Thread: "Capitalism: A Love Story" by Michael Moore

Very good summary taken from here:

Michael Moore points out that 95% of the wealth is now controlled by only 1% of the population in the United States. Does this statistic bother anybody? Imagine an elementary school class room at the beginning of the year. The teacher lays out a whole years school supplies on a large table. Then the teacher ask the students to collect the supplies they need. But instead one student rushes over to the supply table and grabs 95% of the paper, crayons, binders, pencils, text books, erasers etc. Then that student turns to the largest bullies in class and tells them to beat up anybody that tries to take my stuff!
If you are born into a country with natural resources and wealth, at what point does that wealth belong to the commons and at what point does it belong to a very few powerful individuals who have the political clout and power to keep it for themselves? There is no such thing as a rugged individualist who made it on their own. People who are super rich got that way by exploiting the commons and tipping the rules in their favor.
The oil in the ground does not belong to a few individuals who happened to come along at the right time and exploit it. The top soil does not belong to a few wealthy individuals who want to use it up for short term profits. The air and water do not belong to a few individuals who pollute it at the expense of future generations.
Americans need to stop catering to the super rich and powerful and stand up for what is right.
All wealth is accumulated at the expense of the commons. Wealth is created where there is an educated work force. Wealth is created when there are controlled market places, when there is a controlled monetary system, when there is a police force, when there is government sponsored research, when there are laws governing ownership and contracts, when there are roads and highways, when there are managed natural resources. All of these are a result of the commons. One person does not have the right to exploit the commons while huge numbers of citizens become poor and the environment is destroyed.
The only way to reverse this trend is to tax the super rich and spend that money wisely by using it to promote sustainable economic activities.
During the Eisenhower administration in the 1950s the top tax rate for any individual who made over 3.5 million dollars a year ( adjusted for inflation ) was 95%. That effectively caused the longest continued expansion of economic growth in American history. When wealthy individuals are forced to reinvest their wealth back into their companies or give it to the commons in the form of tax’s revenues than the greatest benefactor is the middle class.
The legislative branches of our government are being controlled by a small number of individuals who have accumulated unprecedented levels of wealth. This is evidence by the fact that the American tax payers recently bought 2 trillion dollars of junk mortgages from the banks to protect the losses of the investor class, but only gave 1 billion dollars to the cash for clunkers program to increase employment on main street.
We need a Sustainable Economic Activity Initiative Ballot in every state. The goal of the Sustainable Economic Activity Ballot Initiative would be to dramatically raise the state tax’s on the wealthiest individuals and corporations and redistribute that wealth to small businesses that promote sustainable economic activity within each state.
The revenues collected should be distributed to the counties based on population. The individual counties should have the power to decide which sustainable economic activities they want to promote and how the funds are to be spent.
The initiative needs to clearly define how the additional revenues are to be collected and what the new tax rate will be for the wealthiest individuals and corporations. The initiative needs to clearly define what is considered a small business. The initiative needs to give general guidelines to the counties defining what is considered sustainable economic activities.
I believe this will create huge voter participation in local county politics as small organizations and businesses attempt to lobby each county government to support their particular concept of sustainable economic activities.
In 1979 1% of the population received approximately 37% of all the income in the United States. Today 1% of the population receives approximately 57% of all the income in the United States. The unchecked growth of wealth accumulation by a very few super rich individuals is destroying the economy and our democracy. Over the last thirty years the middle class has seen a significant decline in long term asset accumulation in exchange for leveraged debt. At the same time the lower class has become increasingly poorer.
The United States economic system and democracy where founded on principals that favor a strong middle class and a strong democracy. In order for a strong middle class and democracy to flourish all levels of economic activity must adequately support a sustainable commons and infrastructure. The end result of our current economic policy is wide spread debt peonage and a reduced standard of living for everyone but the very wealthy. At the same time we are experiencing extreme world wide environmental degradation.
The true unemployment and underemployment rate is closer to 25%. The number of bankruptcies and foreclosures are at the highest rate since the great depression. The percentage of incarcerated citizens is also at an all time high. Environmental degradation has reached a level that seriously threatens long term climate stability and even long term food security.
The influence of well financed lobbyist has made it virtually impossible to pass meaningful legislation that will reverse these figures. Participation of the general population in the political system is very low and could ultimately result in major unrest.
Over the last 30 years worker productivity has dramatically increased. Yet at the same time average wages have dramatically decreased. The super wealthy pay a much lower tax rate and the middle class pay a much higher tax rate.
The Sustainable Economic Activity Ballot Initiative is designed to bring about a major shift in economic and environmental policy by transferring the control of resources away from the new American oligarchy and into small scale and local businesses that practice and promote sustainable economic activities.
History has shown that widespread poverty and injustice goes hand in hand with a few privileged individuals accumulating a disproportionate control over a countries resources. Super wealthy individuals tend to accumulate additional assets from predator lending practices, monopolistic businesses, bribery, favored tax status, corporate welfare, insider trading, financial market instability, control of the media and financial market gambling.
