Michael Moore is in favor of a bailout for the auto industry but only with a lot of conditions. In a Wednesday interview, Moore told Larry King that the Big 3 car companies should face mandates to build mass transportation and automobiles that use little or no gas. Also, Moore wants to see “a whole new management team.”
Moore thinks that the United Autoworkers Union (UAW) has taken enough cuts in their pay and benefits. “The UAW has — has given back so much to General Motors and the other companies. I’m stunned, actually, at how much they’ve given back. I think they’ve given too much back, frankly,” he said.
The future looks bleak for the current financial system, according to Moore. “I think, really, what we’re seeing here right now with them, with the banks, we’re seeing the end of capitalism — the end of capitalism as we know it.”
For the transcript, go here.
38 Comments
November 20, 2008 at 8:48 am
Well it at least Michael Moore gets it. It’s called socialism. It’s called a command economy.
November 20, 2008 at 11:34 am
Well I guess if one were to think of socialism for the top 1% it could be considered that…I however think it is fascist capitalism….
We can only hope the top 1% will be stifled from all their rape and pillage of our country and the working class will again be able to make a decent living for their famalie’s before they all starve or freeze to death while the fat pig’s fly all over on our dime’s…Blessings
November 20, 2008 at 11:42 am
Well witch1 from where I sit government bailouts = corporate welfare. I’d like nothing more to see the CEOs and Boards of Directors from Wall Street shopping at WalMart instead of taxpayers bailing thier hinnies out of the fire. They made their bed and should have to sleep in it rather than calling room service (Congress) for a new mattress.
And to me, Congress buying ownership in private business is socialism pure and simple. I do agree with you that what we have now is a kind of facist capitilism that no more resembles a free market then Venuzela.
November 20, 2008 at 11:49 am
Well we do agree on something…Thank you..Blessings
November 20, 2008 at 11:50 am
At least Venezuela is putting the wealth from their oil and national resources back into their country, and taking care of ALL their citizens, even the ‘least among them’. I have a hard time trying to demonize that.
They provide healthcare for ALL their citizens.
November 20, 2008 at 11:59 am
I would like to see the CEO’s brought down to earth, but not at the expense of all the millions of workers who depend on the livings they make from their jobs. By losing those millions of jobs, those stinking CEO’s won’t suffer one bit. They will still have their millions, probably be rewarded even more, and they will still be flying in their private jets. It’s the workers with next to nothing who will suffer and be made to pay with all they have.
CEO’s will never experience homelessness, never experience a loss of their pensions, or their medical coverage. They will never worry about feeding their families. They will probably never even need to know what the current balance of their checkbook..
Greed is an ugly thing.
November 20, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Here’s another wonderful story of yet another failed CEO who squeeked out just in the nick of time – with his golden parachute – a reward for greed and failure..
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/11/earlier_retirement_date_lets_c.php
Anywhere else in this country, if you failed, you were fired. Not CEO’s, bankers, or politicians. And they always leave a stream of victims in their wake.. The ‘free market’ isn’t free.
Sickening.
November 20, 2008 at 12:14 pm
@nwmuse – I don’t disagree with taking care of the the “least among them” of our citizenry. What I disagree with is when compliance is at the end of a gun. Anytime a government has enough power to arbitrarily nullify contracts, seize private property and threaten the life and liberty of those who oppose your policies, the ends cannot justify the means.
I have no doubt whatsoever that Chavez is living high on the hog compared to the poorest of the poor in Venuzela. I’d venture to guess that he’s living far better than you, me or anyone else on this blogsite and has fared disproportionately better thanks to his nationalization/redistribution. Don’t forget about last December when he was pushing for passage of a referendum that would have allowed him to stay in office indefinitely and appoint regional leaders. Doesn’t sound benevolent to me.
November 20, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Great post’s Lady Muse, Thank you….I agree, greed and the top 1% ugly deed’s have brought us to this day….The day’s where million’s go with out food, job’s, housing and a voice so that a handful of filthy rich can get richer….Sad time’s that I hope will change…..Blessings
November 20, 2008 at 12:38 pm
I don’t care what it’s called. What we’re doing is not working, and we’re trying to fix it in a way that will not work.
We need to start over, and things will be getting much worse before they get better.
November 20, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Chris, I’m sure he lives well as do all leaders of all countries. Bush and Cheney live “high on the hog”, and will continue to do so after they leave. B/C don’t give a shit about the poor and people suffering or struggling in this country, and could care less if those people have healthcare or not. They have sold this country off bit by bit, and mortgaged the rest. They have put nothing back into this country. The destruction they have wrought is off the charts. All in the name of “Capitalism” and the not so free “free market”. A good thing? I think not. Greed and non-accountability run-amuck. Only the very few prosper with the many left to pay.
And don’t kid yourself.. Bush and Cheney used tax-payer money to fund their own private army in the building up of Blackwater. If their ‘rule’ had been threatened in any way, you would have seen these men on the streets of America, and not functioning in a ‘benevolent’ way….
