Eric D. Snider

Capitalism: A Love Story (documentary)

Movie Review

Capitalism: A Love Story (documentary)

by Eric D. Snider

Grade: C-

Released: September 23, 2009

 

Directed by:

Cast:

When you make your living as a polemicist, it can't be a good sign when even people who agree with you don't like you anymore. That's what has happened with Michael Moore. As his work has gotten sloppier, more exasperating, and less focused in recent years, even us moderate lefties have come to be embarrassed by him, the same way moderate conservatives are (well, should be) embarrassed by Glenn Beck.

Moore's latest screed, "Capitalism: A Love Story," is his least useful yet, mixing dry information on the current economic crisis with under-examined hard-luck stories and the usual Moore grandstanding. His thesis is simple: "Capitalism is an evil, and you can't regulate evil." (That's a direct quote.) To support this, he parades a series of victims in front of us, as if a large pile of anecdotes will compensate for the lack of critical examination of the underlying economic theories.

People are evicted from foreclosed-on houses as the cameras roll. One somber vignette shows a family being paid $1,000 by the bank to clean up their own house and clear away the junk before being forced out, saving the bank the trouble of doing it. These things are sad, but they are not entirely one-sided, Moore's insistent harping on the greedy corporations notwithstanding. While plenty of people were suckered by smooth-talking banks and indecipherable fine print and really are victims of the sub-prime mortgage epidemic, there's no indication that THESE people, the ones Moore shows us, are in that category. For all we know, they could be regular ol' deadbeats. I suspect they aren't -- but Moore needs to SHOW us that. He gives us no context, and thus disingenuously implies that all evictees are equal victims of the evil banks.

In other segments, widows grieve to learn that their spouses' employers had bought life insurance policies and now profit from the workers' deaths while the bereaved get nothing. But why didn't the families have life insurance policies of their own? Did they ever try to buy them? Did the thought even occur to them? Maybe they wanted to but couldn't afford it ... which would be a terrific thing for Moore to share with us. Again, with no context, all we know is that people are sad and poor. By itself, that's not enough to make an economic argument.

Other tales of under-regulated capitalism run amok are incendiary and even true, but they shed no light on whether capitalism is flawed inherently. After all, the other economic systems are subject to abuse, too. Moore's one really interesting point is that while Americans love democracy, nearly all for-profit businesses are run more like dictatorships and fiefdoms. Why do we love freedom in government but not in economics? That's worth discussing. Unfortunately, Moore only spends a couple minutes on it before returning to his smug sarcasm and public jackassery.

He arrives at the headquarters of bailed-out financial institutions to make a "citizen's arrest" of the CEOs who squandered taxpayer money, then pretends to be surprised when the security guards won't let him in. He "tries" to see the chairman of General Motors by simply showing up at the office, again feigning shock when somehow this fails. Of course, if Moore actually wanted to get a comment from GM -- or at least a comment saying "no comment" -- he could have done so by, you know, calling ahead and making an appointment. But where's the fun in that?

He shuffles around Wall Street ostensibly to find out what "derivatives" and "credit default swaps" are, but all he really does is collar stock brokers on the sidewalk and act smug when they can't explain the practices on the spot. So rather than actually educate us on what "derivatives" and "credit default swaps" are, Moore just establishes that they're super complicated and leaves it at that. If it's too complex to be explained in a documentary, it must be really shady, right? (By the way, the Wikipedia entries on both topics are perfectly suitable for an overview of what's involved.)

No one expects economics to be a thrilling subject. But in the past Moore has usually managed to at least be entertaining. "Capitalism: A Love Story" has only a few traces of his wit and humor, and they're nearly lost in the fog of his indignation. More than ever, Moore assumes we already agree with him and makes no effort to convince us. His final statement is that capitalism (an economic system) should be replaced with -- wait for it -- "democracy" (a political system). One assumes he intended for that declaration to make sense in light of the film he's just shown us. It doesn't.

