5 ms·

The Economist reviews Michael Moore's new film

39 points by MikeCapone 17y ago

papyromancer 17y ago
I suspect JD Lasica was right when he said it should have been called: "Greed: A Love Story"
- masklinn 17y ago
  Greed is pretty much inherent to capitalistic systems, which reward greed and treat it as a virtue (along with profiteering and selfishness).
  - jerf 17y ago
    I don't think that's really the right way to think of it. Capitalism acknowledges greed, and builds a system that can survive and bring virtue in spite of it, and to some extent, because of it. While it's OK to decry greed, it isn't OK to build an economic system based on the idea that people aren't greedy. They are. There are billions of year of history behind the greed of humanity, and I'm not exaggerating. If you build an economic system based on something that is, fundamentally, not human, you will get bad results. That's where other systems tend to fall down, and why for all the "failures" of capitalism, the worst off in a modern capitalistic society is better than all but the best off in almost any other society. I'm willing to listen to other economic systems that also acknowledge greed. I recommend the book "Accelerando" for a half-decent exploration of the question of whether there is something better once you have pervasive computerization. But the solution to the problem of greed isn't trying to build a system based on the belief that there is some way to make people not greedy. Greed is not capitalism's fault. Greed is, ultimately, traceable back to the fact that for every live form that survive to reproduce, there are thousands that don't. Greed may look odd in the incredibly, utterly strange place we currently find ourselves in where we have more resources than we know what to do with, but this is the strangeness, not greed. I'm pretty skeptical of every other system I've ever seen, including socialism and communism, because they are basically built on the idea that we'll take control away from the greedy, shortsighted people and give it to the enlightened, ungreedy ones who will run things better. There is of course the (perfectly correct) argument that the information flow of such a system can't be made to work with the tools we have, but there is also the even-more-fundamental problem that the "enlightened, ungreedy" class of people doesn't exist. There are only people claiming to be the enlightened, ungreedy class. Until you can build a non-capitalist system that isn't based on this fundamental failure, it's not going to do well. (That said, I'm only a little-l libertarian and I acknowledge that the government does have a place. I'm talking economic system here, not whole society system. Just as capitalism harnesses greed, instead of denying it, a government should harness capitalism, instead of denying it.)
    - uuilly 17y ago
      Very nicely put jerf. When an electrical engineer designs a circuit he accounts, as best he can, for the behavior of electrons. He would never design something that assumed electrons would behave in an unrealistic way. To me, individual greed in people is as intrinsic and predictable as a negative charge on an electron. Capitalism is designed w/ an honest look at the way humans actually behave rather than the way we wished they behaved.
    - ubernostrum 17y ago
      What is interesting to me is the inconsistency in the arguments of big-L libertarians, which basically boils down to claiming that self-interest will turn into a virtuous result when a person's job title is "corporate executive" but a vicious result when the job title is "Congressman". In theory, democracy should exploit the same effects as unregulated or lightly-regulated capitalism: politicians act in their self-interest (pursuing power, prestige, etc.) but in order to do so must provide tangible benefits to voters in order to keep getting elected. In reality, of course, politicians run all sorts of schemes on the side to their own personal benefit, but to the detriment of the larger body of voters. In much the same way, executives run all sorts of schemes on the side to their own personal benefit, but to the detriment of the larger body of shareholders in their company (the analogue of the voters). Yet in the politician's case this is heralded as a failure of government, and little additional discussion takes place (since the presumption before the fact was that government must always fail); in the executive's case all manner of arguments are advanced to try to explain that it is not a failure of capitalism (since the presumption before the fact was that capitalism must never fail). In a very real sense, then, this turns into the fallacy of begging the question: capitalism does not fail because it is postulated that capitalism does not fail, and government fails because it is postulated that government fails.
      - dmm 17y ago
        The difference is that a business person makes decisions which allocate their own capital, politicians get to play with other people's money.
        17y ago
  - jamesbritt 17y ago
    How so? Or, how so in comparison to other economic systems?
  - febeling 17y ago
    There is this theory which states that there are only three kinds of economic (or societal) systems: family-tribe-base ones, command-base ones, and property-base ones. In the first you will be supported unlimitedly by your family tribe, so you generally maximize the number of relatives. The second one (feudal, socialist) there is a small special group instituting an arbitrary distribution (may be good or bad, historically mostly bad). In that setup head-count of the whole economy in general is maximized, and that is why people would not be allowed to travel if they were serfs or living in socialist countries. Thirdly, there is capitalism, which leaves everyone on his own, expecting him to live off his own possessions and produce. And in that system, clearly property maximization is the way to wealth. For me, with this basic distinction, everything fell into place. Also it assumes that it is not necessarily people who are prone to be greedy, but that the community rules makes them behave in specific patterns that hardly come as a surprise, once you see the benefit structure.
    - zaphar 17y ago
      Also it assumes that it is not necessarily people who are prone to be greedy, but that the community rules makes them behave in specific patterns that hardly come as a surprise, once you see the benefit structure. Just watch any infant and you will have empirical evidence that the natural state of a human being is greed. It's societal rules that limit that greed but assuming it can eliminate it is foolish and ignores reality. As several others have mentioned Capitalism recognizes that people are greedy and accounts for it in the economic model.
      - febeling 17y ago
        Well, I have two kids, and my experiences with them don't really support your point. Neither do other infants I know. Infants can be very energetic in pursuit of their desires, but I don't think "greed" describes it properly. Motives which are at work are rather: hunger, thirst, curiosity, love, desire for attention, pain, fear. Probably others. Simple ones, but not that simple as just greed.
