Socialism is for freedom-hating anti-individualists, pure and simple.

>>200305959
Oh gees, Fox news is here.
And I guess your just a troll but still, I belive there are still people that think that, gosh.

Socialism is the way. No, seriously.

Michael Moore is nothing more than a big fat closet conservative we all know that he kept every penny that he could from his movies. I would call him a hypocrite but he looks more like a hippo.

Anything by Moore is propaganda pure and simple.

>>200306250
That sure is true, thats why i pirated the movie.
Anyway are the facts that he brings forth not true?

>>200306116
Its so strange to talk with someone who gets most of their news from Fox.

SWEDEN IS NOT A SOCIALIST COUNTRY YOU STUPID TROLLFAG.

It's a social democratic country.

1. go to itsove(r9000).net (take out parentheses)
2. click a link
3. ???????
4. ZOMG SECRET RAID BOARD?!(no newfags plox)

7281607133

>>200306482
Sure is true. I dont mind that they exist, well cause its pure and simple humor, but how can a person that has the rigth to vote even belive in what they say?

>>200305797

Moore has had 3 good movies, Far. 9/11, Roger and Me, and Bowling for Columbine

All his other movies and books suck

>>200306681
Ah gees, my fault, too bad i cant edit my orignial post, none the less, it migth bring some people here.

sverige är landet där folket tror att dom är fria fast dom inte är det , mest hjärntvättade folket som tror att man är rasist för man är patriot , och dom älskar neger kuk

>>200306950
This is true, but Im just thinking about the facts, and as I stated, hes not the most objective person out there, but are the facts true?

he should have called it Neoliberalism, A love Story, would have made a lot more sense and would have caused less controversy

>>200307105
Jag orkar inte med ett litet negertroll som du, pls go.

>>200307289
Det roliga är att det är sant , din jävla amerikansk älskande fitta neger

>>200307478
Kan nog mer säga att amerika är det land jag avskyr mest.
Jag läste din post lite fel, tex det med att man inte kan vara patriosik utan att bli kallad rasist, där har du helt rätt.

>>200307179

he just points out the extremes of capitalism, and much of what he says is true but I think he just goes off and the title implies that all capitalism is bad when he is really just going over the excesses of it.

Markets work for most things pretty well, but he shows the parts that lack regulation and went overboard and tries to imply that that is the way all markets are. His heart is in the right place but he is being dishonest.

>>200306250

x10

Moore is a fucking hypocrite and a disgrace to michigan. his fucked up viewpoints and the people in this state who believe them are keeping us in the crapper

>>200306681
Social-Democratic is just another word for socialist. They just call it Social-Democratic or else people think they're just like de Socalist Regimes like the DDR. They just added 'Democratic' in their name so people won't get the misunderstanding that they want a totalitarian regime.

>>200307179
some are some aren't.

>>200307809
Ah, I see, well I wonder why the american stockmarket didnt have any regulations, seems like it would be a good idea, since it fucking crashed the whole ecconomy. It sure migth be the fact that he only points out the extremer parts of capitalism, but those parts still ruined a whole country, and did a huge damage to the world ecconomy.

>>200306250
Michael Moore supports old-fashioned capitalism. You make a product or service, and someone pays you for that product or service. That is Moore's game.

What he rails against are the market manipulation tactics that a lot of the people use to make money without really offering anything.

>>200307928

no dumb shit, socialism is when the state or the common own and share all means of production, and all property is owned in common

Social Democracy is hybrid system where markets and private property rights are allowed, but market are regulated to prevent excesses and a strong social safety net to prevent lows.

>>200308485
Thats communism dumbfuck.

Sweden is controlled by americans bankers at the bilderberg group , fredrik reinfeldt and mona sahlin have both been to the meeting before the elections

Haven't seen that one, but if its anything like his other works of fiction, it has just enough semi-plausible facts to make you think its real. Otherwise its complete bullshit

He doesn't know what he is talking about when it comes to economics, and I am not even saying that. The pie analogy he made is just not applicable. The pie isn't of one static size.

