fishermen exert the effort to fish beyond their own needs if they weren't able to enjoy the fruits of their labor?
No one is saying inequality
No one is saying inequality is wrong, just making the assertion how its the natural process.
But you also bring up another point: what constitutes working hard? I wouldnt argue that someone working 60 should be taken away from to provide for the 35 hr a week worker. But what happens when a mother is working 2/3 jobs and still not putting enough food on the table for her family? WOuld you argue she is not working as hard as a banker or doctor?
http://convertyourbond.com
Free market commentary and trading insights to help with interviews
To what extent does
To what extent does intelligence or a good work ethic make you go further in life. Since capitalism has no fixed start date, those who are born first have a greater advantage, since they can raise the barriers to entry for those who come along later. For example, John Rockefeller came along and built up an enormous oil company. Its possible, and highly likely, that someone on this planet today could have built that company to be even more successful than the one that Mr. Rockefeller built. However, because that company already exists today, the barriers to entry are such that nobody today could build an enormous oil company, even if they had greater skills than the original creator.
Of course, our society today is so far from theoretical capitalism it would be a stretch to even call our system capitalism. First, capitalism has the most ridiculous assumption, that of perfect information. Perfect information is absurd. In theory, perfect information means we can estimate the amount of money, time, and expected utility, from every possible decision we have to make. This assumption is so far from reality (although the internet brings us much closer to realizing it) that to have an entire economic system grounded in it means that system will fail from the get go. Secondly, the very existence of corporations are antithesis to free-market capitalism. Free market capitalism assumes individuals and firms act with voluntary cooperation in order to compete for scarce resources. Proprietorships and partnerships are created in this manner. Corporations, on the other hand, must get a charter from the state in order to be founded. A charter basically means "The State deems this corporation the right to exist as an independent entity, and any individual who disagrees will face the threat of physical violence". Basically, corporations are created through force, not through voluntary cooperation. (authors note: I love corporations and capitalism. These are just some things that I've started to question about our system recently)
looking for that pick-me-up to power through an all-nighter?
Go back to taking econ
Go back to taking econ classes, boys. "I don't think free trade leads to inequality". Specific factors model, anyone? Jones, 1971. Distortions in Factor Markets and the General Equilibrium Model of Production.
As for whether inequality is wrong, I don't know, but I know that John Rawls is the milestone in political philosophy.
While societies will always
While societies will always have varying levels of relative inequality, the main consideration is the way in which this skewness occurs. Is resource accumulation the result of government-sanctioned extortion (a zero-sum game), or benefits from trade (value added)? Historically, the former has been more prevalent, but one bright point was the set of ideas that emerged from the age of enlightenment.
"Well make more fuckin' money. This is America. You don't make money, then you're a fuckin' douchebag." - Mr. French
Something that I have thought
Something that I have thought about recently is the collateral damage involved in economics and capitalism. Its very easy to make policy based off numbers and charts; if the human element was taken into consideration it might not be as easy. So much of the developing world is worse off today than it was 50-100 years ago. Countries are unable to feed themselves. A lot of this has to do with economics, capitalism and free trade. While you can study commodities and pricing and say that it is a good thing that prices are being driven down, what has happens to the nations that have relied on self sustaining agriculture to nourish their people. They have become poorer. These people work harder than investment bankers or doctors, they slave in their fields often with rudimentary tools, and yet can still barely provide for their families. No matter how intelligent or hardworking they are they are born into life destined to fail. If I was still in school I would ask my economics professors to explain this phenom and defend why it is a good system. After living and working in a developing country for the past year I'm beginning to disagree.
Convert Your Bond][quote=econ
[quote=Convert Your Bond]
I meant it in terms of a thought process. If two people are in the box and one is more intelligent/greedier then through time and exchanges you will shift towards the corner.
If you literally solve these problems out using general/competitive/Walrasian equilibrium (which is what the Edgeworth box is based-off), I don't think you get those results. I'm pretty sure the equilibrium is independent of greed and intelligence. Unless you're saying people are endowed with intelligence, which is not what that model talks about. It's a model where there's no production, and people are just born with endowments of certain goods. I'm just rambling now, but what I'm really trying to say, is there's nothing that comes out of the Edgeworth box analysis which says we should generally wind up towards the corner.
For my aspiring Entrepreneurial Nomads, check out my blog.
ke18sb wrote: Something that
Touche. Although, what I was