Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Capitalism: A Love Story

Expand Messages
  • DavidH
    ... Moore seems pretty clueless, apparently believing that a little more union (and Roman Catholic) influence on the economy might return America to the 1950s
    Message 1 of 8 , May 1, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@...> wrote:
      >
      > I watched this flick
      Moore seems pretty clueless, apparently believing that a little more union (and Roman Catholic) influence on the economy might return America to the 1950s world of good manufacturing jobs on which he looks back so lovingly.
      >



      Walt, that's interesting what you say about Roman Catholic influence. What does that mean? That he just wants the Catholic Church to speak out generally about social justice? Or, is he alluding to something more specific, like Distributism? I notice that idea is making the rounds in the (Catholic-led) paleoconservative movement, being positioned as the "radical solution." Ironically, this was the "solution" Leo XIII put forth to counter Georgism.

      Certainly, a Georgist economy might come to resemble distributism, but via free-market processes, not via redistribution of land and capital by government fiat.

      david harrell
    • Bryan Kavanagh
      Mason Gaffney has, of course, done this excellent paper about great religious awakenings having presaged economic reform. Maybe it can be got to Mike Moore,
      Message 2 of 8 , May 1, 2011

      Mason Gaffney has, of course, done this excellent paper about great religious awakenings having presaged economic reform.  Maybe it can be got to Mike Moore, together with congratulations on his film? Although he does command an audience he needs direction.

       

      -          BK

       

      From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of DavidH
      Sent: Monday, 2 May 2011 3:06 AM
      To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [LandCafe] Re: Capitalism: A Love Story



      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@...> wrote:
      >
      > I watched this flick
      Moore seems pretty clueless, apparently believing that a little more union (and Roman Catholic) influence on the economy might return America to the 1950s world of good manufacturing jobs on which he looks back so lovingly.
      >

      Walt, that's interesting what you say about Roman Catholic influence. What does that mean? That he just wants the Catholic Church to speak out generally about social justice? Or, is he alluding to something more specific, like Distributism? I notice that idea is making the rounds in the (Catholic-led) paleoconservative movement, being positioned as the "radical solution." Ironically, this was the "solution" Leo XIII put forth to counter Georgism.

      Certainly, a Georgist economy might come to resemble distributism, but via free-market processes, not via redistribution of land and capital by government fiat.

      david harrell

    • walto
      ... He quotes two priests and a Bishop saying that capitalism is contrary to the Bible. He also shows some news clips of Martin Luther King and the Berrigan
      Message 3 of 8 , May 1, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "DavidH" <discodave1974@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        >
        > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@> wrote:
        > >
        > > I watched this flick
        > Moore seems pretty clueless, apparently believing that a little more union (and Roman Catholic) influence on the economy might return America to the 1950s world of good manufacturing jobs on which he looks back so lovingly.
        > >
        >
        >
        >
        > Walt, that's interesting what you say about Roman Catholic influence. What does that mean? That he just wants the Catholic Church to speak out generally about social justice? Or, is he alluding to something more specific, like Distributism? I notice that idea is making the rounds in the (Catholic-led) paleoconservative movement, being positioned as the "radical solution." Ironically, this was the "solution" Leo XIII put forth to counter Georgism.
        >

        He quotes two priests and a Bishop saying that capitalism is contrary to the Bible. He also shows some news clips of Martin Luther King and the Berrigan brothers stirring things up. Personally, I don't care for left appeals to religion any more than right appeals to religion.


        > Certainly, a Georgist economy might come to resemble distributism, but via free-market processes, not via redistribution of land and capital by government fiat.
        >
        > david harrell
        >

        It redistributes what never should have been monopolized to begin with. It also privatises what should never have been socialized (labor and its fruits). Without those changes, there's really no hope of any efficacious democracy (or fall of the present plutocracy), I don't think.

        W
      • DavidH
        ... The question is, how? Who decides who gets what ? dh
        Message 4 of 8 , May 1, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@...> wrote:
          >

          > It redistributes what never should have been monopolized to begin with. It also privatises what should never have been socialized (labor and its fruits).



          The question is, how? Who decides who gets what ?

          dh
        • walto
          Socializing all land and other natural resource values is a massive redistribution (too big even for some self-dubbed socialists who post here). Providing
          Message 5 of 8 , May 2, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            Socializing all land and other natural resource values is a massive redistribution (too big even for some self-dubbed socialists who post here). Providing Langstonian personal exemptions does the rest. There doesn't need to be (indeed CAN'T) be any other threshold (i.e., non-democratic or 'constitutional') "determinations" regarding who gets what.

            Moore doesn't get that he can't stop the world from spinning. Globalization, technological job losses, etc. are facts, and sit down strikes can't stop them any more than luddism could. So without (appropriate) taxation wealth cannot but concentrates until societies become plutonomies of the type so loved by certain Citi bigwigs. If the LVT is big enough, and the demos decide on it, there is no reason why there couldn't be BOTH a personal exemption (required) and a citizen's dividend (voted use of the surplus). They really aren't mutually exclusive--if the people prefer direct equal payouts to, e.g., fire protection--or there's enough money for both, c'est la vie.

            Even if one--as Harry suggests--dumps the proceeds into the sea, the LVT represents a type of redistribution.

            W

            W

            W

            --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "DavidH" <discodave1974@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            >
            > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@> wrote:
            > >
            >
            > > It redistributes what never should have been monopolized to begin with. It also privatises what should never have been socialized (labor and its fruits).
            >
            >
            >
            > The question is, how? Who decides who gets what ?
            >
            > dh
            >
          • Scott on the Spot
            I m doing my best! See my Georgist-oriented review of this movie in this archived issue of Common Ground s GroundSwell:
            Message 6 of 8 , May 2, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              I'm doing my best! See my Georgist-oriented review of this movie in this archived issue of Common Ground's GroundSwell:
              http://commonground-usa.net/so09MMoore.html


              --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@...> wrote:
              >
              > I watched this flick yesterday on Netflix, and came to the conclusion that geoists really DO need to get to Moore, who seems to me, in a sense, completely lost.
              >
              > The main thrust and the solutions offered in his movie are both naive and propagandistic, although several of the individual stories are quite compelling and disturbing. I'm thinking in particular of the CitiGroup "Plutonomy Memo" and the "Dead Peasant" corporate life insurance policies companies take out on their employees. Also the privatized juvenile facility in PA, where money could be made by judges, simply by keeping kids behind bars. That stuff is certainly outrageous. I also liked (and agree with) his sketch of Reagan's rise to power.
              >
              > But union sit-ins and foreclosure revolts are not really going to do anything to improve the lot of Americans. Unearned economic rents have to be redistributed. Without that, the plutonomy is a death spiral. Moore seems pretty clueless, apparently believing that a little more union (and Roman Catholic) influence on the economy might return America to the 1950s world of good manufacturing jobs on which he looks back so lovingly.
              >
              > W
              >
            • roy_langston1
              ... By abolishing privilege or, where that is not possible, recovering its publicly created value for public purposes and benefit. ... The (privilege-) free
              Message 7 of 8 , May 2, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "DavidH"
                <discodave1974@...> wrote:

                > The question is, how?

                By abolishing privilege or, where that is not possible,
                recovering its publicly created value for public purposes
                and benefit.

                > Who decides who gets what ?

                The (privilege-) free market.

                -- Roy Langston
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.