I don’t know about Chavez’s politics, I am also not afraid of labels, but I do see that by what he is doing, he is at taking care of the needs of the people in his country. He is putting the people before the corporations. If by putting money from the natural resources of their country back into the country – building hospitals, schools, businesses, roads, bridges, etc.. to take care of the needs of his people, at least he is doing something positive. Corporations may not see it that way, but it’s building up his country. Venezuela is #9 in oil production in the world. The oil ‘powers’ of the planet want at it.
Everything is about perspective. I don’t buy into him being “evil”. He just threatens the “free market” capitalists trying to force the world to operate according to their rules. He’s not playing along, and they can’t afford for him to be successful. Others might want to follow his lead.
That is what I have gleaned from what I have read so far.
I did read Naomi Klein’s “The Shock Doctrine”. Interesting reading. It helped me to understand a lot more of the history of South America, and the role that the “Chicago School” free market capitalists had on it.
November 20, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Interesting take on Chavez. There are nine countries in So America who are on the US shit list (Equador being another) because they are taking their oil profits and actually doing something for the people of their countries. That, is a NoNo in American capitalism (that is also how captialism should work…not for the few at the top, but for the good of the whole, which means that there is more of everything to go around, jobs, money, all that stuff which supports a country’s economy. The US had ships off the coast of Equador for a while there…not sure where that is at now.)
Read Confessions of an Economic Hitman. It is very telling.
You cannot have capitalism when you do not have a middle class which has disposable income. You do not have a middle class with disposable income if they do not have jobs which allow them to live above a living wage. If every penny they get goes into food, shelter, heat and medicine, they cannot buy STUFF, and STUFF is what drives the economy.
Chavez may be living larger than you or I, but neither you or I are president of a country.
November 20, 2008 at 1:39 pm
And if you don’t make your own STUFF, buying more of it won’t create jobs for you and your fellow middle class workers. We were buying plenty of it at the start of Bushco, but none of the money circulated back to the middle class. Now we are tapped out of equity and the credit cards are maxed out. No more STUFF…
November 20, 2008 at 1:48 pm
The problem is not the Chicago School of Economics, because frankly, our economy is not run in any sense of the word on the principles of either the Chicago or Austrian school. The Federal Reserve has allowed the concentration of power into one quasi-governmental agency. The consolidation of this power has enabled Wall Street to dictate monetary policy since the Depression (to their benefit) and you’ll note just who staffs the Fed and the Treasury – wall street execs. The artificial string pulling by the Fed to adjust monetary supply and credit artificially distorts the economic reality of the country and creates bubbles and irrational exuberence that cannot be sustained indefinately and must collapse under their own weight. The dot.com bubble bursting was no more a factor of evil Clinton than the housing bubble was of evil Bush.
The difference was that Banks and Wall Street were not as heavy invested in derrivatives based on the tech sector and their losses did not exceed their capital. Further, the tech companies either filed for BK restructured and resumed, liquidated assets, or were purchased by other companies. No hand outs were given.
As to the use of Blackwater, I do not think many in the military or national guard would go along with massive marshal law using private contractors. Further, if Gitmo detainees can get to the Supreme Court, so could millions of citizens challenging an end-run by contractors of the Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act. And I for one would gladly exercise my 2nd Amendment to put down Blackwater. I think the idea that Blackwater could effective support a coup is a tin foil theory at best.
November 20, 2008 at 1:52 pm
I guess we will simply have to disagree – completely. And frankly Chris, using the term “tin foil” to dismiss anything you disagree with is pretty condescending, and frankly – lame.
November 20, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Chris, do you have a job? You sure spend a lot of time here.
November 20, 2008 at 2:01 pm
His blog says he’s a corporate paralegal, so I would gather he does have a job. Would you like to answer your own question now?
November 20, 2008 at 2:10 pm
As far as the Washington Consensus is concerned, the influence of Chicago School is superficial at best. The failure of the Washington Consensus was significantly flawed for its lack of vision beyond what was originally formulated, John Williamson has even conceded the point that the prescriptions were incomplete in providing instructions on implimentation, policies were selectively implemented and varied based on political expediency and that there was little progression beyond quick fixes. In other words the damage of what was not included with the reforms was greater than the damage done by what was included.
Further, I would argue that failures in succesful implementation of the Washington Consensus has just as much to do with the political traditions in South America as they do with the economic growing pains you must suffer in reforming economies. Had the economies been so vibrant and successful prior to the consensus, there would have been no need for them in the first place.
@ Houseofroberts – Well said. Enough stuff for our government too. If out of control spending and unlimited credit doesn’t work for consumers, it won’t work for companies, banks or government either so long as we’re all playing by the same rules.
November 20, 2008 at 2:16 pm
@ nwmuse – My reference was to Blackwater acting as Bush’s praetorian guard to take over the streets of America as “tin foil”. I cannot see any possible circumstance where that could happen and go unchallenged by the SCOTUS, Congress, military or individual Americans. It would be absolutely amazing seeing as how long we’ve been in Iraq, that Blackwater could control the American population.
November 20, 2008 at 2:25 pm
The point is, Chris, that Blackwater (or some incarnation thereof) could be loosed upon the streets of America, AND THEN it would have to be dealt with by the SCOTUS, or Congress or individual Americans.
