Hollywood Hates Capitalism...

[Mensch]

 

[pbrauer]

This has to be one of stupidest videos I've seen in awhile. I saw this at Newsbusters earlier and almost posted it myself. Who the hell funds these anti-capitalist movies? Capitalists of course.

Just some more Hollywood bashing and victimhood from the right wing. :roll:

Next

 

[TurtleDude]

A good friend of mine in college ended up being a major player in both Bush administrations including serving as acting Attorney General. He is a guy who came from an area that normally turns out dems (Long Island wealthy Jewish). He also was a member of the SAG. I asked him why so many hollywood types were liberals.

He noted several reasons.

1) the first is a craving to be liked. Many actors play different roles but they crave being popular and being "liberal" he noted tends to be more popular especially coming from someone who is wealthy.

2) secondly, he noted, many actors and actresses are libertines and cannot stand being called "Sinners" by the religious right. The hatred of the bible thumpers by a group of people that are generally agnostic is to be expected he noted. Hollywood was also one of the first places Jews could succeed and that only increases the distrust of the religious right

3) finally, he noted, success in Hollywood is often very different than in the business world. Many of the hollywood elite got to where they are by family connections or who they sleep with. You can go down the list of current "stars" and see family connections-
As my friend noted, the "best" actors or actresses often never get a major role while people who really aren't all that talented or who never really worked in the trade become huge stars (witness Arnold the "guvernrator" or Harrison Ford)
Thus, the hollywood types assume that those who become CEO of GE or P&G did it the same way Nicolas Gage or Wynona Ryder became big stars (family connections) when in reality Forbes magazine noted that the average CEO of a fortune 500 company

A) moved 6 times before becoming CEO
B) averaged 65 hour work weeks for 14 years prior to becoming CEO

So it is understandable why the hollyweird elite are so anti corporate. They don't understand it, they see it allied with a group they hate, and they project their own track to success onto corporate america

 

[Guy Incognito]

when in reality Forbes magazine noted that the average CEO of a fortune 500 company

A) moved 6 times before becoming CEO
B) averaged 65 hour work weeks for 14 years prior to becoming CEO

Yeah, because everybody knows nepotism is unheard of in the corporate world :roll:. Also, link to Forbes article or it doesn't exist.

 

[TurtleDude]

Yeah, because everybody knows nepotism is unheard of in the corporate world :roll:. Also, link to Forbes article or it doesn't exist.

I read it years ago. DO you dispute what I say because you have some issues with me or do you honestly believe its not true. And yes there is nepotism in the corporate world-for example, the Waltons or here in Ohio, billionaire Carl Lindner Jr (Chiquita brands, United Dairy Farms, Great American Insurance) has most of his empire now run by his sons. But those aren't huge publicly traded Corporations like GE or P&G where there is no such nepotism and if you take the top 500 Corporations, its not nearly as great as it is in Hollywood.

 

[Guy Incognito]

DO you dispute what I say because you have some issues with me or do you honestly believe its not true.

Nothing against you personally, TD, if anything I like debating with you because you are fair minded even if we disagree on a lot.

 

[Mensch]

This has to be one of stupidest videos I've seen in awhile. I saw this at Newsbusters earlier and almost posted it myself. Who the hell funds these anti-capitalist movies? Capitalists of course.

Just some more Hollywood bashing and victimhood from the right wing. :roll:

Next

Aren't you a capitalist? We are all capitalists, and though capitalism has done wonders for society, we still bash it every chance we get.

Michael Moore is a common anti-capitalist, capitalist.

And this isn't the right wing. Forget the binaries.

 

[Deuce]

30 billion dollar industry and this guy thinks they hate capitalism.

 

[Mensch]

30 billion dollar industry and this guy thinks they hate capitalism.

Isn't Moore apart of that industry? Does he hate capitalism? Aren't we all here discussing the merits and flaws of capitalism without ever considering the lack of alternatives?

And btw, the sheer number of dollars that sustains such an industry does not define a capitalist, unless you consider capitalists to be any being or entity that deals in currency. Most people do not consider the Soviet Union to be a capitalist state, yet they had industries sustained by profits much larger than 30 billion a year.

 

[Deuce]

Isn't Moore apart of that industry? Does he hate capitalism? Aren't we all here discussing the merits and flaws of capitalism without ever considering the lack of alternatives?

And btw, the sheer number of dollars that sustains such an industry does not define a capitalist, unless you consider capitalists to be any being or entity that deals in currency. Most people do not consider the Soviet Union to be a capitalist state, yet they had industries sustained by profits much larger than 30 billion a year.

So, what, those hollywood executives making millions of dollars think we should switch to communism?

They make "anti-capitalist" movies because people will pay money to see them.

 

[Mensch]

So, what, those hollywood executives making millions of dollars think we should switch to communism?

They make "anti-capitalist" movies because people will pay money to see them.

Ok. So the executives and the producers are the bad guys and the actors and directors are just romantic leaders of progressivism? Moore is mking millions of dollars off of a system that he despises. The same (imo) is true of other Hollywood big names.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

You ever think they may occupy some sort of middle ground on the issue and may NOT be secret commies? (Note this applies to everyone in america who may not vote like you want them to).

A) You find a small percentage of films strike you as anti capitalist
B) You have a problem with that because you are either...
C) A free market fundamentalist
D) A real secret communist who thinks theyre giving the conspiracy away

 

[Mensch]

You ever think they may occupy some sort of middle ground on the issue and may NOT be secret commies? (Note this applies to everyone in america who may not vote like you want them to).

