|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
 Posted - 10/14/2009 : 04:19:14
|
Everybody loves Michael Shermer and I personally love/hate to read his economic ideas. His review of Michael Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story is no exception.
What did Mr. Shermer get right? I'll get to that, but in the second paragraph, he starts the review proper by saying:
In this latest installment in his continuing series of what’s wrong with America, Michael Moore takes aim at his biggest target to date, and the result is a disaster. The documentary is not nearly as funny as his previous films, the music selections seem contrived and flat, and the edits and transitions are clumsy, wooden, and not nearly as effective as what we’ve come to expect from the premiere documentarian (Ken Burns notwithstanding) of our time. And, most importantly, the film’s central thesis is so bad that it’s not even wrong.
|
I'm not sure here if he's saying there's something wrong with having a series of "what's wrong with America" or not, but I thought this film was Moore's best as far as being the most coherent, well put together film yet. Mr. Shermer has me trumped a long way by being a writer and reviewer and a scholar, but when I left Moore's earlier movies I was left with a lot to think about, but I was also left wondering what the point was. I think Capitalism could have been a lot better as far as delivering information or even comedy, but I think as far as coherency, it's his best film yet.
Where does Shermer get it right, in my opinion?
| If you really believe in free enterprise, you must accept the freedom to lose everything on such gambles. |
Bingo! Or maybe Craps!, because if you play the economy like it's a casino, then you should lose like you're in a casino.
However, Shermer says, the same should be true of greedy homeowners who lose their homes due to their own greed.
| Yes, greed. Those evicted families knew perfectly well what they were doing when they freely chose to climb onto the housing bubble and take it for a ride. I have a much higher view of the American public than does Michael Moore. I don’t think the American people are so stupid or uneducated that they didn’t know what they were doing. |
I don't think most people understood what a housing bubble is. I think, like me, they were told by their fathers that buying houses was good because of the maxim "there's never going to be any more real estate." I'm pretty sure there are a lot of people who still aren't very well educated about it all. I've read what I'm able to read about it, and I consider myself very poorly educated about it. I also think that people think if bankers think they're creditworthy, they must be. If bankers think they can pay their bills, they must be able to. Uneducated or even gullible doesn't necessarily equal stupid.
But then, Mr. Shermer reveals his own ignorance:
The solution? I have some suggestions of my own, but Michael Moore’s solution is beyond bizarre: replace capitalism with democracy. Uh? Replace an economic system with a political system? Even the über liberal Bill Maher was baffled by that one when he hosted Moore on his HBO show. How does a democracy produce automobiles and computers and search engines? It doesn’t. It can’t.
|
Maher "über liberal"? Oh well, anyway, Shermer doesn't know what someone means by economic democracy? Right or wrong, there is certainly a lot of information about it. Should Moore have spelled it out better? Maybe, but this gets to my biggest problem with the movie, and one that I probably can't criticize Moore for. My biggest problem with the movie is that instead of pulling out Dean Baker, or Richard Wolff (Capitalism Hits the Fan Wolff, not Newsweek's Wolffe), or Krugman, Nader, etc., etc., he pulls out priests.
That was a bit of a shock to my system and something I thought Shermer, as an atheist and a skeptic, would jump on right away, but he doesn't even address it. I find it hard to find fault with Moore on this, as this movie's basic drive is emotional and he is religious, so what are you gonna do? If religious experts think that capitalism is "evil" then religious people want to know that, I guess, and people like Bishop Thomas Gumbleton aren't stupid, either. I want to know what Gumbleton has to say, although he's not first on my list on this subject.
Shermer ends his review as Moore ends the movie with FDR's "Bill of Rights" which include outrageous things like the right to a good education. I won't put the whole list here, but it's hardly the Communist Party platform. Here Shermer brings up the man that every good Libertarian Party Libertarian brings up. Willie Sutton:
That’s nice. To this list I would add a computer in every home with wireless Internet access. I’m sure we could all think of many more things “under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all — regardless of station, race, or creed,” in Roosevelt’s words. But there is one question left unstated: Who is going to pay for it? If there is no capitalism, from where will the wealth be generated to pay for all these wonderful things? How much does a “decent” home costs these days, anyway?