        btilly 17y ago
  - gaius 17y ago
    It's more subtle than that. Capitalism aligns the interests of individuals with society. Famine is unknown in the West not because of altruism, but because we pay our farmers well. Famine is common in Communist countries because the farmer is required to act against his own best interest to feed the country (e.g. countryside starving so cities can eat). Therefore in a properly configured Capitalist system, the "greedier" people are, the better off society is as a whole. I am fully aware that the Western economies are not correctly configured - but they're the least-worst in the world by any reasonable measure (such as, percentage of the population that starved this year).
  - uriel 17y ago
    Greed is pretty much inherent to human beings. Capitalism unlike any other system, actually extracts productive value from greed. Other systems treat greed as much as a virtue or more, but provide much more harmful ways to satisfy such greed.
  - kiba 17y ago
    "Well first of all tell me, is there some society you know that doesn’t run on greed? You think Russia doesn’t run on greed? You think China doesn’t run on greed? What is greed? Of course none of us are greedy. It’s only the other fella that’s greedy. The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests. The greatest achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn’t construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn’t revolutionize the automobile industry that way. In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty that you are talking about, the only cases in recorded history are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade. If you want to know where the masses are worst off, it’s exactly in the kindof societies that depart from that. " -- Milton Freidman
araneae 17y ago
Capitalism has its foundations in reciprocity. Instead of "I scratch your back, you scratch mine," we have "I give you money and you give me a service which I desire." All capitalism does is make a barter and trade system more efficient, allowing you to trade with someone for something you want even if you don't have anything they want. Calling that evil is sort of... dumb.
- AndrewDucker 17y ago
  That's a tad simplistic. Capitalism rewards the externalising of costs - so, for instance, decreasing your unit costs by increasing your pollution is more profitable. You need external regulation to make sure that decisions are not made solely on a capitalist basis, because that would make them entirely heartless.
  - DavidSJ 17y ago
    All systems reward the externalizing of costs, by definition.
    - camccann 17y ago
      But they may reward externalizing different kinds of costs, and the relative rewards may be larger or smaller than in other systems. The question is what provides the best results (and, for that matter, how to define "best").
ABrandt 17y ago
I find Mr. Moore no more altruistic than the various "evils" that he frequently attacks. His methods are equally as dubious as his opponents--the difference is he masks himself as a benevolent crusader.
btilly 17y ago
My point of view is this. Capitalism is the most effective way known of getting people to do what it gets them to do. However you have no control of what that is. Therefore if you want to have clean water supplies, universal education, national defense, police, unproductive people not starving in the streets, etc then you need to divert some resources away from capitalism. This is the justification for taxation and government. The justification for Michael Moore's point of view is that he wants to see those things happen, and capitalism doesn't do that very well. However be very careful about using government to try to direct capitalism to meet your goals. Because well-meaning interventions regularly fail spectacularly due to unintended consequences. One of which is that any influential group that is regulated by government will try (and eventually usually succeeds) in getting control over their regulators.
- fauigerzigerk 17y ago
  Your view is basically the consensus in western democracies. However, the more radical left claims that this kind of balance between a democratic state and capitalism can never work because capitalism will always be able to corrupt the state. It's this reasoning that allows them to put the entire blame for the current crisis on capitalism in spite of the fact that it's the governments and central banks of the world who inflated the credit bubble by providing easy money for so many years.
  - teamonkey 17y ago
    > In spite of the fact that it's the governments and central banks of the world who inflated the credit bubble by providing easy money for so many years Yes, but they're doing that to profit - capitalism at its most pure :)
    - borism 17y ago
      Profit? Really? Taking on debt is not considered profit in my books...
      - 17y ago
projectileboy 17y ago
Perhaps Mr. Moore's arguments would be made stronger if he would disclose his net worth, and where he keeps his money?
- weegee 17y ago
  sure, you can start and we'll just go down the line. who CARES what the guys net worth is? Why does it matter? Can not a successful film maker speak for those who are in the down and outs? Just because his films are good, does that make him less worthy to call out the greedy bankers? Who are you, Sean Hannity?!
  - bliving 17y ago
    reminded me of the line in "Roxanne": "Oh, ho, ho, irony! Oh, no, no, we don't get that here. See, uh, people ski topless here while smoking dope, so irony's not really a, a high priority. We haven't had any irony here since about, uh, '83, when I was the only practitioner of it. And I stopped because I was tired of being stared at. "
    - weegee 17y ago
      pretty idiotic reasoning. go back to school bud.
- dsil 17y ago
  I hate this argument against Michael Moore, especially when there are legitimate ones. He's not being hypocritical or ironic - you can play the game well and still think the rules should be changed.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
andrewvc 17y ago
Next up on HN: Cats give their opinion on long baths
rms 17y ago
Please don't take Michael Moore too seriously. He is an entertainer, just like Rush on the right. The difference is that Michael Moore has talent. With Roger and Me, he invented a new style of documentary filmmaking. Go see the movie if you want; you will be entertained. There isn't much to discuss here though. Yes, Moore is a hypocrite. Yes, capitalism is the best thing we have. It's still healthy to raise awareness of some of the worst excesses of capitalism.
uinuibui 17y ago
The economist doesn't like Mr Moore's attack on capitalism? Tomorrow - the Catholic News review of Dan Brown's latest.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
natmaster 17y ago
I don't see how Moore can blame Capitalism for big government intervention (bailing out banks) led by his Democratic friends. Seems more like a hit on central banking. (But maybe that's too Jeffersonian for Moore.)

