Capitalism: A Love Story

[Balta1701]

In reality they probably aren't profiting off of these policies, otherwise the insurance companies wouldn't be offering them, because they, by definition, would be losing money on them.

Actually there's 1 way it could work and be profitable for both...if it allows the company taking out the policy to cut back on its health care spending, or dump more of its health care spending on to the government.

[StrangeSox]

You can make a similar argument for husbands and wives as well. Should we stop life insurance?

 

Really? You're going to compare employment in a low-wage job to a marriage, probably with children?

 

edit: you just can't make a similar argument. At all. They are not analogous situations.

Edited October 12, 2009 by StrangeSox

[JorgeFabregas]

Well, you *could* make the same argument for husbands and wives. It would be bad and you would be wrong, but it could be done.

[southsider2k5]

Really? You're going to compare employment in a low-wage job to a marriage, probably with children?

 

edit: you just can't make a similar argument. At all. They are not analogous situations.

 

In the sense of what you are insuring them for, they are practically identical. You are insuring against a potential loss of income.

[StrangeSox]

In the sense of what you are insuring them for, they are practically identical. You are insuring against a potential loss of income.

 

Yes, but find a new low-skill worker in a s*** economy is a bit different than finding a new spouse with similar income.

 

I don't have any problem with the insurance policies on highly-skilled employees. And I don't really see a reason to make these policies illegal or restricted. I guess I'm just confused how they're justifying the policy levels to the insurance companies.

[southsider2k5]

Yes, but find a new low-skill worker in a s*** economy is a bit different than finding a new spouse with similar income.

 

I don't have any problem with the insurance policies on highly-skilled employees. And I don't really see a reason to make these policies illegal or restricted. I guess I'm just confused how they're justifying the policy levels to the insurance companies.

 

In the same sense that you can replace any employee in a day, you can replace a spouse in a day. It also hasn't always been a s*** economy. Odds are that the evidence Moore got for this part of his film took place before the economy went into a recession.

[Leonard Zelig]

In the same sense that you can replace any employee in a day, you can replace a spouse in a day. It also hasn't always been a s*** economy. Odds are that the evidence Moore got for this part of his film took place before the economy went into a recession.

 

Are you serious? Are you married or in any serious relationship?

[BigSqwert]

Are you serious? Are you married or in any serious relationship?

He only works with mail order brides.

[southsider2k5]

Are you serious? Are you married or in any serious relationship?

 

Have you replaced an employee in day?

[Leonard Zelig]

Have you replaced an employee in day?

 

No I have not.

[Leonard Zelig]

Have you replaced an employee in day?

 

Have you ever replaced a dead spouse or parent?

[Balta1701]

In reality they probably aren't profiting off of these policies, otherwise the insurance companies wouldn't be offering them, because they, by definition, would be losing money on them.

I came up with another response to this while @ the gym.

 

"Really, you're actually going to argue that insurance companies won't take out policies on which they'll lose money? Didn't you already help buy one that did exactly that?"

[southsider2k5]

I came up with another response to this while @ the gym.

 

"Really, you're actually going to argue that insurance companies won't take out policies on which they'll lose money? Didn't you already help buy one that did exactly that?"

 

unless you are talking about the federal government compelling me to do something, I am not quite sure what you are talking about.

[Balta1701]

unless you are talking about the federal government compelling me to do something, I am not quite sure what you are talking about.

Insurance companies losing vast, vast amount of money on insurance policies they don't understand? Ring a bell? AIG joke.

[NorthSideSox72]

Insurance companies losing vast, vast amount of money on insurance policies they don't understand? Ring a bell? AIG joke.

That's not where AIG lost vast sums of money (their insurance business was pretty much OK).

 

[BigSqwert]

Pretty good read about uncovering the root causes of the financial collapse. Edited October 15, 2009 by BigSqwert

[Rex Kickass]

That's not where AIG lost vast sums of money (their insurance business was pretty much OK).

 

Ummm, that's exactly where AIG lost big. A Credit Default Swap is essentially insurance.

[StrangeSox]

Ummm, that's exactly where AIG lost big. A Credit Default Swap is essentially insurance.

Well, that was their problem. They thought they could model it just like insurance.

[NorthSideSox72]

Ummm, that's exactly where AIG lost big. A Credit Default Swap is essentially insurance.