Wealthy individuals, corporations and cartels favor privatizing any profits that can be squeezed from the needs of the commons and socializing losses once the commons have been stripped of their vitality. These activities are apt to devastate the long term viability of the economy and environment. An analogy can be made to a tape worm that drains all the life out of its hose but leaves its host just barely alive so it can continue to drain additional vitality in the future.
The Sustainable Economic Activity Ballot Initiative will appeal to those citizens who feel powerless and presently disenfranchised from the political system. The proposed change in the tax structure is designed to significantly increase honest employment in areas that will encourage improvements in the natural environment, energy security, food security, economic stability and holistic health.
The ballot initiative is intended to significantly increase the collection of tax revenues from the super rich and transfer that wealth to small businesses and non profit corporations as direct subsidies and grants to support long term sustainability and growth in the private sector.
The current tax structure encourages debt accumulation at the expense of asset accumulation and savings. It also favors short term profits over long term sustainability. Businesses that make money by selling financial services are taking away investment in real goods and services. Corporations and industries that damage the environment are lowering the standard of living for generations to come.
Wealth accumulates from the exploitation of natural resources at the expense of the commons. Therefore the only way to sustain viable economic growth is for the commons to benefit from wealth accumulation.
Industries and activities that encourage long term sustainability often require a larger investment of manpower. Subsidies and grants from tax revenues is the only way to encourage promoting activities that require additional manpower over activities that depend on depleting finite resources such as oil, top soil, clean water, and forest.
It is easy to cut down a forest and sell the lumber. It is more expensive to replant the forest. But over the long run an economy that replants its forest will be much healthier for everyone.
The local counties are best suited for making any final decisions as to which businesses and organizations will best serve improving the long term wealth and sustainability of the commons. This will encourage additional participation in local democratic institutions. The initiative specifies that tax revenue’s are to be distributed to small industries and non-profits to better facilitate a more fair distribution of recourses. Small companies and organizations produce more overall employment and economic diversity than large corporations. Large companies and organizations tend to create monopolies that stifle ingenuity and crush competition. Large businesses and organizations tend to outsource employment while small companies and organizations tend to hire local employees which has the added benefit of an economic multiplier effect. Large companies also tend to overpay top level executives through capital gains at the expense of poorly paid and expendable employees.
The initiative needs to be simple and to the point. We need to place a huge tax on the very wealthy, and transfer that wealth to the commons. But it needs to be invested in promoting sustainable economic activity so that the investment promotes additional economic activity over and over and over. We need to make sure the initiative is legal and can not be arbitrarily knocked down by the courts at a later date.
For example it has been shown that every dollar of government subsidy spent on promoting ethanol fuel has a multiplier effect of around 21 times in the local economy and returns between $4-$8 in additional tax revenue dollars.
All of the money gained from increasing tax revenues from the super rich needs to go towards creating long term sustainability and economic activity that will create jobs and increase tax revenues from the middle class.
I believe the middle class would not rebel against paying more tax’s if the rate of unemployment where closer to zero than to 20%.
The super rich have made it impossible to enforce existing antitrust legislation designed to prevent an American Transnational Oligarchy from controlling our legislature and laws. For years progressives have talked about taking away the tax incentives to large corporations who send our jobs over seas. But nothing ever happens. For years progressives have talked passing legislation to promote using renewable resources. But very little has been accomplished. For years progressives have talked a national health care plan. But if the middle class is becoming too poor to pay for a national health care plan, than it will also never happen.
The goal of the initiative is to put the power to control our destiny back in the hands of local governments.
For example solar voltaic panels and wind mills pay for themselves after a number of years. After that they supply relatively low cost and clean electricity. Over time the cost of energy goes down and the standard of living goes up. Over time the cost of cleaning up global warming and pollution also go down.
The only businesses that increase employment are small businesses. Therefore the transfer of wealth needs to be to small businesses that promote sustainable economic activity.
Another example is growing organic fruits and vegetables. The meat and diary industries receive so many subsidies that some economist estimate that the true cost of meat should be around $95 per pound. Counties could choose to set aside funds to subsidize fruits and vegetables that are grown organically and farmers that use perennial poly culture techniques that build top soil and reduce our dependency on chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Over time this would lower the cost of healthier foods, it would lower the cost of health care, it would lower of the cost of cleaning up water, air and soil pollution, it would create more labor intensive employment, it would increase middle class tax revenues, it would have a monetary multiplier effect on other support industries and lower the cost of restoring our topsoil.
Another example is recycling industrial waste. The initial cost of recycling industrial waste streams is usually more expensive than just storing waste in toxic land fills. But ultimately recycling industrial waste is actually very cost effective and would pay for itself many times over. Please send any comments on this idea to JeffHeaton[at]comcast.net

