Showing posts with label capitalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label capitalism. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Capitalism vs.Statism

This article was originally published in Outside Looking In: Critiques of American Policies and Institutions, Left and Right. New York: Harper and Row, 1972, pp. 60-74. Reprinted in The Logic of Action Two: Applications and Criticism from the Austrian School. Glos, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd., 1997, pp. 185-199.]

From the very first we run into grave problems with the term "capitalism." When we realize that the word was coined by capitalism's most famous enemy, Karl Marx, it is not surprising that a neutral or a pro-"capitalist" analyst might find the term lacking in precision. For capitalism tends to be a catchall, a portmanteau concept that Marxists apply to virtually every society on the face of the globe, with the exception of a few possible "feudalist" countries and the Communist nations (although, of course, the Chinese consider Yugoslavia and Russia "capitalist," while many Trotskyites would include China as well). Marxists, for example, consider India as a "capitalist" country, but India, hagridden by a vast and monstrous network of restrictions, castes, state regulations, and monopoly privileges is about as far from free-market capitalism as can be imagined.[1]

If we are to keep the term "capitalism" at all, then, we must distinguish between "free-market capitalism" on the one hand, and "state capitalism" on the other. The two are as different as day and night in their nature and consequences. Free-market capitalism is a network of free and voluntary exchanges in which producers work, produce, and exchange their products for the products of others through prices voluntarily arrived at. State capitalism consists of one or more groups making use of the coercive apparatus of the government — the State — to accumulate capital for themselves by expropriating the production of others by force and violence.

Throughout history, states have existed as instruments for organized predation and exploitation. It doesn't much matter which group of people happen to gain control of the State at any given time, whether it be oriental despots, kings, landlords, privileged merchants, army officers, or Communist parties. The result is everywhere and always the coercive mulcting of the mass of the producers — in most centuries, of course, largely the peasantry — by a ruling class of dominant rulers and their hired professional bureaucracy. Generally, the State has its inception in naked banditry and conquest, after which the conquerors settle down among the subject population to exact permanent and continuing tribute in the form of "taxation" and to parcel out the land of the peasants in huge tracts to the conquering warlords, who then proceed to extract "rent." A modern paradigm is the Spanish conquest of Latin America, when the military conquest of the native Indian peasantry led to the parceling out of Indian lands to the Spanish families, and the settling down of the Spaniards as a permanent ruling class over the native peasantry.

"In a profound sense, the free market is the method and society 'natural' to man; it can and does therefore arise 'naturally' without an elaborate intellectual system to explain and defend it."

To make their rule permanent, the State rulers need to induce their subject masses to acquiesce in at least the legitimacy of their rule. For this purpose the State has always taken a corps of intellectuals to spin apologia for the wisdom and the necessity of the existing system. The apologia differ over the centuries; sometimes it is the priestcraft using mystery and ritual to tell the subjects that the king is divine and must be obeyed; sometimes it is Keynesian liberals using their own form of mystery to tell the public that government spending, however seemingly unproductive, helps everyone by raising the GNP and energizing the Keynesian "multiplier." But everywhere the purpose is the same — to justify the existing system of rule and exploitation to the subject population; and everywhere the means are the same — the State rulers sharing their rule and a portion of their booty with their intellectuals. In the nineteenth century the intellectuals, the "monarchical socialists" of the University of Berlin, proudly declared that their chief task was to serve as "the intellectual bodyguard of the House of Hohenzollern." This has always been the function of the court intellectuals, past and present — to serve as the intellectual bodyguard of their particular ruling class.

con't

excerpted

In fact, it is instructive to make a list of the universally acknowledged problem areas of our economy and our society, and we will find running through that list a common glaring leitmotif: government. In all the high problem areas, government operation or control has been especially conspicuous.

Let us consider:

  • Foreign policy and war: Exclusively governmental.
  • Conscription: Exclusively governmental.
  • Crime in the streets: The police and the judges are a monopoly of government, and so are the streets.
  • Welfare system: The problem is in government welfare; there is no special problem in the private welfare agencies.
  • Water pollution: Municipally owned garbage is dumped in government owned rivers and oceans.
  • Postal service: The failings are in the government owned Post Office, not, for example, among such highly successful private competitors as bus-delivered packages and the Independent Postal System of America, for third-class mail.
  • The military-industrial complex: Rests entirely on government contracts.
  • Railroads: Subsidized and regulated heavily by government for a century.
  • Telephone: A government-privileged monopoly.
  • Gas and electric: A government-privileged monopoly.
  • Housing: Bedeviled by rent controls, property taxes, zoning laws, and urban renewal programs (all government).
  • Excess highways: All built and owned by government.
  • Union restrictions and strikes: The result of government privilege, notably in the Wagner Act of 1935.
  • High taxation: Exclusively governmental.
  • The schools: Almost all governmental, or if not directly so, heavily government subsidized and regulated.
  • Wiretapping and invasion of civil liberties: Almost all done by government.
  • Money and inflation: The money and banking system is totally under the control and manipulation of government.