Capitalism = the pie grows because wealth is created

Socialism = the pie shrinks because socialism is a stagnant malaise, nothing created

>>200307231
It's not even Neoliberalism, since that's just another word for Classical Liberalism, oddly enough. It's really more "Crony Capitalism" and Lite Fascism. I agree with Moore, here, that we shouldn't have bailed anyone out, but he sets this up as a strawman for Capitalism...they even have some fag on there that says "It's straight up Capitalism" and makes a shotgun cocking/shooting noise...Capitalism is the antithesis of force. What Michael Moore wants is all people forced at the point of a gun to create his egalitarian utopia.

>>200308286

"Unfettered, Unregulated Capitalism, A Love Story" would have been to long of a title lol

>>200308387

why doesn't he go after credit card companies then??

All he does is the far left liberal agenda

Socialism in theory is good, but in reality not every human is created equally, so it gets all fucked up very quickly.

>>200308847
We don't like in a capitalist country, we live in a mixed economy. That's why the economic crisis happened.

Libtard or conservatard Michael Moore sucks. He edits the shit out of his interviews, ignores opponents' points, make misleading statements, misinterprets statistical data, etc. etc.

Stop watching Michael Moore, start reading books. Regardless of your political persuasion. You just won't learn anything from watching him.

>>200308809

no neoliberalism is not just classical liberalism. Neoliberalism started with Reagan where markets, business, and capital was deregulated. Unions were broken, free trade was instituted, and government services were scaled back.

All this was the policy of the neoliberals in the 1980s, and it has destroyed the American middle class and gutted American manufacturing

>Unfettered, Unregulated Capitalism

>implying US-style capitalism is remotely unfettered or unregulated

Fuckin ay man . . .

>>200309091

right, because id the banks had even less regulation and less restriction on capital, non of this would have ever happened.

Stupid conservatives never learn anything

19 years old young cumdumpster bored. add me on MSN 'paris2luv'

invinciblebyte9

>>200308809
The States hasn't had true capitalism in 200 years.

Just remember that "too big to fail" also means "too small to succeed"

In the States, its socialism for the rich and little if anything resembling capitalism for the rest.

>>200308982

Gtfo my /a/merica

>>200309285

OP can shut his fucking mouth.

Sweden is socialist because it's rich. Not the other way around.

US doesn't have capitalism, its called Fascism

looks a lot like this

http://4chan-stuff.110mb.com/?content=869743642

>>200309452

>implying that the US isnt one of the most unfettered economic power, and that there is a direct correlation between the amount of regulation and the impact of the current crisis

>>200309583

Maybe, maybe not. You're not making an argument, you're just assuming your paradigm from the outset.

This is why I avoid political debates. People are stupid and close-minded.

Also, I am a Liberal.

>>200306482
>>200306116
I love how people have such a visceral reaction to Fox News. I dislike MSNBC a lot of the time, but anytime some collectivist slave-master starts touting his ideas, I don't go "AMG U WATCH OLBERMANN."

I don't watch Fox News (aside from a few Red Eye clips, and Stossel on Fox Business), but I agree that Socialism is, by definition, against freedom, and at its core, anti-individualist...unless you mean the Utopian hippie Anarcho-syndicist socialism/communism; that's just anti-individualist, but at least it doesn't use force.

>>200309671

>implying there has ever been true capitalism anywhere

>>200309859

>implying correlation necessarily implies causation

>implying there aren't many alternate explanations of the crisis which you seem completely ignorant of

If you don't have a basic understanding of your opponent you should stfu and read moar.

>>200309583 Stupid liberals never learn anything

It's not deregulation, but government intervention by the Fed and non-private institutions such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

OP Yes, it really is that bad. I envy your education system and health care.

>>200306950


Turd bucket, you have no idea.