Grade: C-

Rated R, three uses of the F-word; should have been PG-13

2 hrs., 6 min.

Stumble It!

This item has 51 comments

  1. Rob D. says:

    How you can compare Michael Moore to Glenn Beck? Capitalism is what makes our country so great. You are a great movie reviewer. The more people come to your site and click on a few ads.....the more money you will make. If it was up to Michael Moore you wouldn't be able to make more money than a person who is not as good or funny as a movie reviewer. Glenn Beck loves this country and fights for what he believes is in the Constitution. Do you even watch his tv show or listen to him on the radio? He speaks the truth and is nothing like Michael Moore

  2. Jacob R says:

    I'm embarrassed by all sorts of people on both sides of the political aisle, including Glenn Beck and Michael Moore, both of whom make America dumber every time they open their mouths.

  3. CoolBoy says:

    As a moderate conservative, I'm embarrassed of Glenn Beck. As a Mormon I'm embarrassed of Glen Beck. And as somewhat-chubby white male who likes to watch the news I am embarrassed of Glenn Beck.

  4. LittleWoodenBoy says:

    "Moore's one really interesting point is that while Americans love democracy, nearly all for-profit businesses are run more like dictatorships and fiefdoms. Why do we love freedom in government but not in economics?"

    Well, we do. That's what capitalism is all about. It assumes, quite appropriately, that if you're doing something of your own free will, it must be preferable to the other options you had available to you.

    In that respect, businesses must be significantly more democratic with their employees than the government of the U.S. is with its people. Because if you don't like it, you can always leave and go somewhere else.

    Now, that may sound undesirable, and it probably is in most cases, but you always retain that ultimate freedom, and your voice is quite strong. If you quit your job, what it means to the company may be anywhere between a huge financial loss to a minor inconvenience. But even if it's the latter, that's still more meaningful to your boss than threats of a withheld vote are to a politician.

    It was the intent of the founding fathers to build a similar system into our country. Power over most decisions was retained by the states, and if you didn't much care for the law-making of that state, you could engage politically on the state level. If that didn't tender the desired results, you could always leave to another. One of the primary purposes of the federal government was to safeguard your right to exercise those two remedies. Nowadays there's very little difference between states because most power is held by the federal government, so now people have to threaten to move to Canada (which, of course, is their right inasmuch as they can convince Canada to take them).

    But such checks are still alive and well in the labor market, and the proof is in the extraordinarily high pay most laborers in this and other capitalist countries enjoy (from a historical perspective). For most skill sets an employee can possess there is more than one choice for whom to work. As long as that remains true, laborers will continue to have far more influence over the policies of their employers than they do over the policies of this nation.

  5. Eric D. Snider says:

    Capitalism is what makes our country so great. You are a great movie reviewer. The more people come to your site and click on a few ads.....the more money you will make. If it was up to Michael Moore you wouldn't be able to make more money than a person who is not as good or funny as a movie reviewer.

    Good point. Maybe I shouldn't have written such a glowing, positive review of Michael Moore's anti-capitalism movie.

    Do you even watch his tv show or listen to him on the radio?

    I wrote for his magazine for 3 1/2 years. It was watching his TV show that made me decide to quit.

  6. Rob D. says:

    I know you didn't write such a glowing positive review of this movie. I liked your review......especially the part where Moore tries to replace capitalism with democracy. I also knew that you wrote for his magazine and I have brought that up in one of my previous comments a while ago. I just can't see how someone that has watched his show or listened to him on the radio can compare Beck to a guy that hates America and everything that it stands for.

  7. mommy says:

    Both Michael Moore and Glenn Beck raise very thought provoking questions and are sometimes the only ones to really get people thinking.

    Surely there is a better way to get people thinking and asking questions...

    Please say there is so I can feel justified in continuing to ignore these two big purple dinosaurs.