http://hypocrisy.com/2009/09/23/mich...s-wall-street/

Originally Posted by dotcom

Michael Moore can blow me.

Are you ok with 1% of the population in America owning 95% of the wealth?

You should actually watch it first and (try) to take in some of the facts presented before just posting that you don't like the guy personally.

Why do you dislike him?

Why aren't there more American media and journalists with enough balls to ask the hard questions?

Michael Moore points out that 95% of the wealth is now controlled by only 1% of the population in the United States
and I'm quite sure that 1% of the population includes Michael Moore

Originally Posted by Bung

Why aren't there more American media and journalists with enough balls to ask the hard questions?

Cause MM alone is sooo laaarge that he filled up his media market niche already.

Originally Posted by Bung

Are you ok with 1% of the population in America owning 95% of the wealth?

You could put almost any country name in exchange for America, Bung, and it would prove true. Thailand, Burma, Haiti, Canada, Brazil, European nations...the socialist/commie ones are the most fun, coz the elite pretends to be just like other folks when they're out in public.

The meat and diary industries receive so many subsidies that some economist estimate that the true cost of meat should be around $95 per pound
wow ! I wonder how Friendship Supermarket can sell pork chop for 170 baht/Kilo , considering in Thailand there are no subsidies for sure.

Originally Posted by wefearourdespot

Michael Moore points out that 95% of the wealth is now controlled by only 1% of the population in the United States and I'm quite sure that 1% of the population includes Michael Moore

I can safely say that this is untrue even though I have no proof. That 1% are seriously rich, like beyond belief rich. The Weinstein Bros produced (paid for) it to be made. They would be seriously rich most likely but not up in the 1%ers.

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

You could put almost any country name in exchange for America, Bung, and it would prove true. Thailand, Burma, Haiti, Canada, Brazil, European nations...the socialist/commie ones are the most fun, coz the elite pretends to be just like other folks when they're out in public.

That's true but I note you mentioned Thailand, Burma and Haiti first. Thats some comparison....I'd be interested to know if other countries like Canada, Australia and Europe are really like that. I think to a degree, yes, but not to the extreme found in the USA, capatalist leader of the free world. Our Aussie top CEO's can only dream of running their companies like that. Luckily they didn't manage to outlaw all the unions there yet.