Do you see the inherent contradiction? Of course you do. So does Michael Moore, who elsewhere in the film longs for the good old days when the “rich” were taxed 90% of their earnings. So did Willie Sutton, who answered a similar question after being nabbed by the FBI during the Great Depression and asked by a reporter why he robs banks: “Because that’s where the money is.”
|
Who's going to pay for it, Mr. Shermer? Well, that may be a tough question, and we may not be able to get all we want. But who pays for it if we don't do something? Who always pays for it? Not the "rich," as Shermer says, but rather, the poorest among us.
|
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 10/14/2009 : 10:28:09 [Permalink]
|
Thanks Gorgo. I can't really comment too much on your review because I have not seen the film yet, but I suspect that Shermer just saw another chance to proselytize his own libertarianism, which he does with alarming frequency these days.
It's gotten so I can't even read Shermer when he talks about economic issues. His libertarianism which he has dressed up as skepticism, by suggesting a scientific basis for his conclusions betrays his bias every time he turns a blind eye to his own unsupportable leaps of logic for why we should all be libertarians. He makes my blood boil.
On the other hand Michael Moore is not without fault himself. But all in all, even when stretching to make his points, he is more often than not, close, if not right on target. But then, I'm a liberal and Moore is often speaking to my bias in his movies. So I must be careful about accepting his idea's, hook line and sinker. Still, Moore is a film maker and Shermer is one of the worlds leading proponents of critical thinking. As such, I am much more inclined to allow Moore a little leeway than I am Shermer.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 10/14/2009 : 10:33:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
As such, am much more inclined to allow Moore a little leeway than I am Shermer.
|
All true and I can complain about them both and not contribute anywhere near as much as either of them do. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/14/2009 : 17:03:32 [Permalink]
|
| Those evicted families knew perfectly well what they were doing when they freely chose to climb onto the housing bubble and take it for a ride. I have a much higher view of the American public than does Michael Moore. I don’t think the American people are so stupid or uneducated that they didn’t know what they were doing. |
WTF? Has Shermer never bought property?
I just bought my second house. I have a higher IQ than the average person and a Masters degree, and I must admit, without shame, that I didn't read 99% of what I signed during closing (nobody does; lawyers and realtors sit next to you and tell you in layman's terms what your are signing supposedly means) and I didn't understand a good portion of what I was signing. My husband and I sat there signing a huge stack of forms with this guy - he might have been the title guy, whatever that means exactly - and one form in particular the guy explained wouldn't make sense to us. He then proceeded to tell us what it meant. At the end he laughed and asked, "Are you confused?" We both nodded and he answered, "Good, cause you'd be lying if you said you did understand that." Up until the day of closing, we still weren't sure how much money we'd have in the bank when it was all said and done. And then last week we got a check in the mail - I think it was an insurance reimbursement for our old house - for over a thousand dollars that we didn't expect.
I'm not going to claim that I or my husband are too stupid to understand all this stuff. Given enough time to do all the rresearch, ask the right people all the right questions, and slowly, step by step absorb it all we probably could understand it all and know exactly what to expect. But we'd have to quit our jobs and have no life for a while. This is why people - whether they are smart or dumb - hire realtors and lawyers and assume we can reasonably trust them and the lending institutions. Government regulation is necessary because this sort of stuff is too complicated for the average person to deal with and thus it is very easy for even smart people to be either taken advantage of or just do something very reckless without realizing it. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 10/14/2009 : 17:25:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
Oh well, anyway, Shermer doesn't know what someone means by economic democracy? Right or wrong, there is certainly a lot of information about it. Should Moore have spelled it out better? Maybe, but this gets to my biggest problem with the movie, and one that I probably can't criticize Moore for. |
What does Moore mean by economic democracy? According to Wikipedia, it covers quite a lot of ground and doesn't imply any specific approach to an economy, so I would hope he spelled something out further than just saying "economic democracy."
I haven't seen the film, so I don't know how he said it, but if he just said "democracy," I would definitely be thinking of democracy in the sense of a political system. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 10/14/2009 : 17:52:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
I'm not going to claim that I or my husband are too stupid to understand all this stuff. Given enough time to do all the rresearch, ask the right people all the right questions, and slowly, step by step absorb it all we probably could understand it all and know exactly what to expect. But we'd have to quit our jobs and have no life for a while. This is why people - whether they are smart or dumb - hire realtors and lawyers and assume we can reasonably trust them and the lending institutions. Government regulation is necessary because this sort of stuff is too complicated for the average person to deal with and thus it is very easy for even smart people to be either taken advantage of or just do something very reckless without realizing it. |
To understand completely all contracts is asking a little much, but in my experience, it has been fairly easy to understand the general payment plan in buying property -- e.g. fixed rates vs adjustable rates vs balloon rates. Even these very basic parts of the contracts have often been way beyond risky for many home-buyers. When this was the case, I feel less sympathy for the buyers. For example, if you signed a contract for an adjustable rate that is currently set at the maximum level you could possibly afford is so reckless that I don't see why the system is to blame. Of course, many others were too risky for more complex reasons and still others were caused by things that could not be avoided (loss of job, or an illness, or what have you), which is much more understandable and forgivable to me.