Examine the problem areas, and everywhere, like a red thread, there lies the overweening stain of government. In contrast, consider the frisbee industry. Frisbees are produced, sold, and purchased without headaches, without upheavals, without mass breakdowns or protests. As a relatively free industry, the peaceful and productive frisbee business is a model of what the American economy once was and can be again — if it is freed of the repressive shackles of big government.

http://mises.org/story/3735

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Lying Propaganda

A MINORITY VIEW

BY WALTER WILLIAMS

RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2009

 

Lying Propaganda

 

            Michael Moore's new film, "Capitalism: A Love Story" will be released next month. I've neither seen nor read reviews of the film, except for a short piece in the London Telegraph (9/6/09) titled "Michael Moore film calls capitalism evil." Aware of Michael Moore's previous films, I know that it will be at best a misleading story about capitalism. So let's do some defensive mental preparation, not about the film but what is and what is not capitalism.

            Capitalism is an economic system characterized by private ownership and control over the means of production. The distribution of goods and services and their prices are mainly determined by competition in a free market. Under such a system the primary job of government is to protect private property, enforce contracts and ensure rule of law.

            There has never been a pure free market capitalistic system just as there has never been a pure communist or socialist system, where there is government ownership of the means of production and each individual has equal access to society's resources. However, we can rank economies as to whether they are closer to capitalism or closer to communism or socialism. If one ranked countries according to whether they were closer to the capitalistic end of the spectrum or the socialistic or communistic end, then ranked countries according to per capita GDP and finally rank countries according to Freedom House's "Map of Freedom in the World," he would find a pattern that is by no means a coincidence. The people in those countries closer to the capitalist end of the economic spectrum have far greater income and enjoy greater human rights protections than those toward the socialist and communist end.

            According to the London Telegraph article, Moore's film features priests who say capitalism is anti-Christian by failing to protect the poor. This is pure nonsense and revealed as such by asking, "If you're an unborn spirit, condemned by God to a life of poverty but allowed to choose the country in which to be poor, would you choose a country near the communist end of the economic spectrum or the capitalist end?" If you chose the United States, you'd find that according to the government surveys, the typical "poor" American has cable or satellite TV, two color TVs, and a DVD player or VCR. He has air conditioning, a car, a microwave, a refrigerator, a stove, and a clothes washer and dryer, and whether he has health insurance or not, he is able to obtain medical care when needed. Try to find that in Cuba, Russia, China or North Korea. If we buy into the nonsense of Moore's priests, the world's poor people are incredibly stupid. Whether fleeing legally or illegally, their destination country is likely to be closer to capitalism than their departure country.

            Most of our country's serious problems can be laid at the feet of Congress and the White House and not at capitalism. Take the financial crisis. One-third of the $15 trillion of mortgages in existence in 2008 are owned, or securitized by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Ginnie Mae, the Federal Housing and the Veterans Administration. Banks didn't mind making risky loans and Wall Street buyers didn't mind buying these repackaged loans because they assumed that they would be guaranteed by the federal government: read bailout by taxpayers. Under a capitalist system, financial institutions would not have been intimidated or encouraged into making risky loans and neither would they have been bailed out if they did so.

            Social Security, Medicare and its coverage of prescription drugs have an unfunded liability that exceeds $100 trillion. When those roosters come home to roost, they will make the financial meltdown we've been though look like child's play.

            Not withstanding all of the demagoguery, it is capitalism not socialism is that made us a great country and its socialism that will be our undoing.

            Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS.COM

http://economics.gmu.edu/wew/articles/09/LyingPropaganda.htm

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

General Motors Bans Michael Moore From Detroit Premiere Of His Own Movie

Michael Moore’s next documentary is “Capitalism: A Love Story,” a film which attacks the U.S. economic system as fundamentally unjust and declares, “Capitalism is an evil, and you cannot regulate evil. You have to eliminate it and replace it with something that is good for all people and that something is democracy.”

Although the movie is not set to open nationwide until Oct. 2, Moore has been premiering a number of sneak preview screenings for Detroit residents in his home state of Michigan. But, as Michigan Live reports, Moore ran into problems when it turned out one of the theaters he rented for the screenings was owned by General Motors (GM) — which Moore famously skewered for its anti-worker policies in his 1989 film Roger & Me.