A) You find a small percentage of films strike you as anti capitalist
B) You have a problem with that because you are either...
C) A free market fundamentalist
D) A real secret communist who thinks theyre giving the conspiracy away

Why do people think a free market fundamentalist is a bad thing? A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

Why do people think a free market fundamentalist is a bad thing? A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.

Why is fundamentalism a bad thing.... gee!

 

[Mensch]

Why is fundamentalism a bad thing.... gee!

If you're fundamentally in support of freedom, you have my backing. If you're just going where the wind blows, then you don't effectively take a stand.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

I think there should be limits to freedom.

 

[obvious Child]

Why do people think a free market fundamentalist is a bad thing? A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.

No, a major source of objection to a "free" economy is that it's anarchy. Without regulation to ensure fair competition, fair disclosure and legal grounds to compensate victims, you get effectively a free for all brawl where the guy with the biggest gun wins. Furthermore, many companies hate free markets. We have anti-collusion laws because companies have in the past moved to eliminate the capitalistic framework and replaced it with monopolistic or ogpolistic competition. Both of which are generally bad for the overall market. Free market fundamentalists would argue that US companies should be free to sell anything to anyone. I don't see how selling F-22s to Iran is a good idea. Furthermore, your argument ignores the notion of marketing. Apple has been effective in telling people what they want rather then letting them decide what they want. Is that better then the government? I dunno, but it is still someone other then the consumer determining what they actually want.

A better idea is a managed economy where capitalism operates in a framework to ensure healthy competition, fair disclosure and venues to correct wrongs.

 

[V07768198309]

_______________________________

Our Economy is in shamble

The consequences, the Great Depression and history tells us, will necessarily be a formidable Chaos:

Social and political turmoils, and military adventures.

Neither supranational bodies nor governments can propose a plausible solution.


It is our responsability to create a meaningful increment of jobs, revenues and investments:

We need the only plausible solution that is offered to us:

An Innovative Credit Free, Free Market Economy.

It is your duty to insure your security and economic survival, no one else will do that for you!

History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives.

_______________________________

Credit Free Economy
More Jobs, No Debt, No Fear.
Prosperous, Fair and Stable.
http://post-crash.com

_______________________________

 

[Mensch]

No, a major source of objection to a "free" economy is that it's anarchy.

That means that you read what you wish to read and you neglect some very critical points that inevitably leads you to such an unfounded conclusion. A "free market" in the sense that most people argue for, is a system by which a strong, minimized government is there to enforce very basic rules. No cheating. No stealing. No fraud. No coercion. That is not anarchy.

Without regulation to ensure fair competition, fair disclosure and legal grounds to compensate victims, you get effectively a free for all brawl where the guy with the biggest gun wins.

Again, you paint your own caricature of what it means to be in support of a free market. As I've said to another poster, a free market being supervised by a minimal government that acts as an umpire will punish criminals and will compensate victims. However, it does not punish innocent people for victimless crimes. That's the difference.

Furthermore, many companies hate free markets. We have anti-collusion laws because companies have in the past moved to eliminate the capitalistic framework and replaced it with monopolistic or ogpolistic competition. Both of which are generally bad for the overall market. Free market fundamentalists would argue that US companies should be free to sell anything to anyone. I don't see how selling F-22s to Iran is a good idea. Furthermore, your argument ignores the notion of marketing. Apple has been effective in telling people what they want rather then letting them decide what they want. Is that better then the government? I dunno, but it is still someone other then the consumer determining what they actually want.

Again with Apple! If Apple is TELLING potential consumers what they want, and that means they are effectively forcing them to purchase their products (which they are not). And yes, to a certain extent, companies should be allowed to sell whatever their consumers demand. Selling F-22s to Iran would mean that the government is contracting private businesses to manufacture products for them to sell to other countries. Countries are not individuals, and the government should not be in the business of arbitrarily selling private products to international public entities. Despite the falsehoods, libertarians do not believe in allowing individuals to possess and sell major military equipment, because we believe that it one of the strictest and most essential parts of government. It is absurd to allow any private party to own and sell nuclear weapons, tanks, or F-22s unless it is for the sole purpose of enhancing the US military in order to ensure our own societal protections.

A better idea is a managed economy where capitalism operates in a framework to ensure healthy competition, fair disclosure and venues to correct wrongs.

Oh, I see. You mean the merger of corporate and state policies? What's another word for that "mixed system?" Isn't it corporatism?

 

[Mensch]

I think there should be limits to freedom.

And what was the point of that?

 

[Deuce]

Ok. So the executives and the producers are the bad guys and the actors and directors are just romantic leaders of progressivism? Moore is mking millions of dollars off of a system that he despises. The same (imo) is true of other Hollywood big names.

No, you don't get it at all. They don't despise the system. That's a fabrication of your personal political bias.

 

[Mensch]

No, you don't get it at all. They don't despise the system. That's a fabrication of your personal political bias.

I might be wrong about "other Hollywood big names," but it absolutely true of Moore. And I'm a critic who has watched every one of his films and have read two of his books. As for the other big names, it was just an assumption. And considering that Hollywood big names are quite openly in favor of other systems, I don't see any of them championing for free-enterprise capitalism. They denigrate it at every opportunity.