39 points by MikeCapone 17y ago

papyromancer 17y ago

I suspect JD Lasica was right when he said it should have been called: "Greed: A Love Story"

masklinn 17y ago
Greed is pretty much inherent to capitalistic systems, which reward greed and treat it as a virtue (along with profiteering and selfishness).
- jerf 17y ago
  I don't think that's really the right way to think of it. Capitalism acknowledges greed, and builds a system that can survive and bring virtue in spite of it, and to some extent, because of it. While it's OK to decry greed, it isn't OK to build an economic system based on the idea that people aren't greedy. They are. There are billions of year of history behind the greed of humanity, and I'm not exaggerating. If you build an economic system based on something that is, fundamentally, not human, you will get bad results. That's where other systems tend to fall down, and why for all the "failures" of capitalism, the worst off in a modern capitalistic society is better than all but the best off in almost any other society. I'm willing to listen to other economic systems that also acknowledge greed. I recommend the book "Accelerando" for a half-decent exploration of the question of whether there is something better once you have pervasive computerization. But the solution to the problem of greed isn't trying to build a system based on the belief that there is some way to make people not greedy. Greed is not capitalism's fault. Greed is, ultimately, traceable back to the fact that for every live form that survive to reproduce, there are thousands that don't. Greed may look odd in the incredibly, utterly strange place we currently find ourselves in where we have more resources than we know what to do with, but this is the strangeness, not greed. I'm pretty skeptical of every other system I've ever seen, including socialism and communism, because they are basically built on the idea that we'll take control away from the greedy, shortsighted people and give it to the enlightened, ungreedy ones who will run things better. There is of course the (perfectly correct) argument that the information flow of such a system can't be made to work with the tools we have, but there is also the even-more-fundamental problem that the "enlightened, ungreedy" class of people doesn't exist. There are only people claiming to be the enlightened, ungreedy class. Until you can build a non-capitalist system that isn't based on this fundamental failure, it's not going to do well. (That said, I'm only a little-l libertarian and I acknowledge that the government does have a place. I'm talking economic system here, not whole society system. Just as capitalism harnesses greed, instead of denying it, a government should harness capitalism, instead of denying it.)
  - uuilly 17y ago
    Very nicely put jerf. When an electrical engineer designs a circuit he accounts, as best he can, for the behavior of electrons. He would never design something that assumed electrons would behave in an unrealistic way. To me, individual greed in people is as intrinsic and predictable as a negative charge on an electron. Capitalism is designed w/ an honest look at the way humans actually behave rather than the way we wished they behaved.
  - ubernostrum 17y ago
    What is interesting to me is the inconsistency in the arguments of big-L libertarians, which basically boils down to claiming that self-interest will turn into a virtuous result when a person's job title is "corporate executive" but a vicious result when the job title is "Congressman". In theory, democracy should exploit the same effects as unregulated or lightly-regulated capitalism: politicians act in their self-interest (pursuing power, prestige, etc.) but in order to do so must provide tangible benefits to voters in order to keep getting elected. In reality, of course, politicians run all sorts of schemes on the side to their own personal benefit, but to the detriment of the larger body of voters. In much the same way, executives run all sorts of schemes on the side to their own personal benefit, but to the detriment of the larger body of shareholders in their company (the analogue of the voters). Yet in the politician's case this is heralded as a failure of government, and little additional discussion takes place (since the presumption before the fact was that government must always fail); in the executive's case all manner of arguments are advanced to try to explain that it is not a failure of capitalism (since the presumption before the fact was that capitalism must never fail). In a very real sense, then, this turns into the fallacy of begging the question: capitalism does not fail because it is postulated that capitalism does not fail, and government fails because it is postulated that government fails.