GM agreed to run the movie only if both Moore and the local press were locked out. Essentially, GM banned Moore from his own screening. A local Detroit news station interviewed Moore about the incident. He said GM should “get over” its grudge against him and be more accountable to citizens, especially in light of the billions of dollars the government has loaned it:

MOORE: General Motors said that I could not be on the premises doing any interviews or press. … I would get over it if I were them. … In the movie I actually try to attempt to see the new chairman to share my ideas about mass transit and other things that the General Motors factories could be building that would benefit about society. … We have 50 billion dollars of our money sitting over there. That is owned by us now. And the de facto CEO is President Barack Obama. I legally rented the four theaters to have my Detroit premiere, and yet somehow they’re able to ban me from my own premiere here? What country are we living in?

Watch it:

In addition to the over 1,000 theater opening Oct. 2, Moore plans to screen the film for free on Oct. 1 in the some of the poorest parts of the country.

Monday, September 21, 2009

Michael Moores New Movie: Capitalism a Propaganda Story

By Gary Reed

Is Michael Moore America's Leni Riefenstahl?

Michael Moore, the professional freedom-hating socialism-hugging documentary filmmaker strolled onto the Jay Leno show to push his latest misnomered movie, "Capitalism: A Love Story."

Not only did he show up but he showed off his utter ignorance of economics in general and capitalism in particular.

And he, like many people on the political right and virtually everyone on the left, labeled capitalism as evil even as he clearly demonstrated that the evil belongs to government.

Then, because of ignorance or the willful refusal to discern the difference between capitalism and corporatism, he committed one of the most mindlessly simple-minded, obviously oblivious, childlike economic fallacies of all time.

But let's start with the title, "Capitalism: A Love Story." Moore's explanation is, "The love refers to how the wealthy love their money except this has a new twist. They not only love their money now, they love our money."

(Jay Leno responded, "Right.")

But the simple act of loving money, anybody's money, never hurt anyone. The simple act of loving anything never hurt anyone. Or ever helped anyone either. Some people, frequently liberals, love to say they love the poor and the downtrodden and the disadvantaged but don't personally do anything about it because it's the act of loving that gives them the reward of superiority they're looking for.

So the title is pretty much meaningless.

Then, going for another catchy catchphrase, Moore says, "capitalism is actually legalized greed."

Huh? Let's think about this. How is "legalized greed" an indictment of capitalism? Capitalism can't "legalize" anything. Capitalism doesn't have legions of politicians passing laws requiring you to shop in their stores. They don't have cops and sheriffs and US Marshals and SWAT teams to arrest you for failing to buy their electric nose hair trimmers and their moccasin insoles with their Magically Massaging Molecules or their Triple-Threat McWendyKing Burger Bombs with Secret Sauce.

"Legalizing" is an act of government. If he thinks "capitalism is evil" (as he apparently says in the film) because they buy politicians, why aren't politicians evil for selling their power to capitalists?

Why didn't Moore title his movie "Government: A Love Story" on the premise that government is evil because government loves power?

But this isn't meant to be an exhaustive review of Michael Moore's little hatchet job flick. It's only meant to spotlight his most egregiously idiotic economic nonsense in his Jay Leno Show interview.

Here's the relevant transcript of Moore with Leno lapping up the silliness. (Transcripts and videos are all over the net. This one came from The Nation sans accompanying commentary.)

MOORE: That's insane. We live in a democracy. We're supposed to have like fairness and equality. And, you know, when you have a pie on the table, you know, something you and I know something about.

LENO: Right. We've both had pie on the table.

MOORE: But when you have a pie on the table, there's ten slices, and one guy at the table says, 'Nine of those slices are mine...

LENO: Right.
MOORE: And the other nine of you, you can fight over the last slice,' I mean, that's essentially the kind of economy we have now.

This is known as the fallacy of the "zero-sum game" view of wealth.

Even though the "zero-sum" concept that society has only one pie and everyone must fight over that pie has been refuted over and over and over by economist after economist, this absurdity just never seems to die.

And here we have Michael Moore huffing and puffing and pumping new life into it.

Since the "economic pie" is treated as though it was always there and it was always the same size, the only question in the minds of the Michael Moores of the world is how to equitably distribute the slices.

But wait. Where did that pie come from in the first place? Well, duh, maybe someone baked it. And if one pie can be baked, why can't hundreds or thousands or millions of pies be baked? Big pies, little pies, pizza pies, cream pies for throwing in the faces of economic clowns?

Neither pies nor wealth are static sums; they must be created.

It's a very telling fallacy: the collectivist's concept of the national economy is represented by a single pie while capitalists envision a vibrant economy of unlimited pies.