  8. Bigmonkey says:

    I think Glen Beck is a wonderful example of rational, clear thinking. In fact...oh never mind. I can't say that with a straight face.

  9. matt says:

    While Glenn Beck says he loves America every chance he gets, he sure seems to hate the fact that when the majority of Americans votes for a president, that president has the right and mandate to do the job in the way he sees fit.

    Last time I checked, that's one of the things that makes America, well, America. Love it or leave it, Beck.

  10. Surgeon B says:

    If you watch Michael Moore films you should also check-out the film Manufacturing Dissent.

    Michael Moore has become rich by creating a product and selling it in the free market. It is capitalism that has given Moore the opportunity to make a movie about capitalism.

    And it is the American health care system that will expertly treat his heart attack and the complications of diabetes he will experience from being a fat slob. Okay, his sloppiness is a judgement call, but he is fat (I estimate his BMI at about 40, ie. morbidly obese). My dislike of some of his previous work is probably obvious.

  11. Savvy Veteran says:

    "I just can't see how someone that has watched his show or listened to him on the radio can compare Beck to a guy that hates America and everything that it stands for."

    On a similar note, I can't see how someone that has watched his show or listened to him on the radio could continue doing so on a regular basis without forcefully inserting a sharp object into their ear canal while pouring battery acid into their eyes.

  12. Neil says:

    I have to disagree with you Savvy. I don't think the battery acid would be needed. If you watch him with the mute on and CC off, he seems quite pleasant. If you do the same thing with Keith Olberman, it has the same effect. In fact, it makes them almost seem like long lost brothers.

  13. Steve says:

    To Matt (#9) No US president has the right, let alone the mandate, to "do the job in the way he sees fit." Rather, each one has the mandate to do the job as described in the US Constitution.

  14. aaron says:

    I hate Michael Moore. I hate his fat, smug face, and I hate his stupid, smug movies. I want to know why people keep going to them. I'd rather watch one of those Yes-men movies (even though they fully believe that their reductio ad absurdum of conservative/capitalistic concepts couldn't be done with liberal/socialistic ones *and* that they actually convince people) because at least then I might learn something.

    With Moore, all you get is unfunny ambush interviews and manipulative, unprofessional and dishonest editing.

    With Glenn Beck all you get is an excitable weirdo jumping up and down about how much he loves America and making ridiculous claims like that the current president hates "white culture" and is entirely focused on securing reparations for slavery.

    The real problem with popular political commentary in the U.S. is that it exists entirely to be entertaining and make lots of money. If you want serious, intelligent opinions (from anywhere on the political spectrum), you have to go to blogs or public television (and don't tell me PBS doesn't allow conservative opinions, I swear I saw David Brooks on there once).

  15. Dustin says:

    Wait, does Eric get paid more if we click on the linked advertisements on his web page? Is that actually how it works, or does he just get paid for displaying them? If it is how it works, I have done you a disservice these many years, I will begin clicking on links immediately. I apologize that I have been so remiss.

  16. Kristin says:

    To Steve (#13) We are a republic, and so we, as a majority, vote for the person we think will make the best choices for our country. The constitution does not tell the president what to do. It gives him boundaries, a list of cans and can nots, and the judicial branch makes sure those rules are upheld. Why else do the candidates spend years campaigning, telling the people what they will see fit to do as president once elected?

    There is quite a bit of hypocrisy in Glenn Beck's crowd. They scolded people who disagreed with Bush, saying they were undermining the presidency, and yet when they are now in the minority, they stand themselves up as defenders of the nation by undermining the president. Anti-war protestors were dangerous, but anti-healthcare protestors are patriots.

    I agree with the Moore/Beck comparison. Both have twisted the facts or outright lied to push there own agendas.

  17. Dave the Slave says:

    I'm not a big fan of Moore, but after reading this he flat out disgusts me.
    Did anyone else see those ads for this film where it starts out with him saying, "He was right about Health Care.."

    Yeesh.