I certainly agree that many people were led to believe they could afford things they could not, but I just don't want to go too far and minimize personal responsibility too much.
Also, I wouldn't say no one reads their contracts, I mean for such a large purchase, I think it is actually very irresponsible to not read them, or at least have a lawyer explain the main parts of them until one actually does understand. It may require some hours of reading and research, but I've personally never signed a contract where they would not let me review it for a few days. Of course, you may still miss some relatively small fees and expenses, but hopefully a person would not buy so much that these could not be covered. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 10/14/2009 17:57:16 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 10/14/2009 : 18:11:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
I haven't seen the film, so I don't know how he said it, but if he just said "democracy," I would definitely be thinking of democracy in the sense of a political system.
|
I agree it's vague,...
Well, I'm not an economist, so I don't know. I'm kind of bored with the discussion of capitalism versus socialism -- it's the 21st century, we need to come up with an economic model that's best for us right now. I guess I would like to see an economic system that has two major underpinnings: the democratic principle -- in other words, the economy is run by and decided by the people who are affected by it -- and, um, you know, a moral code to follow. |
...but the idea that I think he's trying to get across is not all that hard to grasp. Economic systems and political systems are intertwined. If the richest top 10% have all the power, then that's not a democracy. "A moral code to follow" is what constitutions are all about. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 10/14/2009 : 18:22:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
I certainly agree that many people were led to believe they could afford things they could not, but I just don't want to go too far and minimize personal responsibility too much.
Also, I wouldn't say no one reads their contracts, I mean for such a large purchase, I think it is actually very irresponsible to not read them, or at least have a lawyer explain the main parts of them until one actually does understand. It may require some hours of reading and research, but I've personally never signed a contract where they would not let me review it for a few days. Of course, you may still miss some relatively small fees and expenses, but hopefully a person would not buy so much that these could not be covered.
|
I also think there are other solutions besides massive foreclosures which would be better for everyone. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/14/2009 : 18:56:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
To understand completely all contracts is asking a little much, but in my experience, it has been fairly easy to understand the general payment plan in buying property -- e.g. fixed rates vs adjustable rates vs balloon rates. Even these very basic parts of the contracts have often been way beyond risky for many home-buyers. When this was the case, I feel less sympathy for the buyers. For example, if you signed a contract for an adjustable rate that is currently set at the maximum level you could possibly afford is so reckless that I don't see why the system is to blame. Of course, many others were too risky for more complex reasons and still others were caused by things that could not be avoided (loss of job, or an illness, or what have you), which is much more understandable and forgivable to me.
I certainly agree that many people were led to believe they could afford things they could not, but I just don't want to go too far and minimize personal responsibility too much. |
Don't discount predatory lending, too. And often times, these "deals" weren't offered by banks, but by fly-by-night mortgage brokers who were intent on nothing more than selling a few hundred notes to home buyers, and then selling the resultant contracts to securitizers, pocketing the profits and leaving town.
That sort of thing is what got us the 1.25% mortgages, which the teeny-tiny print said were really 4.75% but the buyer paid as though it were 1.25% (so the principle went up every month) until they owed 110% of home value, at which point the interest (and payments) would adjust to Prime+4% or some other ungodly high rate. "You'll have plenty of time to refinance before any of that kicks in," the scumbags would say, which, for most people, was just a flat-out lie, because the brokers knew the buyer wouldn't be getting a 1.25% loan if they could actually afford a normal market rate fixed 30-year mortgage. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 10/14/2009 : 23:37:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Machi4velli
To understand completely all contracts is asking a little much, but in my experience, it has been fairly easy to understand the general payment plan in buying property -- e.g. fixed rates vs adjustable rates vs balloon rates. Even these very basic parts of the contracts have often been way beyond risky for many home-buyers. When this was the case, I feel less sympathy for the buyers. For example, if you signed a contract for an adjustable rate that is currently set at the maximum level you could possibly afford is so reckless that I don't see why the system is to blame. Of course, many others were too risky for more complex reasons and still others were caused by things that could not be avoided (loss of job, or an illness, or what have you), which is much more understandable and forgivable to me.