^ I'd like to see their private bank accounts. And, yes, you should get rid of the unions.

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

And, yes, you should get rid of the unions.

Why, so big companies can screw over their workforce like they did in the US?

Unions are good. Oh wait, let me guess, the "news" told you how bad they were in screwing up the country for everybody. Poor shareholders didn't make a bigger profit than the previous year.

Originally Posted by Bung

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

And, yes, you should get rid of the unions.

Why, so big companies can screw over their workforce like they did in the US?

Unions are good. Oh wait, let me guess, the "news" told you how bad they were in screwing up the country for everybody. Poor shareholders didn't make a bigger profit than the previous year.

Nope. I refused to join the union at a company I worked for when I was 17. Why? I wanted to work. They went on strike for stupid reasons, I kept working. I had rent to pay. When I worked in a restaurant, the union tried to get us to join -- you know, take breaks at certain times, know what jobs we don't have to do, pay monthly union dues so they can hire more thugs to get more union workers, get strike pay. Ya, fek you. We all said NO. One rule I remember was mandatory break times when the place was the busiest, meaning we lost tips and the biz lost money. STUPID.

And what do unions do to companies? Screw them. I make a company with my brains, capital and know-how, I hire people and give them jobs, and then they unionise and want to tell me how to operate my firm, what jobs each employee can do (oh, he's not allowed to clean the toilet, not in his job description), what they must be paid whether times are good or bad. Fek that sh*t.

Are there bad big companies? Sure, Are there good ones? Sure. Are there honest unions anywhere? NO. They have only one aim: Rip off the company. And once they drive it into the ground, they still want to be compensated.

Agree with Jet :cringe: re the unions. Never belonged to one. Can't see what good they do, just take a bit of your paycheck and do feck all. Is there any need for them in an open uncorrupt society? National labour laws cover everything like hours, safety conditions, breaktimes, holidays, pay disputes.

I'll assume everyone of legal age still gets to vote in America, so if 95% of the population don't like it, it doesn't take much to change. So I'll assume they're either happy with it, or brainless sheep.

Baaa

The union thing works both ways. No union company can stiff the employee. Union and company can get stiffed. I understand it is hard for small companies to have unionised workers but big multinationals that I worked for it made a difference. People in the company I worked for are much better off from the union action we took 20 years ago.

If you look at some of the things companies in the US do to their employees that Michael Moore points out you feel sad that they have no one to look out for them. If they wanted to join a union they would probably set some spooks on you to convince you to stop.

Interesting news story here on NPR

Paul Ingrassia reported on the auto industry for a quarter century, and he's now written what's been called "a brilliant industry autopsy." Host Guy Raz speaks with Ingrassia about the book, Crash Course: The American Automobile Industry's Road from Glory to Disaster.

Mr. INGRASSIA: Don't forget, at that time, Guy, the U.S. auto industry was characterized by a corporate oligopoly and a union monopoly. So the whole ethos of the system, be on the labor or management side, is that we can pass the cost on to consumers and they don't really have a choice because everybody's got to have a car in America if they want to get around.


RAZ: In 1984, GM and the UAW agreed to create something called the jobs bank. Describe what that was for us, sir.

Mr. INGRASSIA: Sure. The jobs bank originally was intended to be limited in scope. And it basically said, if we put in new plant technology in a factory and workers are displaced for a year or so, we will pay those workers 95 percent of their full salary to give them a chance to adjust.

Within a few years, by 1990, GM just, you know, let the fences wide open and said, for whatever reason, if a worker is laid off in a factory, that worker will get 95 percent of their wages indefinitely.



RAZ: One of the former heads of the UAW, Leonard Woodcock, is quoted in your book shortly after he stepped down. And he said this in the 1970s. He said, our members have the best contract that people with their skills and education could ever hope to get, but we've convinced them that with every new contract they're entitled to more. How much responsibility, in your view, does the UAW have in the decline of the American auto industry?