  18. Dustin says:

    "He was right about douchiness..."

  19. Bridget Jack Meyers says:

    He was flat-out disgusting five years ago, too. I'm glad our left-leaning friends are finally catching up on that.

    And for the record, I always disliked Glenn Beck.

  20. Leah Jane says:

    I hate Michael Moore. Wake me up when Errol Morris makes a documentary about the same subject. He knows how to do it without being snarky, ham fisted, or assuming that his audience consists of children.

  21. Dave D. says:

    Michael Moore has always been an interesting part of the ecosystem. When he did Roger and Me, he was bringing to bear a unique voice that didn't get heard very often, and I forgave his sloppiness. A few other movies had good insights, as well. To be great, however, you need to overcome that sloppy style and add substance to your allegations. In many ways, his opportunity - to raise an important issue (what happened on Wall Street?) - has been lost. Thanks for the review, Eric, I really think you hit this one on the head.

  22. barry says:

    Kristin (#16),

    There is a significant portion of people who believe that the Constitution provides a list of what he can do, not what he cannot do. The Tenth Amendment makes that pretty clear.

    Therefore, I'd have to side with Steve, and say that the Constitution provides a pretty good outline of what the president should be doing. In other words, if it isn't outlined in the Constitution, he shouldn't have his nose in it.

  23. Clumpy says:

    Great review! I would love to have seen a more honest treatment of the "ravages of capitalism", so to speak. Obviously the talking heads on the Right couldn't care less if Michael Moore is honest or not, but those of us who understand the fallacy of an unchecked, unregulated corporatocracy could have done with a more balanced treatment of the subject.

  24. Angus McFarland says:

    So, if capitalism is evil...what is Moore planning on doing with any profits from this movie?

  25. CoolBoy says:

    Barry (#22)

    And with that, you've taken us right back to the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans.

  26. barry says:

    Ahhh, the good old days...

  27. Sean says:

    I don't get all the Glenn Beck hating. I mean, how do we even notice Glenn Beck when Rush Limbaugh is the 800-pound gorilla in the room (almost literally). And if we're making comparisons to Michael Moore---well, where else are you gonna turn for loud, obnoxious, smug, and overweight? Saying conservatives should be embarrassed by Glenn Beck when he's followed by Rush Limbaugh is a little like saying, "I'm really embarrassed that my brother just stepped on your toe" when immediately after stepping on your toe, he also defecated on your face.

    And CoolBoy, I say, bring back the federalism debate! Back in the day, it was a wildly liberal idea to give the federal government huge powers like regulating interstate commerce and raising a standing army. Now we have a President who thinks he needs to hold a beer summit every time there's a scuffle with local police.

  28. Wildcat says:

    Did Eric have a falling out with former employer Glenn Beck? He is or once was a contributing editor for Glenn Beck's Fusion magazine. We need more Glenn Beck's to do the job the mainstream media refuses to do, critical analysis of the left.

  29. Ben says:

    Sorry, Eric. I just can't let the Glenn Beck joke slide. It isn't funny and there really is no comparison.

    I'm wondering, though, if you knew that you'd get this kind of response to that line. I'm guessing you knew. Now I feel manipulated.

  30. Clumpy says:

    You're right, Ben, there's no comparison! Glenn Beck uses vague fear to influence people, and is unable to justify his beliefs after saying them. Michael Moore is legitimately motivated by a passionate belief, and merely draws a dishonest picture in his zeal. But Mike actually believes in something, and anybody who doesn't think that a wedding of government and business under the name of "capitalism" results in anything but more power for the powerful is deluded.

  31. barry says:

    Clumpy (#30)

    Ummmm, correct me if I'm wrong, but a wedding of government and business can't be called capitalism. It's called fascism.