>>200309342
That's what classical liberalism is too, dumbass. They want a small state that just provides the infrastructure for civilization. It's just slightly bigger government than libertarianism. You're probably thinking of social liberalism.

Classical Liberalism = Neoliberalism != Social Liberalism

>>200310018

the problem with your analysis is that you believe that government is the only thing that can destroy freedom and individualism. A corporation or rich man can strip you of your freedoms just as fast as government, and all in the name of making a dollar.

You also assume that more government correlates to less freedom, does having minimum laws make you feel any less free? How about working condition laws, I personally feel more free knowing I wont be working in a dangerous condition.

As for individualism, you need to realize you don't live in a vacuum, you live within society

>>200309804
The US used to be the wealthiest nation on the planet. Its loan rating is still strong because of how aggressive it is at collecting taxes from its citizen to pay its debts.

>>200310895

You really have no fucking idea what you're talking about if you think Liberalism and Neoliberalism are the same thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/

Dra inte ner oss med ditt jävla "humbel". Jeez Louise.

>>200310976

only the gov can use force on you and claim its for your own good at the same time.

Sweden is no more socialist then America.

Yeah, I said it. It's not even a Socialist Democracy. No, politicians who take our money and put it into their own pockets is not called Socialism, it's called STALINISM.

>>200308748
More like the US pie grows, but the slice that the average american gets is getting smaller and smaller every year, while the rich get more and more of the growing pie.

>>200305797
Michael Moore will throw out anything and everything that supports his cause but completely disregards anything that advocates against his position. If you want to be amused, then watch his movies, but don't take it as an absolute truth.

BTW, the United States would never be able to have anything other than Capitalism, because the people that actually run the country would not allow it.

The government as it stands today is nothing but an extremely elaborate system of thievery.

I have no problem with governance/regulation but I have a big problem with massive (in respect to geography and population, not extent of interference) modern states.

CBC had some interesting commentary exploring the similarities in policy and their short and long term effects on the US economy, as well as the propoganda used to support them, between Roosevelt, Regan, Bush, and Obama.

I think anyone with a mind to debate these kinds of things intelligently should study historical patterns within the borders of the USA. I'll be honest neither Fox or MSNBC have really taken an intelligent even semi-un-biased look at a history that I assume all students have learned about in high school.

>No, politicians who take our money and put it into their own pockets is not called Socialism, it's called STALINISM.

>Implying that's what stalinism is

1/10

>I'll be honest neither Fox or MSNBC have really taken an intelligent even semi-un-biased look at a history that I assume all students have learned about in high school.

>implying public schools teach a "semi-un-biased" view of history

>>200311678
If you only knew how many government handouts the rich get in the US you'd never say that. What the political and financial elite are trying to move towards in the US is a system with striking similarities to the way the British do things.

It benefits them far more than it will ever benefit us.

>>200310976
No, I don't...I believe that government can protect freedom with the necessary evil of the military, police and courts. And how does a corporation take away my freedom (without using force from the government, mind you).

You don't feel more free, you feel safer with work regulations, and business has an incentive not to kill their employees, and if they disregard that, not only will they lose revenue through having to rehire people (and having good employees avoid their company), but they will have to pay compensation. And minimum wage laws keep businesses from hiring people who aren't worth whatever minimum wage is set at, either that or it keeps companies from producing products as cheaply as they could otherwise. as an employee, that takes away my freedom to get a start at a job where I'm willing to work for less until I prove my worth, and as a consumer, keeps me from being able to save as much money as I could have otherwise.

Yes, we live in a society: a collection of individuals working together through mutual agreement and benefit.

>>200312301

Ugh yes, public schools suck.

Here in the states (and I'm assuming in Europe as well) public school history education consists of working through a textbook which provides both the raw *facts* of history (good) and their interpretation which you're told to regurgitate (bad).