If government gets out of the way those awkwardly overlooked capitalist bakers will bake as many tasty pies for the lowest possible prices that the competitive free market will bear until everyone who wants a slice gets a slice. Governments don't create pies. Governments don't actually create anything. All they have is the power to stifle creation.

Get government's Simple Simon out of the path of the Pie Man and Michael Moore's puzzling problem disappears.

Capitalists are creators. Governments are takers. It really is that simple.

Beyond that, the one thing Moore and virtually everyone else save a few laissez-faire conservatives and economic-savvy libertarians just don't comprehend is that capitalism does not exist in America, and has not existed for many decades, if in fact it ever did.

What we have is the incestuous copulation of corporate money and government power that long ago produced what was once called a "mixed economy" and has now become the mutant known as Statist Corporatism.

Big Government power joined at the hip with Big Corporate cash has corrupted both government and capitalism.

And yet Moore, unable or uninclined to see the mutually destructive connection of that grotesque pairing that destroys economies everywhere it's allowed to happen, continues to mindlessly embrace big government as a savior while condemning capitalism as the Great Satan.

If there's any doubt about Moore's political position, take note of this quote from a recent AP article:

According to Moore, "the revolt you think I am calling for has actually begun. It began Nov. 4," when President Barack Obama was elected.

(Wait. Isn't Obama rich? Doesn't that make him one of "the wealthy" that "not only love their money now, they love our money"?)
In any case, libertarians know he has it exactly backwards. The so-called Obama revolt is not a revolt, it's merely one more incarnation of the same old anti-freedom totalitarian groupism that has plagued mankind since the beginning of misty history. The real revolt is libertarianism.

Real capitalism frees while corporatist statism enslaves. Yet Moore is a self-proclaimed Obama statist. Doesn't he know there will be nothing to prevent some statist bureaucrat in the future from deciding that Michael Moore should not be allowed to make movies?

Or maybe he has nothing to worry about. Maybe "Capitalism: A Love Story" makes Moore the American Leni Riefenstahl (Adolf Hitler's favorite propaganda filmmaker).

Poor Mike. He shoulda taken a crash course in Econ 101 before rolling his first foot of film.

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-1449-Dallas-Libertarian-Examiner~y2009m9d20-Michael-Moores-new-movie-Capitalism-A-Jive-Story

 

Michael Moore: Newspapers 'Slit Their Own Throats'




It’s not the Internet that has killed newspapers, Filmmaker Michael Moore said in a four-minute detour from talking about his new movie, “Capitalism: A Love Story.”

Instead, he said, it’s corporate greed. “These newspapers have slit their own throats,” he said. “Good riddance.”

Moore said that newspapers, bought up by corporations in the last generation, have pursued profits at the expense of news gathering. By basing their businesses on advertising over circulation, newspaper owners have neglected their true economic base and core constituency, he said.

He also accused those corporations of supporting Republican candidates, which have discouraged reading and education in measures such as supporting the elimination of the Education Department at the federal level.

And Moore cited newspapers like those in Baltimore or Detroit, his home town, with firing reporters that cover subjects that affect the community.

Ultimately, he said, this was self-defeating. It would be like GM deciding to discourage people from learning how to drive, he said.

“It’s their own greed, their own stupidity,” he said. “It’s capitalism that taken (newspapers) from us.”

Moore said he tried to include the subject in his new film, but it became too large a topic and instead he may make an entire film about the fall of newspapers.

“One year or two years from now,” he predicted, “we are not going to have daily newspapers.”

Friday, August 28, 2009

"Capitalism: A Love Story" Trailer




Moore has said of the film, which opens nationwide October 2:

"I made this movie as if it was going to be the last movie I was allowed to make." And, on the film itself, "It's got it all - lust, passion, romance and 14,000 jobs being eliminated every day."

Friday, August 21, 2009

Brand New Trailer for Michael Moore's 'Capitalism: A Love Story'

'CAPITALISM: A LOVE STORY' - In Theaters October 2nd "It's a crime story. But it's also a war story about class warfare. And a vampire movie, with the upper 1 percent feeding off the rest of us. ...

Brand New Trailer for Michael Moore's 'Capitalism: A Love Story'

Friday, August 21st, 2009

It's here! Check out the brand new trailer for Michael Moore's 'Capitalism: A Love Story.'

Mike is premiering the film at the oldest film festival in the world, the Venice International Film Festival.

Next he heads to the Toronto International Film Festival where 'Roger & Me' won the festival's People's Choice award 20 years ago.

'Capitalism: A Love Story' opens nationwide October 2nd.

Can't wait for you to see it!

Webmaster
MichaelMoore.com
webguy@michaelmoore.com