  32. Turkey says:

    @#27 Sean: the left have their wackos galore too, recall. Howard Dean is the screaming doctor who wished out loud that all Republicans everywhere would just up and die. Niiiiice. But I also think the Rush comparison was too easy, plus Eric had something personal with making the Beck comparison. So it still stands. And still pretty accurate. And thanks for not allowing your brother to defacate on people.

    Ben, you're joking, right?

    I'm a moderate Republican and I hate every single idiot loudmouth who claims to speak for the party at this very moment in time. They're all dead wrong, sore losers, and completely out of their minds. Thanks for making us ALL look bad, jerks!

    Speaking of Michael Moore, I saw him on The Daily Show the other night. The whole time he tried to paint himself as one of the commonfolk, the innocent middle classers being jerked around by the system. Yeah, 'cause we all have millions in the bank, right Moore? Lying jackface....

  33. CoolBoy says:

    Word to Turkey.

    I think all the Palinite weirdos in the Republican party should form their own Psycho-Theocratic party. That way we can more easily ignore them. That will leave the rest of us to think and act rationally.

  34. Tim says:

    "Even us moderate lefties have come to be embarrassed by him, the same way moderate conservatives are (well, should be) embarrassed by Glenn Beck."

    Awesome, Eric. Just awesome.

    Lots of potential for rational, intelligent discussion on both sides, but the most popular figures (and their fans) can't handle rational intelligence.

  35. Bob says:

    Capitalism is an intrinsically unfair system. It creates a perpetual machine of stratification, where the divide between have and have-not is destined to expand exponentially. Here's a hint: if you do not think that capitalism has oppressed you, than you are actively oppressing someone else. (Odds are, anyone reading this is a member of the most privileged 5% of the worlds people, and as such are unwittingly making life worse for the other 95%.) Our current system of global capitalism has simply taken the burden of our greed and placed it on dark skinned people in far away lands. The only way one can justify such a system is if they assume they are more important, or better, or more evolutionarily advanced or more highly favored by a deity than some other given human. Oh, and if they ignore the obvious system of privilege and repression that exists most profoundly in this potentially great nation of ours.

    As I have not seen Moore's movie yet, I don't know if he has accurately conveyed these facts. Given many of the comments here, they certainly need to be heard.

  36. Glenn the Liar says:

    Glenn Beck tells the truth? Ha! You only have to watch this video for 35 seconds to hear a lie, where he says some U.S. money no longer says "In God We Trust" on it.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEuAVgmWt0U

    That's a lie: http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/dollarcoin.asp
    He probably read it in an e-mail someone forwarded to him. How are we supposed to take him seriously on major things when he and his staff of "fact checkers" that he's always bragging about screw up a small one like this? IT shows that he's sloppy and that he doesn't care very much about getting his facts straight.

  37. Jacob says:

    On the just showing up to get an interview of business leaders end of thing, isn't that how Moore got Charlton Heston into "Bowling for Columbine"?

  38. Steve says:

    Kristin (#16): I did not mean to imply that the President's daily schedule is spelled out in the constitution, and of course, each man in the office will use his judgment in determining how best to perform his job (as is the case with any job). I simply pointed out that the constitution sets bounds on what can be done by the president, and that "the way he sees fit" must conform to that. Too many presidents have forgotten that simple fact, which is why I pointed it out.

    Concerning the hypocrisy charge: First, please don't categorize the recent protesters as "anti-health care." These people oppose the proposed legislation. This does not mean that they oppose health care itself. Many of them probably use health care on a regular basis. Anyway, I do not see automatic hypocrisy in considering one group of protesters more dangerous than another. For example, I consider those who protested the passage of prop 8 in CA to be more dangerous than those who protest the purchase of Harry Potter books by school libraries. Just because they can both be categorized as "protests" does not make them equal.

  39. Steve says:

    Hey, Bob(#35)! That's some pretty far out stuff! Can you back any of it up? For example, let's say I'm a wheat farmer. I plant wheat, water it, cultivate it, harvest it, and sell it. I keep some back for planting next year. I charge for my product based on current market conditions (ie, what is the most I can charge and still sell this stuff?). Please explain exactly who I am actively repressing in this case.