I'm not saying they're Commie-style propaganda wings but they're mostly about giving the currently politically-correct (that term goes beyond race issues) interpretation and ignoring all of the FASCINATING debate that makes up real history.

>>200311656
WHO GIVES A FUCK ABOUT THE WAGE GAP!?

most of our poorest people in the US, still live better than kings did in the middle ages.

>>200311643

Well that's not true dear sir.

>>200313016
College level history is much more facinating, especially since my teacher made it clear he liked the violent parts of history over the peaceful parts. Hearing him say how big a bunch of idiots some of our historical figures were was funny too.

>>200311113
Actually, wikipedia is what says that Neoliberalism is Classical Liberalism...

du är skämmig din jävla nybög, gå och ät en apelsin din fadäs...

>>200313691

No, it says it's a name for modern economic liberalism.

Economic liberalism = "free" markets, NOT economic Liberalism, which was a specific and abandoned theory popular in the 19th century.

>>200314649
Är det trevligt att inte ha något att komma med?
Det är la bra att någon gjorde någon annan tråd en om U raff u ruse o rate x and y och allt annat skit.
Borde inte det faktum att någon skapar någon annan sorts disskution en fet jävla copypasta vara omtyckt?

>>200314840

Econfag confirmed. Neoliberalism was what old Liberalism became when they realized their old explanations were wrong. It doesn't bear much relation to the original Liberals.

It's sort of like the Labour party in Britain - started out as decidedly Socialist with a capital-S, changed into something else which bears only a historical relation with the original party.

Om du på något sätt tror att Michael Moore skulle vara en seriös dokumentärfilmare, eller att några av hans filmer överhuvudtaget skulle vara värda att anses vara dokumentärer, är du en riktig idiot. U fail at life.

Yes, capitalism is really that bad.

Kills niggers and jews too

>>200314840
it says:
"Neoliberalism is a label for economic liberalism."

and if you follow the link, it says:
"Economic liberalism is the economic component of classical liberalism."

for you /b/rother

http://4chan-stuff.110mb.com/?content=254473605

fuck you hippies

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC40IdWRscA&feature=related

z huji o nh oixin f w htchoxd norr fcw rh jdii hio f

Michael Moore is a fat piece of turd
I'm a liberal btw

>>200315653
Jag har aldrig sagt något om det, jag sade att han är inte en obejktiv person, och han är ingen seriöst dokumentär filmare, han är en snubbe som gör mainstream filmer som skapar lite snack runt dem för att sälja mer.

love michael, bowling for columbine and the other one about Flint michigan auto industry were great.

>>200305797
If your'e stupid enough to believe it, sure it's true.

>>200315383
When you say "old" and "original" Liberals, you mean Classical Liberals, right?

But what is the big difference between the two?

>>200315953

Liberalism means a lot of things.

Neoliberalism is sometimes called just Liberalism, because it IS modern Liberalism, though it doesn't have much in common with historical Liberalism.

Economic small-l liberalism is the heart of both historical Liberalism and Neoliberalism.

Michal Moore is a conundrum. We love him for persuading stupid people to vote for us, but we hate him for making us look like retarded morons full of lies who spread lies and hate and fling dirt for approval. Wat do?

Here is what's going on.

We need capitalism in America. And don't go off saying shit like "all the faggots on wall street get huge bonuses it's not fair"
Yeah, they do. But it's because they have an extremely low salary, and get paid according to the deals and trades they make. The better the deal, the better the fucking bonus. Sure, maybe I'm a little prejudice because my father used to work on Wall street. But I also then have more insight.

And who the fuck is michael moore to be saying anything? He's made fucking millions off of this type of economy, and now that he's set for life, everyone else shouldn't be able to have that opportunity? What an asshole.

>>200316367

Mostly monetary policy stuff. What should central banks do, etc. This might sound peripheral to a layman but it's actually an extremely important aspect of economic theories.

Also explanations of how prices/wages/etc. work. They're more nuanced and complicated now, and sometimes very different.

