Spot on

Could be "Captialism: A Mispelled Criticism."

I can't judge though.  I do it all the time.

When asked directly about why he failed to mention the Federal Reserve in the film, he quickly changed topic by saying "that deserves its own movie."

Why didn't he make that movie first? If he really wanted to cut to the heart of it.

I wanted to go see this movie after Arianna Huffington's glowing review and recommendation that President Obama go see this film (and right after she was on Morning Joe condemning the Fed with Ron Paul no less). However, I just can't bring myself to pay money to see it. Perhaps I'll buy a ticket to a different movie and sneak in. 

How you can blatantly ignore and misconstrue facts like he does without mountains of criticism is beyond me. To be honest after Sicko bombed I figured Moore had become irrelevant, but apparently he's back and is out for blood. 

I did hear he was exceptionally critical of Chris Dodd. Is this true? Would be good for Schiff. Unless the capitalism = the devil message is believed. 

Good review! Can't wait to see the Q&A.

Michael Moore by his own admission, does not understand markets, and has his $150,000,000 fortune in a savings account. He owns no stocks because "he doesn't understand how they work":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cul1khVZM44&feature=sub

By his own admission, he is a man with a 'High School Education'; this does not disqualify him from high intelligence, insight and the ability to think, but he is giving this as a reason why he does not understand markets. He is not qualified to make a documentary on this subject, and as this article says, he does not understand what capitalism is.

He has taken this misunderstanding of the definition of capitalism and used it as the starting point to make an entire film. This really is astonishing.

That he has the gall to call for 'our own economic order' when he cannot even define the terms of finance properly, and cannot do the sort of research that a first year university student could do, with his research team and in the age of the internet, is breathtaking conceit.

This film is easily dismissable, and it could not have come out at a worse time for Moore. We are in the middle of a popular awakening and uprising against the Federal Reserve system; that means that the man in the street understands what fiat currency is, which is more than Moore does.

No one who understands what is going on will side with Moore. No one that is against the bailouts and who has woken up to where the money is coming from will be fooled by this 'documentary'. Finally, the sort of socialism that Moore wants to have inflicted on the United States has fomented a revolution.

The only thing this film will do will be to further polarise the population and separate the people who are educated from the people who are not educated. If he had made a truthful, non ideological documentary about the nature of money, he could have done a great service to everyone. What a wasted opportunity.

Some valuable points here, but you must edit your work before posting it online. The spelling alone will attract liberal mockery. This happens too often with conservative writing online!

Thank you  for the comments!!

i love how people complain about the things Moore leaves out of his works, never touching the on stuff he DOES bring to light.

And if you people actually believe their is any difference between "liberals" and "conservatives" I implore you to google the term "Liberal" and READ the definition.

If you are a conservative YOU ARE LIBERAL.

Actually, who am I fooling, you won't, so here it is for you:

"Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Different forms of liberalism may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for a number of principles, including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy, and a transparent system of government. All liberals — as well as some adherents of other political ideologies — support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law."

i'm sure this won't get approved for posting, but I really don't care.

"In the case of the foreclosures, he manipulates facts to present it as big business’s fault and gives no blame to poor decisions made by individuals."

Manipulates facts? The people who took out mortgages, then had their rates jacked up did indeed make bad decisions.

But, sadly, these people had no control over the BANKS packaging risks loans and selling them to other banks as secure investments.

See, that's how I know you are a shill, you complain about Moore not addressing the roots, while you fabricate or ignore them yourself.

That said, I agree with you that Moore is whitewashing in favor of Obama, there's no way to deny that. But maybe you should criticize them instead of someone at least TRYING to inform people.

I suppose it's also Moore's fault that the federal reserve is unconstitutional and creates money out of thin air which it lends to the US government plus interest.

I'm sure it's Moore's fault that these poor innocent banks create money out of thin air when they "loan" it to these horrible evil people that wanted to live in a house.

do you understand how your financial system works at all? you've criticized Moore, I think it's time to take a look in the mirror.

He is obviously whitewashing some parts, but at least he understands them enough to leave them out. Just like Fahrenheit 911 if he included all of the information, the movie would never see the light of day.

anyways, interesting article, was a good read and it is nice to see people with differing views being civil.

I haven't seen the movie, there's lots to comment on in your post, but I'm picking ONE thing: foreclosures.

I'll be sarcastic: "YEAH! POOR PEOPLE REALLY HELD THE PREDATORY LENDERS' ARMS BEHIND THEIR BACKS, WHEN THEY MADE THEM LEND THEM MONEY AT ASTRONIMICAL RATES AT OBSCENE PROFITS FOR THED LENDERS!!!"

As Bush said: "RECKLESS HOMEOWNERS!!!"

Yeah, those GODDAMN Reckless Homeowners!!!

Was that sarcastic enough?

...astronomical...ahem...

Capitalism does not mean "free markets without government intervention". That is a TYPE of capitalism, but is not the definition.

Of course, I am not surprised that right wing liars would simply redefine a word in order to make their point, but seriously this article is full of crap. For example the quote at the beginning - Capitalism made America? Bullshit. Not the type of capitalism these idiots are talking about, that's for sure, because the US never HAD that kind of capitalism. Not once.

Nothing makes me laugh harder than "Free Market Capitalists" shitting themselves over the ultimate example of it - the Federal Reserve.

The Fed is a PRIVATELY OWNED bank that essentially controls the capital of the US. Capitalism is DEFINED as the private ownership of capital and the means of production. The Fed IS "free market capitalism" personified.

These idiots should LOVE the Fed... after all, do they want monetary policy put back in the hands of the government? Not if they believe the bullshit they spout, that's for sure!