No, actually, the reason they lost big on CDS's is because they DIDN'T use them as insurance. The original purpose of a CDS for ONE SIDE of the equation was as insurance. But ultimately, its the trading of risk, so the hedging side of the equation (otherwise as insurance) is only part of the market. A small part, as it turns out.

 

[Controlled Chaos]

What's Michael Moore Talking About?

John Stossel

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

 

Michael Moore is confused.

 

His new movie, "Capitalism: A Love Story," begins by suggesting that all was well until Ronald Reagan became president and cut the top 90 percent income tax rate. Everything was downhill from there.

 

But by the end of the movie, he says the problems really began in 1945, when Franklin Roosevelt died without enacting his proposed Second Bill of Rights, which would have "guaranteed' everything from a "remunerative job" and a "decent home" to "adequate medical care," a "good education" and "adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemployment."

 

Adding to the confusion, he lavishes praise on Barack Obama and his "spread the wealth around" rhetoric. But Moore also demonizes as symbols of capitalism Clinton Treasury secretaries Robert Rubin (formerly of Goldman Sachs) and Lawrence Summers, and former New York Fed President Timothy Geithner without mentioning that Rubin has been Obama's adviser and that Summers and Geithner are, respectively, his chief economic guru and treasury secretary. Nor does he acknowledge that Obama continued the bailout policies of George W. Bush.

 

Moore declares capitalism evil, but he's never clear about what "capitalism" means. Considering how much time he spends documenting the cozy relationship between business and government, I thought he might mean "state capitalism."

 

But then he uses the term "free market" as a synonym for what he doesn't like.

 

What does the free market have to do with businesses manipulating government and strong-arming Congress for bailouts? Moore properly condemns both.

 

What does he want instead of "capitalism"? He's coy about that. Claiming that the public became increasingly curious about socialism once Obama was accused of favoring it, he goes to the only self-described socialist in Congress, Sen. Bernie Sanders, to ask for a definition. Socialism, Sanders tells Moore, means "the government represents the middle class and working class, not the wealth."

 

Huh? That's socialism? It's not government ownership of the means of production and the abolition of private property and free exchange? Sanders reads Marx and Lenin very broadly. By his definition, I'm a socialist. I want government to represent the middle and working classes. Of course, Congress does that best by leaving them free, economically and otherwise.

 

Moore visits the National Archives to see if the Constitution establishes capitalism as the country's economic system. Seeing the words "people," "union" and "welfare" in the document, he says, "Sounds like that other ism."

 

That's just silly. The Constitution limits government's power to interfere with the people and their property. The Constitution is on the side of the free market.

 

Toward the end of the movie, Moore says capitalism is irredeemably evil and "has to be replaced." With what? I assumed he'd say socialism, but instead his answer is "democracy."

 

This apparently means expanding "hundreds of worker-owned businesses" in the United States.

 

But since workers are already free to start businesses, what's his point? A more astute observer would show how government intervention -- licenses, taxes, regulations -- inhibits such businesses.

 

Thankfully, I will soon have my own show on Fox Business Network to make such points. I'll invite Moore to come on as a guest.

 

For two hours, Moore rails against reckless banks and government bailouts, but never once mentions the government-business partnership that created the conditions for the turmoil. The fact that America no longer has a genuinely free market is the unnoticed 10,000-pound elephant in Moore's room.

 

Watching "Capitalism," you'd never know that the federal government colluded for decades with the financial, real estate and construction industries to divert resources into housing in the name of promoting home ownership -- even for people who couldn't afford it. You'd never know that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were, and are, privileged government-sponsored enterprises that encouraged shaky loans.

 

At least Moore has an inkling of what's wrong: cozy ties between Wall Street and government. Moore thinks the answer is better regulators or nationalization of banks. But his own evidence suggests that the real answer is a separation of state and economy -- stripping away Wall Street's privileges.

 

In other words: Limit government's power. Let the free market work.

 

Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

 

 

 

http://townhall.com/Common/PrintPage.aspx?...257d44c&t=c

[Balta1701]

A more astute author than Stossel might also note how the U.S. regulatory environment, and in particular the private health care market in the U.S., dramatically weakens the ability of people to actually start their own businesses.