In his new movie, Michael Moore calls capitalism evil and argues that it should be replaced by democracy, basically flipping the current arrangement so that the economy serves our political ends. A lot will be said, good and bad, about Capitalism: A Love Story, about Michael Moore and about the lives of the economic victims. Moore’s real question is, does it serve us or do we serve it? It’s supposed to serve us. It’s supposed to have a point. We don’t subject ourselves to the brutalities of a competitive economy because it’s fun. We do it because we have a collective mission: the elimination of poverty and scarcity for all humanity. Before the study of economics became mired in mathematical theory and its practitioners started to fancy themselves as scientists, economics was widely regarded as a branch of moral philosophy. Adam Smith, John Maynard Keynes and Karl Marx all have this in common—they used the discipline of economic philosophy to try to create systems that would one day eliminate poverty and scarcity. That their ideas about how to do this diverge wildly doesn’t really matter. That they share a goal does. Capitalism emerged from all these moral arguments as a successful, self-perpetuating system that people generally seem to agree is humanity’s best shot at one day beating scarcity and poverty.
I’d rather see Barack Obama go down fighting for vigorous strong principled public insurance, than to lose with a [corporate-dominated] bill … . the insurers are winning. Everyone already knows the White House has made a deal with the drug industry — promising not to import cheaper drugs from Canada and Europe – promising not to use the government to negotiate for better prices — that deal has been cut … There’s this fear that Barack Obama will become the Grover Cleveland of this era – Grover Cleveland was a good man, but he became a conservative Democratic President because he didn’t fight the powerful interests – people say Obama should be FDR – I’d much rather see him be Theodore Roosevelt —– Teddy Roosevelt loved to fight – … I think if Obama fought instead of really finessed it so much … I think it would change the atmosphere.
There comes a point when the public imbibes the ultimatum of the plutocracy. They have bought into the belief that if it protests it will be brutalized by the police. If they have Muslim names they will be subjected to Patriot Act treatment. This has scared the hell out of the underclass. They will be called terrorists. This is the third television generation. They have grown up watching screens. They have not gone to rallies. Those are history now. They hear their parents and grandparents talk about marches and rallies. They have little toys and gizmos that they hold in their hands. They have no idea of any public protest or activity. It is a tapestry of passivity.
via @grist
RT @drgrist: Rachel @Maddow exposes corporate cash behind astroturf lobbying against clean energy
MADDOW: Are you, guys, funded in part by Exxon or have you been?
PHILLIPS (Americans for Prosperity head Tim Phillips): No, absolutely not.
MADDOW: No Exxon money.
PHILLIPS: Absolutely not. But I’ll tell you again, though, we would be happy to take funding from broader groups like that. […]
MADDOW: Exxon does list the Americans for Prosperity Foundation as a recipient of, in some years, tens of thousands of dollars, in other years, hundreds of thousands of dollars, even for things just like general operations. But you’re saying Americans for Prosperity, no Exxon money?
PHILLIPS: This year, we haven’t had any Exxon money. I would be happy to go back and look at the records. And I will get back to you, Rachel, if we have. But again, though, we’re happy to take corporate money.,