    Now I'm not saying that there has never been repression in capitalism. But I will say this. The United States of America has operated on a capitalist system since its founding. And today, the poorest and most destitute American is better off than the majority of the poor in almost every other country.

    You complain that capitalism is intrinsically unfair, yet you do not explain your claim (rather, you go on with other unsupported claims). Concerning the fairness, do you really believe that humans are capable of conceiving a completely fair economic system? And since this perfectly fair system cannot be obtained, is it not a good idea to have a system where each participant's self-interest results in benefits for others? For example, if you want to make millions in a capitalist society, the best way is to own a business. If your business is to make millions, you will need workers. Your neighbors need jobs. Your self-interest (wanting millions of dollars) benefits your neighbors (they get jobs). Capitalism actually increases the total amount of wealth in a society in which it operates. If you doubt this, compare the average size of a newly constructed home in 1975 with the average size of a newly constructed home in 2005. They've all gotten bigger. Even in the current economy, the new homes being advertised as "smaller and smarter" are larger and of better quality than those built in the 70s or 80s. How is this possible unless the total amount of wealth in the country has increased? Fair or not, mankind has yet to develop the economic system that even comes close to the power of capitalism to provide the most benefit for the largest number of people.

  40. Bob says:

    Steve my friend,
    If you were a wheat farmer, you would know that the globalized market as well as government policies that favors factory farms have created price conditions that make it impossible for you to sell your crop at a price that keeps you and your family fed and out of insurmountable debt. An average of 330 Family farmers give up their land a week.(http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/familyfarms/) Further, it is in the best interest of factory farms to produce food in inorganic and unsustainable ways, that will inevitably lead to the depletion of our ability to grow food at all. (http://www.sarep.ucdavis.edu/Concept.htm)

    Obviously, I'm not going to question whether the amount of 'wealth' has increased in our country. Or that the homes of the super rich (globally speaking) have gotten needlessly larger. But I will question whether not this has resulted in a greater quality of life for the majority of people. In our country alone, could one really consider the liquidation of pensions, the reduction of social security and the fundamental undermining of our industrial infrastructure as an increased quality of life? Can we really call our Plutocracy/Corporatocracy a system that benefits the majority of people??

    What capitalism has done for the majority in our country is not good, but what it has done for the majority in other countries is absolutely atrocious. In South Africa, the institution of free market capitalist policies sent unemployment of Black South Africans from 23% under apartheid to 48%, and cost 2 million families their homes. This is due to a capitalistic economic stratification MORE SEVERE than what had occurred under apartheid. (New York Times, April 26 2004) In Bolivia, Argentina and Chile, all countries that were progressing in a fairly equitable manner under a system of social developmentalism, it took a reign of U.S. sponsored despotism and terror in order to install a free market system. Under this system, not only did the majority of people see a severe reduction in their quality of life (starvation, homelessness, legitimized corporate slavery, etc..) but they became victims of a system in which "upward mobility" became an impossibility. Meanwhile, the rich of these countries became much much richer, and international conglomerates were able to take further advantage of these already oppressed people. Needless to say, the price of copper and other metals, foods and labor went down significantly for us here. When I say that we "oppress dark skinned people in far away lands" it is the acceptance and even celebration of these facts that I am referring to. For more on this, look at Naomi Klein's 'The Shock Doctrine'.
    To look at the history of the American labor movement, it is obvious that our current working conditions are not the product of the 'invisible hand' of the market. They are the result of the visible fists of the masses, raised in protest to the loaded guns of the capitalists. For more on this, see Howard Zinn's 'A People's History of the American Empire.'

