Michael Moore: a communist agitator
Mark Anderson
November 23, 2008
I just got done watching Michael Moore on the Larry King show. He was on to discuss the economy. Why CNN would rather have Michael Moore than an economist on to discuss economics is anybody's guess. Perhaps no university-credentialed economist would be so candid in their lust for burying the free market. Thus the role of communist agitator defaults to Michael Moore.
I'm kind of curious to know what the size(s) of Michael Moore's house(s) is/are, and how much money he has. Hey, Mike, if you love communism so much, then why not practice what you preach? Why not send all of your money and assets to the U.S. Treasury?
He wasted no time scapegoating the free market, and then triumphantly declared the death of capitalism. A lot of angry and upset Americans might agree. This is why it is important the voices of Austrian Schoolers and true libertarians be heard. Outsourcing this job to Republicans will cause us to lose the debate. Why? Because Republicans haven't brought us a free market. Amalgamating Bush's conservatism with free markets is a good way to discredit opponents of statism.
Looting the free market in the name of the free market reinforces the false idea that the free market has inflicted this injury. Thus I make it a point to separate myself from Bush-denialists. At this hour, we need principled defenders of liberty, not faux capitalists
Michael Moore spoke about the bankruptcy of General Motors, while simultaneously protesting the disproportionate salaries of its executives. And then, in his next breath, without the faintest bit of irony, Moore said that these events signal the end of capitalism. Followed by an amen.
One little problem: Michael Moore was eulogizing the death of something that wasn't. It is my contention that these symptoms are not the result of the free market, but excessive government intervention. If I am right about this - and I believe I am - then something will surely prove this. One of two things will happen:
A)Politicians will voluntarily relinquish power. Hopefully this power is relinquished to the people by returning to a free market, and not by putting the U.S. into some kind of global receivership. Given the power-hungry politicians in D.C., I'm sure they would be willing to let the Devil himself become the receiver, so long as they could be his administrators.
or
B)The dollar - thus the U.S. government - will collapse. If the politicians don't rein in their inflationary spending orgy, something has to give. This would not mean the end of capitalism, but the end of a creeping socialism.
Michael Moore seems to be incapable of mentally processing his own arguments. In nearly one breath, he protested outrageous salaries of GM executives, GM's bankruptcy, and the free market. Think about the paradox in Moore's argument.
You see, bankruptcy is the market's way of cleansing itself from mismanagement and inefficiency, waste and abuse. Government subsidies, bailouts, and "rescues" only protect the inefficient and incompetent, at the expense of thrift.
I would agree with Mike that a lot of these salaries are outrageous. Why does Mike think GM wants a bailout? It is precisely because of this kind of inefficiency that we need a free market, so that GM's executives can fail.
These outrageous salaries are not a cause of anything, but a symptom of government intervention in the free market. Let us also not forget about the role of the Federal Reserve (not a free market institution) in encouraging waste. Inflation - i.e., an expansion of the money supply not redeemable in a fixed amount of specie - causes people to over-estimate profits, thus encouraging malinvestment, malconsumption, and inefficiency. The answer to Mike's problem is not restraining trade, but unbridled competition.
I'm kind of curious to know what the size(s) of Michael Moore's house(s) is/are, and how much money he has. Hey, Mike, if you love communism so much, then why not practice what you preach? Why not send all of your money and assets to the U.S. Treasury?
He wasted no time scapegoating the free market, and then triumphantly declared the death of capitalism. A lot of angry and upset Americans might agree. This is why it is important the voices of Austrian Schoolers and true libertarians be heard. Outsourcing this job to Republicans will cause us to lose the debate. Why? Because Republicans haven't brought us a free market. Amalgamating Bush's conservatism with free markets is a good way to discredit opponents of statism.
Looting the free market in the name of the free market reinforces the false idea that the free market has inflicted this injury. Thus I make it a point to separate myself from Bush-denialists. At this hour, we need principled defenders of liberty, not faux capitalists
Michael Moore spoke about the bankruptcy of General Motors, while simultaneously protesting the disproportionate salaries of its executives. And then, in his next breath, without the faintest bit of irony, Moore said that these events signal the end of capitalism. Followed by an amen.
One little problem: Michael Moore was eulogizing the death of something that wasn't. It is my contention that these symptoms are not the result of the free market, but excessive government intervention. If I am right about this - and I believe I am - then something will surely prove this. One of two things will happen:
A)Politicians will voluntarily relinquish power. Hopefully this power is relinquished to the people by returning to a free market, and not by putting the U.S. into some kind of global receivership. Given the power-hungry politicians in D.C., I'm sure they would be willing to let the Devil himself become the receiver, so long as they could be his administrators.
or
B)The dollar - thus the U.S. government - will collapse. If the politicians don't rein in their inflationary spending orgy, something has to give. This would not mean the end of capitalism, but the end of a creeping socialism.
Michael Moore seems to be incapable of mentally processing his own arguments. In nearly one breath, he protested outrageous salaries of GM executives, GM's bankruptcy, and the free market. Think about the paradox in Moore's argument.
You see, bankruptcy is the market's way of cleansing itself from mismanagement and inefficiency, waste and abuse. Government subsidies, bailouts, and "rescues" only protect the inefficient and incompetent, at the expense of thrift.
I would agree with Mike that a lot of these salaries are outrageous. Why does Mike think GM wants a bailout? It is precisely because of this kind of inefficiency that we need a free market, so that GM's executives can fail.
These outrageous salaries are not a cause of anything, but a symptom of government intervention in the free market. Let us also not forget about the role of the Federal Reserve (not a free market institution) in encouraging waste. Inflation - i.e., an expansion of the money supply not redeemable in a fixed amount of specie - causes people to over-estimate profits, thus encouraging malinvestment, malconsumption, and inefficiency. The answer to Mike's problem is not restraining trade, but unbridled competition.
Print
Email