    - dmm 17y ago
      The difference is that a business person makes decisions which allocate their own capital, politicians get to play with other people's money.
      - 17y ago
- jamesbritt 17y ago
  How so? Or, how so in comparison to other economic systems?
- febeling 17y ago
  There is this theory which states that there are only three kinds of economic (or societal) systems: family-tribe-base ones, command-base ones, and property-base ones. In the first you will be supported unlimitedly by your family tribe, so you generally maximize the number of relatives. The second one (feudal, socialist) there is a small special group instituting an arbitrary distribution (may be good or bad, historically mostly bad). In that setup head-count of the whole economy in general is maximized, and that is why people would not be allowed to travel if they were serfs or living in socialist countries. Thirdly, there is capitalism, which leaves everyone on his own, expecting him to live off his own possessions and produce. And in that system, clearly property maximization is the way to wealth. For me, with this basic distinction, everything fell into place. Also it assumes that it is not necessarily people who are prone to be greedy, but that the community rules makes them behave in specific patterns that hardly come as a surprise, once you see the benefit structure.
  - zaphar 17y ago
    Also it assumes that it is not necessarily people who are prone to be greedy, but that the community rules makes them behave in specific patterns that hardly come as a surprise, once you see the benefit structure. Just watch any infant and you will have empirical evidence that the natural state of a human being is greed. It's societal rules that limit that greed but assuming it can eliminate it is foolish and ignores reality. As several others have mentioned Capitalism recognizes that people are greedy and accounts for it in the economic model.
    - febeling 17y ago
      Well, I have two kids, and my experiences with them don't really support your point. Neither do other infants I know. Infants can be very energetic in pursuit of their desires, but I don't think "greed" describes it properly. Motives which are at work are rather: hunger, thirst, curiosity, love, desire for attention, pain, fear. Probably others. Simple ones, but not that simple as just greed.
      - btilly 17y ago
- gaius 17y ago
  It's more subtle than that. Capitalism aligns the interests of individuals with society. Famine is unknown in the West not because of altruism, but because we pay our farmers well. Famine is common in Communist countries because the farmer is required to act against his own best interest to feed the country (e.g. countryside starving so cities can eat). Therefore in a properly configured Capitalist system, the "greedier" people are, the better off society is as a whole. I am fully aware that the Western economies are not correctly configured - but they're the least-worst in the world by any reasonable measure (such as, percentage of the population that starved this year).
- uriel 17y ago
  Greed is pretty much inherent to human beings. Capitalism unlike any other system, actually extracts productive value from greed. Other systems treat greed as much as a virtue or more, but provide much more harmful ways to satisfy such greed.
- kiba 17y ago
  "Well first of all tell me, is there some society you know that doesn’t run on greed? You think Russia doesn’t run on greed? You think China doesn’t run on greed? What is greed? Of course none of us are greedy. It’s only the other fella that’s greedy. The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests. The greatest achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn’t construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn’t revolutionize the automobile industry that way. In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty that you are talking about, the only cases in recorded history are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade. If you want to know where the masses are worst off, it’s exactly in the kindof societies that depart from that. " -- Milton Freidman

araneae 17y ago

Capitalism has its foundations in reciprocity. Instead of "I scratch your back, you scratch mine," we have "I give you money and you give me a service which I desire." All capitalism does is make a barter and trade system more efficient, allowing you to trade with someone for something you want even if you don't have anything they want. Calling that evil is sort of... dumb.