It is a known fact that Michael Moore bends the truth to fill his political agenda
You can't take anything he says seriously

>>200308568

communism is stateless dumbfuck.

>>200316719
wtf man you got it backwards
Communism means the government allocates all the resources

>>200305797

www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2009/0514/sweden-hardly-a-socialist-nightmare

any "fact" that michael moore puts forward has been carefully selected and placed only in the context he wants you to see it in to further his own bullshit political beliefs.

>>200316676
It is a known fact that /b/ bends the truth to fill its political agenda
You can't take anything it says seriously

>>200317018

read some karl marx sometime

after a period of socialism the state will supposedly wither away and society will continue on in the same utopian manner but without the state guiding it.

Michael More is a fucking douchebag a hypocryte and an establishment hack. Google "michael Moore stock portfolio" and you'll see his money is NOT where his mouth is.

What we HAD in America decades ago was capitalism (back when we had good paying jobs, manufacturing, and freedom). Today we have a bastard hibrid of corporate facism and socialilsm.

The crux of the problem is the private monopoly of the "Federal" Reserve banking system over the controll and issuance of credit ("money") and it all flows down from there.

Long story we're fucked and the only reason we're not all in camps being gassed here is that Americans still have too many guns.

>>200316367
Look up the word "Liberal" and you'll see it is by definition open-minded. They would have approved of /b/ (in idea, anyway). Nowadays liberals just believe whatever the news or their hippy professors tell them to. Huge difference. The whole Political Correct movement would never fly with the true liberals, but the neo-liberals flip out whenever they hear "nigger" or or any other "offensive" word and will persecute you like a witch (during the witch hunts) or a commie (during the McCarthy era) which they pretty much now are. The old Liberals were more fiscially conservative, where the new ones champion ideas anyone with an education knows will never work: for instance, nationalized health care. In America, just because of social security, the public has a debt of over 36 TRILLION coming their way and no plan or way to pay it off besides passing the bill to the next generation. That's only giving healthcare to the current generation of old retired people, btw.

>>200316439
Hmm, I always thought modern Liberalism was Social Liberalism (what democrats are).

>>200316646
No, I know Monetary policy is very important. I'm trying to learn more about the fed, inflation/artificially low interest, and the Austrian business cycle, but it's a bit complicated. Not to mention fractional reserve banking and teh gold standard.

>>200317384
yeah, THAT'S gonna happen. All the people who were in charge and enjoying the power and money will just willingly allow themselves to be brought down to the level of everyone else. sure.

>>200317018
>>200316719

You're both right. Under strict Marxism, Communism is the final stage of the economic dialectic, and it is anarchic, whereas Socialism is an intermediary stage where a "dictatorship of the proletariat" controls everything (i.e. what we think of when we hear "Communism").

But the meanings of the words changed, and "Communism" came to refer to Marxist states in general (who still called themselves Socialist since they had states), while Socialism came go mean left-wing Social Democrats.

That's basically how it went down IIRC.

>>200317384
and how do you expect everyone to be equal if nobody is managing the resources?

Michael Moore's facts are all true. He has to pay a bunch of lawyers and other folk to fact-check them all or he'd be sued into oblivion by his opponents. He does tend to obscure facts that don't fit in with the message he's trying to send, in that sense you have to be careful what you believe.

Lefties hate him because they think they're too good for his tactics, and republican fanatics hate him because he's using their own tactics against them and he's better at it than they are.

>>200317638

hence me saying "supposedly" einstein

>>200317478
Nah, I think modern democrat social liberals are much different from neoliberals. It's the former that uses the latter in a pejorative way.

>>200317692

i dont expect anything. learn to read. i simply defined communism as envisioned by marx.

>>200317531

Haha yeah, Liberalism means a lot of things, both what you're saying it means and what I'm saying it means. Danggit this is an annoying debate for both of us I think.