    Steve, I implore you, do not accept capitalism on a theoretical basis, and do not accept it based on what you see immediately around you. Open your eyes to the fact that this is a system with a deplorable history and certainly no hope of rectifying itself under current conditions.
    Capitalism is essentially incompatible with Democracy. It will perpetuate wealth while denying upward mobility, and it will amass wealth in the hands of the very few. This clearly is not in the interest of the majority, and, under a true democracy, would quickly be overturned.

  41. Sam says:

    Glenn Beck is an idiot who has no clue what he is talking about. If you can seriously watch one of his shows and feel like the truth is raining down upon you, then you do not deserve to have a brain in your head. Glenn Beck has no clue what he is talking about. He just uses a bunch of propaganda to make the idiot conservatives believe him along with a certain number of mild conservatives.

  42. Bill says:

    There have been thorough-going examinations of capitalism done for the past 150 years; Mike's is only the latest, aimed to break through many Westerners' willful ignorance and corporate media's deliberate whitewashing of capitalist crimes. If you choose not to heed what is blatantly obvious, as a citizen and a movie reviewer you're guilty of both.

  43. nonstopdeath says:

    For all of you brainiacs that are saying that mike moore is a hippocrate for making a prophet from his documentary, you don't have a clue. First off everyone is a hippocrate. What are you sixteen? The beatles, moby, mike moore and ton of other artists have done this. Its called selling out so you can get the money to fund the work you really want to do. Take the big corporations money to fight big corporation. Guess glenn beck forgot to teach you that one.

  44. Stacy says:

    #43 Is that some sort of hippopotamus recepticle?

  45. HoppesTeacher says:

    I think Michael Moore is capitalism's greatest success story. How else can I fat guy with a camcorder become rich? I'm tellin ya, he's biting the hand thats fed him...

  46. Chelsea says:

    I like mild Republicans, but I prefer spicy ones.

    The Michael Moore/Glenn Beck comparison is spot on.

  47. Diana says:

    Michael Moore is a rebel and a fighter for human rights. Capitalism is what that is about. Michael favors the working class which makes up a majority of people in the US and not the rich. He makes a point in his documentary that it is WRONG of certain corporations to EXPLOIT the POOR as the oil companies, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and mortgage companies do. These corporations and their greedy CEOS is what CAPITALISM is really about. When the rich control a country as it has with the US and most third world countries, there is no democracy. A true democracy is a socialist democracy and not a republican democracy. Unfortunately the congress runs the US as though they are a board of directors in a corporation and the president is the CEO. How can we change that? The only true democratic process with the people is initiative and referendum and that doesn't exist in our federal government. CAPITALISM is a great documentary and if you haven't seen it, I highly recommend it.

  48. JoJo says:

    Oh for ******* Diana! You don't live in a socialist democracy you live in a republic with an explicit Constitution that does not allow stealing from the evil rich to give to the deserving poor. At least it didn't allow that originally. Move to your Utopian ideal where socialism is up and running and take all the anti-capitalists with you. And how about you, yourself, live the change you demand of others.

  49. Pablo says:

    I suspect that people posting here doesn't know what "capitalism" is. Hey, you have Google, use it. You know, surplus-value, etc.

  50. mik says:

    Hey so I would just like to thank #36 Glenn the Liar for actually producing evidence against Beck and not just blowing hot air. I would also like to point out that it was a small mistake and the man has said before to take everything he says with a grain of salt. Otherwise known as research the facts yourself before using it as an argument. He made a mistake like you do if you don't confirm what you hear with other sources.

  51. PolitiFact says:

    #50, here's a link with some other incorrect things Beck has said: http://www.politifact.com/personalities/glenn-beck/statements/

Subscription Center

Eric D. Snider's "Snide Remarks"

This is to join the mailing list for Eric's weekly humor column, "Snide Remarks." For more information, go here.

Subscribe

Eric D. Snider's "In the Dark"

This is to join the mailing list for Eric's weekly movie-review e-zine. For more information on it, go here.

Subscribe
 
Visit Jeff J. Snider's website | Diamond Clarity Chart