I certainly agree that many people were led to believe they could afford things they could not, but I just don't want to go too far and minimize personal responsibility too much. |
Don't discount predatory lending, too. And often times, these "deals" weren't offered by banks, but by fly-by-night mortgage brokers who were intent on nothing more than selling a few hundred notes to home buyers, and then selling the resultant contracts to securitizers, pocketing the profits and leaving town.
That sort of thing is what got us the 1.25% mortgages, which the teeny-tiny print said were really 4.75% but the buyer paid as though it were 1.25% (so the principle went up every month) until they owed 110% of home value, at which point the interest (and payments) would adjust to Prime+4% or some other ungodly high rate. "You'll have plenty of time to refinance before any of that kicks in," the scumbags would say, which, for most people, was just a flat-out lie, because the brokers knew the buyer wouldn't be getting a 1.25% loan if they could actually afford a normal market rate fixed 30-year mortgage.
|
I'm not defending lenders who intentionally mislead and lie to borrowers, but that's yet another reason to have a legal professional look at it to ensure you are not getting screwed on such a huge investment.
If they say "you'll have plenty of time to refinance," a good response would be "what assurance do I have that I can do that? is it required in the contract?" Of course not, and I don't think most lenders would tell a complete lie if you asked directly (I do think most would skip over the bad risks if unchallenged). Though I'm sure a lender would say they expect rates to keep going down and so on, a buyer cannot in general completely trust someone who is selling them something. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2009 : 06:52:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
I'm not defending lenders who intentionally mislead and lie to borrowers... |
And I didn't mean to imply that you were.| ...but that's yet another reason to have a legal professional look at it to ensure you are not getting screwed on such a huge investment. |
And sometimes, it doesn't help. A coworker of mine (who's got excellent money skills) was approached by a friend of his (we'll call her "S") with the details of one of those 1.25% deals. My coworker told S, specifically, that S would owe an extra $400+ every month if she took the mortgage and then she'd get hosed once the principle hit so-many dollars in umpty-ump months. S took the deal anyway, because apparently S's mortgage broker was more persuasive than a bunch of depressing facts. And now, S is, indeed, hosed.
I'm quite the fan of personal responsibility, but I also recognize that people get conned all the time, despite being otherwise rational consumers. Stopping the con men before they get started is, of course, the best solution, but until that happens on a regular basis, we also need to offer relief to the victims.
In the case above, not only is S a victim, but so is whoever bought the mortgage from S's unscrupulous broker. The state could make everything right for both victims (effectively seizing the home and paying off the mortgage in full) and then offer it to S again with the requirement that S get real financing this time, and if S can't afford it (which she probably can't), the state could offer it to anyone. S would wind up living somewhere else, as she probably should have in the first place, but without the big black marks on her credit that the foreclosure will produce, which she probably doesn't deserve. Meanwhile, the state will likely lose a few tens of thousands of dollars, but it should also file criminal charges against S's broker and issue arrest warrants as appropriate.
But that's just if I had my druthers. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2009 : 07:00:24 [Permalink]
|
I think it could also be said that con men wouldn't do so well if people weren't greedy. Does that mean that the con men have no responsibility in conning people?
Shermer also improperly uses the word greed which, I think, means an excessive desire to to acquire or possess more than one needs. Were most people who faced and will face foreclosure greedy? I don't think so.
I also think you'll find that it's not all about questionable loans. It's about the bubble and the lack of pay increases in America. People thought their homes were worth more then they were, so they borrowed against their homes because their decreased or stagnated. People did not understand that house prices could go down or stagnate. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 10/15/2009 07:10:47 |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2009 : 09:17:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
People did not understand that house prices could go down or stagnate.
|
How could they not? |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2009 : 04:33:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
Originally posted by Gorgo
People did not understand that house prices could go down or stagnate.
|
How could they not?
|
Because this isn't something that happened within their lifetime.
I have been saying that house prices would go down soon before they went down. Problem is, I've been saying that since I was in high school. I've been saying this for more than fifteen years and in that time it never happened. Until last year.
It seems to me that houses differ from other commodities in important ways, that make it harder for people to think about them in terms of market mechanisms. The huge cost forces you to take a mortgage, which in turn starts you thinking in terms of monthly cost instead of total cost. I think it's quite easy to be misled this way.
What's more, I've been following dutch organizations on housing (like the dutch organization of house owners) for the past year or two, because those are (or should be) the go-to places for information on buying houses. Only quite recently (since a year or shorter) have they really started warning against some of the suspicious products. Two to three years ago you didn't hear much on this from them. I'm not too sure how much you can expect from lay-people if the organizations that should provide you with critical information, aren't critical themselves. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Mr. Shermer gets something right/Michael Moore