I myself adhere to the Austrian theory. You should try Man Economy & State. It's truly a masterpiece, whether you agree with it or not, and very readable. Murray Rothbard is an excellent writer, or, at any rate, an eminently clear one.

Capitalism is by definition the trade between 2 consenting parties in which the 2 profit. It is a beautiful thing.

CORPORATISM, in the other hand, fucks things up and ruins it for everyone.

found

http://4chan-stuff.110mb.com/?content=444183260
No rapidshit. No other bullshit.

>>200317998

i generally agree that a free market can usually only elevate the poor, but i think some austrian economists are a little extreme when idealising anarcho capitalism. just seems totally unfeasible to me.

>>200317063
everything in a michael moore movie is

>implying

>implying

>implying

The "facts" are about as "true" as the ones in Loose Change. They may be objectively true, but they're put together in an unrealistic way to lead you to a false conclusion.

Israel started out as a true Marxist country, they called it the Kabutz. However, it fell apart after one generation. It was nominally successful, but they educated their children and sent them off to college, and they never returned. The kids wanted to have money, own a house, and be involved in technological breakthroughs, like the interwebs. Communism just doesn't work very well with a large population, people need private property and need it protected. That's really the only reason for government, protection against chaos. All this other shit government has done along the way is only fuel for communist thinking, stupid governments.

>>200318329

Moderate Libertarian here. And i agree. The Free Market is a great thing and it increases wealth for EVERYONE, BUT, Anarcho-Capitalism doesn't work. We need SOME government, even if little government.

>>200308667

lol I can imagine what you believe about the Group and turst me my man, I'm greek and if they held it in greece the group is nothing but an egostroke, ffs our clown of a primeminister was allowed in

>>200318421
Thats why I asked /b/.
Not a wise choice, but atleast I gave it a try.

ITT: americunts who think Obama is socialist and that socialism is dangerous

>>200317998
Thanks, I'll just add that to my list of econ books I need to read, haha. I talk about it so much that people tell me to go into it for school, but I know how much I don't know, and I really don't think I could dedicate my life to it.

I'm not going to tell you one economic system is better than the other, or that you're all stupid faggots for believing what you believe, but I will leave this tidbit of information here:

Hong Kong has a much more free market than that of the United States, and it has, last time I checked, one of the greatest and fastest growing economies in the world.

It's great for the people, because it's so easy to start their own businesses and profit, and at the same time create competition that drives prices down. That being said, the cost of living is higher there than it is on the American west coast.

>>200318734

Obama IS a socialist, BUT, socialism is not dangerous. Free Market economics beats Socialism's ass each and every day whitout even trying though.

Go Free Market Capitalism, and FUCK Corporatism.

>>200318421

The conclusions aren't always false, they just might be more subtle and nuanced than the viewer expects. For example, I watched Sicko the other night (in honour of the rate hikes that California is going to get shafted with), and while there was a lot of misdirection, the basic premises were pretty much on the ball.

So for example, what he said about Cuba's health care system is exactly true, but he doesn't mention that their life expectancy is just under the US life expectance, and Cuba is a very repressive dictatorship where dissidents and journalists have a bad habit of dying.

So like I said. There's a lot of truth there, but a lot of back story that the viewer isn't getting.

Michael Moore is the reason for genocide. So we can keep people like him in hell where he belongs

>>200319096

Other great example of Free Market is the computer industry. It is the least regulated and most competitive industry around, and thanks to that computers innovate FAST ( double in power every 6 months FFS!), the prices of them are falling & the industry is growing fast and is stable.

Same for cellphone industry.

>>200319102

Fuck that. Obama was the most right-leaning of all the Democratic candidates, and his views in any other Western democracy would be classed as right-wing, not socialist. In America, the political debate has skewed so far to the right thanks to Faux News that Obama looks like a socialist, but really, he's not.

>>200319721

non commie here, although i disagree with your statement. i think its a bit misleading because plenty of regulated industries are advancing quickly also.