Excellent assessment, but (no offense) you guys really need a copy editor!

And who was it that pushed for the fed again? Must have been Michael Moore, not those greedy capitalists.

I'm enjoying some of the comments here, especially when there's some discussion between people with different opinions, (i.e. 'left-right,' 'liberal-conservative,' etc.).

There's a tremendous polarity in our society, between 'right' and' left,' which often includes those people who consider themselves on neither side, or as just one of 'the people.'

We need to have a constructive conversation; and this has to start with criticism that acknowledges where our opponents are contributing something worthy.

The above article makes valid criticisms of Moore's avoidance of the central role of the Federal Reserve, and his soft treatment of Obama: these two points are  inherited  from the traditional 'left' platform, reflecting the weakness of the same.

Where the 'left' has traditionally been strong, (in its grassroots, muckraking form, not the one linked to the Democratic Party) was in its willingness to criticise Corporate Capitalism and the dominance of the economic Elite. So Moore is staying within the proscribed boundaries: making a fuss about outrages obvious, but basically playing it safe; this is a big reason why 'the left' today has lost much of its relevance. People like Moore, Goodman, Albert, etc. are doing little to acknowledge the important criticisms coming today from the conservative arena.

However, conservatives should take care not to assume that they (we) have all the answers worked out, that a 'revolution' is rising on the basis of the conservative vision: the critique of the federal reserve and the re-storation of "free"  markets.

Moore can be criticised for a sometimes sloppy, careless presentation of the facts, (that's part of his persona, actually); but from what I can see, 95% of the conservative community also have a very distorted view of capitalism, socialism, and the "root cause of the problem."

The author of this article, for example, states: "Capitalism is free markets without government intervention. "

Yeah, in your dreams... One would like to see it this way. 

Here we have an utterly a-historical assumption, a projection  of pious desire imposed upon reality with little attempt to check the facts.

Fact: "Capitalism" was a system dominated by an Elite from its inception. It was born out of the brutal class rule of lords over the serfs, (Feudalism) and only came into being with the violent destruction of the common-land-ownership, the break-up of the ancient "clan" communities, to drive the (now) landless people into the towns to work in the newly expanding factories. In England, Scotland, they called this the great "Land Enclosures."

As with so many "conservative" commentators, the above author is confusing "free markets" (which have existed in various forms since time immorial and pre-date any form of "state" control) with "capitalism" (which constitutes an historical phase in the evolution of ELITE society). In their struggle to free themselves from the constraints of the monarchy, the early capitalist Elite had to appeal to common desires for "freedom," expressed in articles such as the "Magna Carta" as the claim for "free trade."

But this same Elite was always prepared to crush anyone who infringed on THEIR notion of "free" trade. In order to defeat the kings, the merchants sided with the peasantry, then re-aligned themselves with the landed to gentry to crush the aspirations of the peasants and solidify their supremacy.

It's true that a younger capitalist market was relatively freer than it is today; but this decay is not solely the fault of a growing government bureaucracy. To a much greater degree, it's a logical consequence of the Elite component of capitalist society continually expanding its grip through the principle of ruthless competition, summarized in the saying: "the big fish eats the little fish, until there's only one fish left."

All of this historical information was exhaustively collected by Marx and Engels in the 1850's, which brings us to the second big brain-fart of our modern discourse: "socialism."

Just like there are good, sincere "christians," and also hypocrites masking themselves as Christians, so too are there honest "socialists," and idiots, swindlers and snakes who like to present themselves as "socialists," "social-reformers," "do-gooders," etc.

In reality, in its only meaningful, worthwhile sense of the term, "socialism" is not some blueprint for the future, nor some carved-in-stone edivice resembling the horror of the former Soviet Union: it's simply a critique of capitalism.

Marx himself emphasized that many times.

Criticise the critique if you wish, (it has its flaws); but you must do so from a place of knowledge, not hearsay; for otherwise, you simply sell yourself and our larger community short.

I can't expect you to take my word for it; I can only say, from my experience: understanding the criticism of the 'left' opponent will only make the conservative voice more-authentic, more-revolutionary.

As to "the roots of the problem," can 'left' and 'right' agree today that the problems inherent in a society dominated by ELITES did not start with capitalism? If so, then they will not adequately be corrected with an audit on the Federal Reserve.

While conservatives today are indeed taking the lead today in focusing on the central role that the Fed is playing in our crisis, they should not delude themselves to think that the Fed can be abolished/transformed etc. without a complete social revolution; and this requires our WHOLE people,  include those many millions who took to the streets to oppose the invasion of Iraq, (who generally lean to "the left") who today are confused, intimidated, and who will not respond in positive force to the thoughtful criticisms of the conservatives, until they see 'right' and 'left' involved in a much more thoughtful and inclusive discussion.

Let's do it.

Capitalism is evil because someone registered capitalismisevil.com before Michael Moore could and is now trying to sell this domain name for a lot of money (capital).

What I like most is how Michael Moore is captilalistically making money off all his dimwitted liberal friends from his movie about the "evils" of capitalism.

Interesting to read the post but I was wondering that is there was some other online sources for the captialism becuase it may not be involoved in all those cases I thought. So better option is to stick with some other plans.

Lets Watch Movies then!!

Back in my college years, I learned about this social psychology theory that fits this context perfectly: minority groups hold on to a nucleus of common willingness and strength that will eventually bring the majority down by constant investment of energy in their aims and common objectives. This is what they are trying to do with the 1% preaching about free trade. I have heard about so many people looking for a tax resolution, in hope of easing their burdens and in hope of a better future.