No, they would not succeed, but it is within in the realm of possibility.
See the difference?
November 20, 2008 at 2:30 pm
@ Zooey – Yes I see that it is possible but nwmuse said did not sound like a mere theoretical possibility, rather insistance that it would have happened. Basically some implied threat that if he were to be impeached or rebuffed with policies in SCOTUS or whatever the trigger was, one existed and it would have been pulled under the right circumstances.
“And don’t kid yourself.. Bush and Cheney used tax-payer money to fund their own private army in the building up of Blackwater. If their ‘rule’ had been threatened in any way, you would have seen these men on the streets of America, and not functioning in a ‘benevolent’ way….”
November 20, 2008 at 2:35 pm
I guess you’ll have to take it up with muse.
November 20, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Hey Chris, what state are you posting from?
November 20, 2008 at 2:41 pm
@ Zooey – Well I agree they wouldn’t have succeeded and Bush, Cheney et al. would have been either killed or captured and tried for treason so the “what’s the point of doing it then” issue makes the whole theory sound tinfoil to me.
November 20, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Well, we all do things that might seem pointless to others, don’t we Chris?
November 20, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Zooey, Might I take a guess at that one?
November 20, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Certainly.
November 20, 2008 at 2:59 pm
BTW Chris, you never said what state you’re posting from.
November 20, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Henderson Nevada?
November 20, 2008 at 3:15 pm
It’s an IP track! It’s a trap! /starwars
As to the “Blackwater Coup d’ Etat” theory, Blackwater’s full-time employees number well under 1,000… it is, to me, inconceivable that a force that small could overthrow a government, especially with as devoted of a military as the U.S. has… remember, all enemies, foreign and domestic.
November 20, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Boy, braindead, are your numbers off there!
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jan/25/opinion/oe-scahill25
This was written in January 2007. Blackwater trains approx. 40,000 new soldiers a year.
November 20, 2008 at 3:26 pm
According to John M. Broder and James Risen in the September 27, 2007 NYTimes (that right-wing hate mag!) Blackwater “has a total of about 550 full-time employees”… I was only off by about 450.
November 20, 2008 at 4:11 pm
@ Zooey – Yes Henderson, NV dbadass is correct. Its posted on my blogsite.
@ nwmuse – For the sake of discussion, let’s be generous and say that Blackwater has access to 150,000 operators. Their operators are private citizens who can leave the employ of Blackwater when they so choose. These private citizens are overwhelmingly former mililtary who have been screened and vetted by Blackwater. At the comencement of hostilities agaisnt US citizens, I would venture to guess that there would minimally be 20% who would outright refuse to take up arms against Americans.
Down to 120,000 which would be approximately 3x the number of private soldiers currently in Iraq. Out of the approximate 1.3 million active and reserve members of the military, being generous, lets say there’s a 20% defection rate which would add 260,000 the coup ranks for a total of 380,000 armed insurgents. Assuming there are citizens that would support the coup, add another 120,000 private citizens. You now have a force of 500,000 insurgents and supporters vs. a population of 300 million give or take pissed off Americans. Those are some pretty long odds which I would not put money on.
November 20, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Chris, this is my last response to you ever. It’s amazing what people will do for really good money. They are paid well. You arm that many people that well, and they are ‘believers’ in their because along with good “authoritarians”, and yes, people would be very intimidated in no time flat. Dictators have created their own private armies. They were very effective.
I don’t have time for people who are toying with us or jerking us around.
Honest discussion – sure. There isn’t much honest about you. Shame.. Especially if you are planning to go into politics, though nothing surprises me any more about the behavior of Republicans.
November 20, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Muse, I’d encourage you to look at the time stamp of Chris’ last post in this thread and the time stamp of my last post in the Army thread… the times are exactly the same. Now I’d either have to be running off two computers or an extremely fast typist to be able to post 2 different items from 2 different accounts at the exact same time.
November 20, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Braindead, easy enough to do with two windows open and logged in to both windows with a different account each. Or maybe you have a desktop AND a laptop. I had both for a while when I used to work at a couple things at the same time. It’s not hard to do, especially when you use a certain kind of email account for registration. You just hit send at the same time. Duh..
Nobody is stupid here. It IS on the other hand, a stupid thing to do.
That’s your last response as well. Bye-bye!
November 20, 2008 at 4:25 pm
I’m honored that you think enough of me to imagine that I would go to those extremes to make a point on a relatively unimportant blog…
But it is a little off-putting that you think so highly of yourself as to imagine that anyone would go to those extremes to make a point on a relatively unimportant blog…
November 20, 2008 at 4:33 pm
@nwmuse – Yes dictators have paid good money but an armed coup led by the POTUS would result in 1. A bank run, 2. Hyperdeflation of the dollar, 3. complete collapse of the wall street and the financial system 4. Congress would cease all funding for the insurrective elements even assuming they had money, it would be worthless (this was the problem with the Confederacy once they ran out of gold and silver which backed their currency).
If you’re imputing my honesty I’d like to know why. I have been completely honest, forthright, respectful and frank in my opinions and interactions. At no time have I toyed with or jerked anyone on this site around.