>>200319096
Oh yea, all us Free Marketeers love citing Hong Kong. They actually have the freest economy in the world. I don't care much for their lack of social freedom though...porn is illegal :(

>>200318329
>>200318522

I'm an anarcho-capitalist and I agree with both of you.

I think that, regardless of whether governance is beneficial from an "economic productivity" standpoint, and regardless of whether protection/law/etc. can be provided privately, most people WANT a government, and I'm fine with that.

As long as nobody is physically forced to live under a government I have no problem with it. My ideal anarcho-capitalist society would consist of dozens, if not hundreds, of small governments.

inb4"they'd all declare war on eachother" etc. etc., no time and not the thread for it.

But yeah. Also in general anarcho-capitalists are annoying to read. They say the same things over and over and over again. Once you've read Rothbard and all the best authors you should spend your time evaluating your opponents (and possibly switching sides if you agree with your arguments), not reading lewrockwell and shit, because you'll atrophy and become a clone.

>>200319721

Explain Microsoft, Intel, Google, maybe Oracle, and other monopolists.

The great thing about the Free Market is that it results in equal distribution of wealth without government interference. The shitty thing about it is that it doesn't exist, anywhere, and it can't exist, because its basic premises are wrong (this same thing applies to Marxism, fyi).

>>200307231
Controversy mean extra sales!

>>200308809
No that's Socialism, dumb fuck, read a book.

Anyway, what the hell is wrong with all of you? Get you hands back on your cawk and get back to the only thing you will ever be good at: fapping.

>>200320531

He's Right

>>200319255
my point is you would draw the conclusion that "OMG, Cuba is great! It would be great to have America be like Cuba!" based on the facts presented by Moore, and the omission of other facts. The conclusion would be false.

>>200320285

none of those are technically monopolies. granted they are corporate giants, but dont fit the definition of monopolies.

>>200320285

Microsoft USED to have a monopoly, but lost it long ago. Apple, hello? Microsoft was even sued for abuse of monopoly and weakened A LOT for that.

Google has monopoly on the internet business, that is true ( and it sucks), but on the computer industry they have competition.

Intel is pretty big but doesn't have a monopoly either. Oracle too.

Almost all monopolies and oligarchies are government-given. In a Free Market there is less monopolies, ESPECIALLY since the Middle Class and Smaller business are VERY benefited by it.

Also, we want less regulation in the market, that doesn't mean we can't sue and crush the companies that abuse monopoly. That is what happened to Microsoft.

>>200321164

exactly. microsoft competes with linux and max. intel competes with amd. google competes with yahoo. none are monopolies at all. all of their competitors have significant market shares.

>>200320707

Absolutely, you're right. But nowhere in the movie did he claim that Cuba was a great place to live. He only claimed that it had better, cheaper health care than the US (both true) and that Cuba will treat anyone from around the world who cares to come over, for free (also true, and great propaganda). If you leapt to the conclusion that Cuba was a great place, then that's your problem.

It's not really very honest, but it beats the hell out of Glenn Beck and Limbaugh and those fuckers who can outright lie with a straight face, because if you call them on it they'll send over a thousand Teabaggers in their white shoes and their Geritol to harrass you.

Give me Michael Moore over the liars on the right any day.

>>200319760
>hurf, I'm a faggot, durf

>>200306786

lol shut the fuck up you self righteous college faggot. Yeah because your hippie loving moonbat dumb ass fuck self is any better then someone who watches fox. Or should i spell it "faux" and think i am such a smart witty intelligent voter hehe teabagger he he

>>200321553

refer to post

>>200321653

Yeah Cuba has much better health care then the united states you dumb ass.

>>200321501

You've got to be fucking kidding. Microsoft's market share for OSs is about %87 percent, even now. Apple only counts for about %9, if you're really generous, and forget about Linux. Google's marketshare in the search space is about %60-70 percent, probably enough to be a monopoly, even if it's not enough to have the company broken up. Intel has been using anticompetitive practices and price-fixing to beat the fuck out of AMD for years now. How are these all not monopolies?