AndrewDucker 17y ago
That's a tad simplistic. Capitalism rewards the externalising of costs - so, for instance, decreasing your unit costs by increasing your pollution is more profitable. You need external regulation to make sure that decisions are not made solely on a capitalist basis, because that would make them entirely heartless.
- DavidSJ 17y ago
  All systems reward the externalizing of costs, by definition.
  - camccann 17y ago
    But they may reward externalizing different kinds of costs, and the relative rewards may be larger or smaller than in other systems. The question is what provides the best results (and, for that matter, how to define "best").

ABrandt 17y ago

I find Mr. Moore no more altruistic than the various "evils" that he frequently attacks. His methods are equally as dubious as his opponents--the difference is he masks himself as a benevolent crusader.

btilly 17y ago

My point of view is this. Capitalism is the most effective way known of getting people to do what it gets them to do. However you have no control of what that is. Therefore if you want to have clean water supplies, universal education, national defense, police, unproductive people not starving in the streets, etc then you need to divert some resources away from capitalism. This is the justification for taxation and government. The justification for Michael Moore's point of view is that he wants to see those things happen, and capitalism doesn't do that very well. However be very careful about using government to try to direct capitalism to meet your goals. Because well-meaning interventions regularly fail spectacularly due to unintended consequences. One of which is that any influential group that is regulated by government will try (and eventually usually succeeds) in getting control over their regulators.

fauigerzigerk 17y ago
Your view is basically the consensus in western democracies. However, the more radical left claims that this kind of balance between a democratic state and capitalism can never work because capitalism will always be able to corrupt the state. It's this reasoning that allows them to put the entire blame for the current crisis on capitalism in spite of the fact that it's the governments and central banks of the world who inflated the credit bubble by providing easy money for so many years.
- teamonkey 17y ago
  > In spite of the fact that it's the governments and central banks of the world who inflated the credit bubble by providing easy money for so many years Yes, but they're doing that to profit - capitalism at its most pure :)
  - borism 17y ago
    Profit? Really? Taking on debt is not considered profit in my books...
    - 17y ago

projectileboy 17y ago

Perhaps Mr. Moore's arguments would be made stronger if he would disclose his net worth, and where he keeps his money?

weegee 17y ago
sure, you can start and we'll just go down the line. who CARES what the guys net worth is? Why does it matter? Can not a successful film maker speak for those who are in the down and outs? Just because his films are good, does that make him less worthy to call out the greedy bankers? Who are you, Sean Hannity?!
- bliving 17y ago
  reminded me of the line in "Roxanne": "Oh, ho, ho, irony! Oh, no, no, we don't get that here. See, uh, people ski topless here while smoking dope, so irony's not really a, a high priority. We haven't had any irony here since about, uh, '83, when I was the only practitioner of it. And I stopped because I was tired of being stared at. "
  - weegee 17y ago
    pretty idiotic reasoning. go back to school bud.
dsil 17y ago
I hate this argument against Michael Moore, especially when there are legitimate ones. He's not being hypocritical or ironic - you can play the game well and still think the rules should be changed.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

andrewvc 17y ago

Next up on HN: Cats give their opinion on long baths

rms 17y ago

Please don't take Michael Moore too seriously. He is an entertainer, just like Rush on the right. The difference is that Michael Moore has talent. With Roger and Me, he invented a new style of documentary filmmaking. Go see the movie if you want; you will be entertained. There isn't much to discuss here though. Yes, Moore is a hypocrite. Yes, capitalism is the best thing we have. It's still healthy to raise awareness of some of the worst excesses of capitalism.

uinuibui 17y ago

The economist doesn't like Mr Moore's attack on capitalism? Tomorrow - the Catholic News review of Dan Brown's latest.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

natmaster 17y ago

I don't see how Moore can blame Capitalism for big government intervention (bailing out banks) led by his Democratic friends. Seems more like a hit on central banking. (But maybe that's too Jeffersonian for Moore.)