Posted by
voice_of_reason on Monday, September 14, 2009 6:49:35 PM
There's something about Michael Moore's special brand of hypocrisy that always manages to set me off!
BTW, I don't take the position that America - or, by extension the American system - is consistently or uniformly representative of freedom, fairness or equality. There is plenty of criticism that one could justify against America's actions (past and present) and against certain aspects of American society. But, when Moore attacks Capitalism (which doesn't exist in pure form, even in America), he is attacking a system that is known to reliably produce wealth for a majority of the population - by properly allocating limited resources. Since the alternatives that Moore proposes (or praises) are systems that are infinitely worse than American-style Capitalism, Moore comes off as a person who can't understand simple causal relationships.
Even when one measures economic disparity - a metric that is favored by Leftist economists - Capitalism is proven to be a success. Observe that most nations that follow a semi-Capitalistic model have a stable and reasonably affluent middle-class. Nations with the widest disparities follow systems resembling feudal or tribal monarchies and/or socialism. For every Bill Gates that America produces, there are millions of average, middle-class Americans who achieve an enviably high standard of living. If America impeded the creation or the success of Bill Gates (as do some systems) the American middle class would not have the affluence that it currently enjoys.
Capitalism is a vehicle that maximizes the creation of wealth - nothing more, nothing less. Wealth that is created in Capitalism, is saved, invested and used ... while creating more wealth. If people use that wealth wisely (and the word 'wisely' is subject to interpretation) then their societies are generally successful. Wealth, when created and spent freely, is a great weapon against hunger, disease and acts a bulwark against many other problems. It can also be used improperly, e.g. to conduct ill-conceived wars. But it is obscene to attack the mostly virtuous cause (Capitalism) because the effect (affluence) can sometimes be used inappropriately.
While it is fashionable for Leftists to speak disparagingly of wealth creation and the profit motive, it is wealth that is the best antidote to hunger, disease and all the other maladies that Leftists would like to eliminate. Wealth must be created, before it can be used for any purpose - even for well-intentioned Leftist programs. The 'generosity' of Leftists wouldn't be possible without the fact that someone, somewhere in the world, created a profit by working towards their own self-interest under some form of Capitalism.
The other argument that is often made by Leftists is that Capitalism must be controlled (regulated), and/or that the wealth that it produces must be re-distributed by the enlightened ones. However, re-distributive policies wind up killing the source, resulting in less wealth creation. And regulation often takes the form of Govt meddling, which has disastrous consequences, e.g. the current financial mess.
Here is a somewhat dated analogy: remember those fuse-boxes in American homes from many decades ago? After blowing fuses a few dozen times (by overloading the circuits), some enterprising people would literally "put a penny in the fusebox". If you were lucky, your home didn't burn down due to electrical fires; but homeowners could now overload the circuits significantly and take unreasonable risks.
Capitalism has 'fuses' too, in the form of a healthy skepticism on the part of consumers. When Govt steps in (by insuring losses), it creates a falsely high level of trust - replacing fuses with pennies - and encouraging risky behavior. The resulting electrical fire is blamed [by Moore, and his intellectual peers] on Capitalism. But, that is like blaming the fire on the Power Utility -- although it was the "penny in the fusebox" that caused the the overload that caused the home to burn down.