>>200321653
>I'm also a pretentious hypocrite

michael moore is a fat turd who gets this all fucking mixed up.

>>200322120

monopoly implies resistance to new competitors on the market.

>>200322088

Cuba's health care system is 1) Universal 2) FAR cheaper than American health care ($250/capita vs $7000/capita) and produces about the same results (similar life expectancy, infant mortality rate, etc).

So tell me, which health care system is better?

i'm an amerifag and i prefer to pay a lot for my health care so that my lazy compatriots can't afford insurance!

capitalism is for tools. look it up it's a fact!

>>200322787

You're forgetting that nobody owns anything in Cuba.

I assume you want the government to own the house you're paying for?

>>200322088
They must have great healthcare, since you say so.

>>200322513

A resistance which is only really possible through government intervention or private coercion.

Some monopolies do arise naturally. They drive out competition by doing their job better and cheaper than everyone else. They maintain their monopoly by continuing in excellence and do no harm to the economy. Then the government steps in and breaks the "monopoly" and prices go up.

Case in point: ALCOA

michael moore is full of shit. in his movie sicko, he gave this example of how socialized medicine is so great, where this guy got like 3 weeks of paid vacation to "recover" and he just went to the beach, all this paid by everyone's tax dollars, im sorry but that is ridiculous.

>>200322787
>>200322787
Cuba

>>200323268

Well no, I don't. And really, I'd rather live in a country where the health care is far better than Cuba's and the US, and where I can have a great life with a solid amount of freedom without having to mortgage my house when I get sick. A place like France. Or Britain. Or even Canada is better than the US (where I actually live), even if it's not great.

What Americans don't realize (and what Moore tried to show them) is that America has the worst health care system in the developed world. A committee of trained chimps could design a better health care system by throwing shit at a pie chart. The rest of the world doesn't know whether to laugh at you guys or feel sorry for you or what.

>>200323930
and by ridiculous you mean awesome!

>>200323782

They're poor as shit, yes, but they have excellent healthcare, especially when you consider how impoverished the country is.

That doesn't mean universal healthcare rocks. I think they'd be even better off if they got rid of Communism.

It's like saying "look at that guy in the wheelchair who can move so fast!", and I'm saying "yeah he might be able to move fast but imagine how faster he could move if he had legs".

the thing about socialism and communism is, they're great in concept, unless you're american and for some reason believe equality is evil, but in practice they're prone to tyrants. Without the tyrannical leaders communism would rule the world and work

>>200322787

The ( overlooked) Free Market system, you know, the one we USED to have in the 50'sand 60's and that was the best, until government put their corporatist hands into it and turned it into the failed bizzare bastard mix of Socialism and Corporatist Capitalism it is today.

Free Market would bring higher quality care at prices lower than UHC, skyrocket scientific medical innovation AND the poor could get care through free clinics and charity hospitals ( since, has the 50's and 60's has shown us, charity increases in less taxes free-market situation).

Superior to Universal Healthcare in each and every possible way.

>>200324570

See that's funny, in my mixed socialist/capitalist country, the government is still afraid of the voters. Can you say that about America?

>>200324964

Protip: the "Free Market" system you had in the 50's and 60's was far more socialized than the system you have now. History fail.

Say what you will about the deviations and misappropriations of capitalism, but Michael Moore is just as big a troll as any other 'mouthpeice'.

>>200325262
Not American, i'm English
all democracys fear the voters, because no democracys are truly democratic, the leaders want to do whats best for them and hope the people dont turn on them, a truly comunist nation would have no worry about that because its true democracy, like anarchism

>>200325262

They are afraid to a point, I believe. But I don't believe that it stops them from doing much with all the media hand-jobbing they do to keep the shit off the front page.