Mr. INGRASSIA: Well, I think it has a lot of responsibility, although I hasten to add, Guy, I would put the major responsibility on management. Management agreed to all this stuff. And in fact, in some cases, such as the jobs bank, they even proposed it, you know, amazingly enough.
RAZ: To the point where you write in 2007 GM was paying something like $800 million a year to pay workers who weren't actually working. I mean, some of them were playing cards.


RAZ: Now, Paul Ingrassia, how much responsibility does Congress have for the decline of the U.S. auto industry?

Mr. INGRASSIA: Look, there's a lot of culprits here. But in the 1970s, Congress passed the Corporate Average Fuel Economy laws in which they mandated fuel economy requirements. And they really forced Detroit to build unprofitable cars to meet these fuel economy requirements. The much saner approach would have been to raise gasoline taxes. I mean, that's why they have fuel-efficient cars in Europe because gas is $8 a gallon.

If we would have started raising gasoline taxes step by step 30 years ago and boosted gasoline prices and at the same time cut income taxes so you're taxing consumption, not production, you would've had a much more rational automotive transportation system and encouraged the consumption of small cars, not big SUVs.


There's more worth reading or listening to here;

A 'Crash Course' On The Auto Industry : NPR

MM is part of the 1%.

Originally Posted by Bung

Originally Posted by dotcom

Michael Moore can blow me.

Why do you dislike him?

Surely if he wants Michael Moore to blow him he must like him very much?

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

When I worked in a restaurant, the union tried to get us to join

I didn't know McD's was unionised.

Originally Posted by sabang

As an example of a pragmatic, effective and non destructive Union movement, I would say the Germans. In Germany, Union representatives sit on the Board and Compensation Committee's of corporations- they are involved in the governance process. So in Germany, you don't see the ridiculous, ballistic senior Executive compensation packages you see in the States- and neither do you have the pathetic minimum wages (slave wages frankly) that you have in the States. And because they are involved and consulted in the governance process, they work on a mutual dependence rather than a mutually damaging "Us vs. Them" mentality.

Great way to do it. But in the USA there is a constant, unrelenting class warfare instigated by the wealthy to take more of the nations wealth and use the middle and lower classes to fight their imperial wars for oil or to install and protect another corrupt trading partner on the globe. Since they own the media, the propaganda machine keeps telling the populace how lucky we are for this situation and equating union representation of the working man with communism. Unfortunately, the sheeple over here buy it, at least enough of us to keep voting in the thieves, Dems and Republicans, who keep sticking it to us.

The wealthy like the 1% in question have a casino called America where they've rigged the rules of the game to always come out "heads I win, tails you lose". Just observe how the mandatory health insurance with no public option is coming about. That kind of wealth can buy that kind of corrupt government. That kind of wealth has no allegiance to no nation or society. Once the going gets tough, they simply move off-shore.

IMHO.

Originally Posted by sabang

In Germany, Union representatives sit on the Board and Compensation Committee's of corporations- (and you do not have) the pathetic minimum wages (slave wages frankly) that you have in the States.

Tell me which US union workers are on slave wages?

Originally Posted by mackayae

MM is part of the 1%.

Mebbe, but I do credit him for his often anonymous generosity to many causes. I still think he's a goat tho.

Originally Posted by Bung

What an utter load of crap ! MM is uncapable to google what a credit default swap or an option is and wants to teach us how to live.
What a tard ! What a moron ! And you Bung listen to such a nullity !

Originally Posted by mackayae

MM is part of the 1%.

If you think making a couple of movies makes you a 1%er then you are wrong.

Mebbe, but I do credit him for his often anonymous generosity to many causes.

How do you know he donated if it was anonymous?

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

Tell me which US union workers are on slave wages?

Waitresses. Have to rely on patrons generosity to make up a decent wage in the form of tips. The don't get regular breaks, made to stand for hours at a time and are have to clean the toilets as well.

Oh wait, they aren't in a union......