Capitalism, A Love Story

[Diehard]

2 part interview first of all...you missed the second part. And yes Hannity buried Moore.

And obviously you expect us to just take your word for it, or else you would have posted it here for everyone to see. Why not? We missed it, why not show us what we missed? Could it be you're wrong, lazy or both?

[rb336]

Yup[[just not this one... I'm sure I'll see it eventually) and yup...but I'm really not going to debunk and point out everything I [[and others) noticed or found awfully convenient. I'm not saying it's full of lies, I'm saying it's agitprop not a documentary.

typical of your ilk.

Bats -- you really think Hannity came out on top? god, how pathetic

[Danny]

The big confusing clip from the film is the stock derivatives. Here's a real source:

A derivative is a financial instrument that is derived from some other asset, index, event, value or condition [[known as the underlying asset). Rather than trade or exchange the underlying asset itself, derivative traders enter into an agreement to exchange cash or assets over time based on the underlying asset. A simple example is a futures contract: an agreement to exchange the underlying asset at a future date.
Derivatives are often leveraged, such that a small movement in the underlying value can cause a large difference in the value of the derivative.
Derivatives can be used by investors to speculate and to make a profit if the value of the underlying moves the way they expect [[e.g. moves in a given direction, stays in or out of a specified range, reaches a certain level). Alternatively, traders can use derivatives to hedge or mitigate risk in the underlying, by entering into a derivative contract whose value moves in the opposite direction to their underlying position and cancels part or all of it out.





Derivatives are usually broadly categorised by:

• The relationship between the underlying and the derivative [[e.g. forward, option, swap)
• The type of underlying [[e.g. Equity derivatives, foreign exchange derivatives, credit derivatives)
• The market in which they trade [[e.g., exchange traded or over-the-counter

· Hedging
· A technique designed to eliminate or reduce risk.
· Derivatives allow risk about the price of the underlying asset to be transferred from one party to another. For example, a wheat farmer and a miller could sign a futures contract to exchange a specified amount of cash for a specified amount of wheat in the future. Both parties have reduced a future risk: for the wheat farmer, the uncertainty of the price, and for the miller, the availability of wheat. However, there is still the risk that no wheat will be available due to causes unspecified by the contract, like the weather, or that one party will renege on the contract. Although a third party, called a clearing house, insures a futures contract, not all derivatives are insured against counterparty risk.
· From another perspective, the farmer and the miller both reduce a risk and acquire a risk when they sign the futures contract: The farmer reduces the risk that the price of wheat will fall below the price specified in the contract and acquires the risk that the price of wheat will rise above the price specified in the contract [[thereby losing additional income that he could have earned). The miller, on the other hand, acquires the risk that the price of wheat will fall below the price specified in the contract [[thereby paying more in the future than he otherwise would) and reduces the risk that the price of wheat will rise above the price specified in the contract. In this sense, one party is the insurer [[risk taker) for one type of risk, and the counterparty is the insurer [[risk taker) for another type of risk.
· Hedging also occurs when an individual or institution buys an asset [[like a commodity, a bond that has coupon payments, a stock that pays dividends, and so on) and sells it using a futures contract. The individual or institution has access to the asset for a specified amount of time, and then can sell it in the future at a specified price according to the futures contract. Of course, this allows the individual or institution the benefit of holding the asset while reducing the risk that the future selling price will deviate unexpectedly from the market's current assessment of the future value of the asset

Derivatives serve a legitimate business purpose. For example a corporation borrows a large sum of money at a specific interest rate.[1] The rate of interest on the loan resets every six months. the corporation is concerned that the rate of interest may be much higher in six months. The corporation could buy a forward rate agreement. A forward rate agreement is a contract to pay a fixed rate of interest six months after purchases on a notional sum of money.[2] If the interest rate after six months is above the contract rate the seller pays the difference to the FRA buyer, the corporation. If the rate is lower the corporation would pay the difference to the seller. The purchase of the FRA would serve to reduce the uncertainty concerning the rate increase and stabilize earnings.
Speculation and arbitrage
Derivatives can be used to acquire risk, rather than to insure or hedge against risk. Thus, some individuals and institutions will enter into a derivative contract to speculate on the value of the underlying asset, betting that the party seeking insurance will be wrong about the future value of the underlying asset. Speculators will want to be able to buy an asset in the future at a low price according to a derivative contract when the future market price is high, or to sell an asset in the future at a high price according to a derivative contract when the future market price is low.
Individuals and institutions may also look for arbitrage opportunities, as when the current buying price of an asset falls below the price specified in a futures contract to sell the asset.

To put it in Layman's Terms, basically a derivative is like Wall Street running like a caSINo with a lots of confusing mathematical equations that only an artificial intelligence machine or robot can figure it out a nanoseconds. If you're a geek or nerd with a IQ of 237 can figure out any mathematical equations of stock derivatives, then he or she is guaranteed a full time job working for Wall Street without geting a job interview or submitting a resume. It's a definate requirement to be a investor if you know all about it.

[Danny]

Michael Moore's Capitalism, a Love Story used the clip from a Jesus film to juxtapose Christianity view of capitalism as a sin to Jesus Christ a capitalist. The clip mocked Jesus and the rest of Christianity and it upset lot's of Church members.

Moore didn't fully get the further details from a clip from a widower whose husband had died to the link of the bank who took the widower's husband estate as the primary beneficiary.

Moore did explain in simplier terms of subprime mortages and equities of your home.

1. You can own a bank by puting your house up for refinancing

2. READ THE FINE PRINT! when signing an equity paperwork with your bank or mortage company. They will charge your outrageous interest rates. Basically lots of folks don't read the fine print.

3. Turn your house into an ATM credit card machine. The value of your home will equate with the money in your account. Just pay back the loan with severely high interest rates.

4. WARRING! If you don't pay the interest rate. The bank or mortage company can freely take your house in a flash.

The scheme was developed by the foolish con artist and 13th Chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan to get the "BABY BOOMERS" out of their old homes and into convelescent homes; so that the Gen X's and Y's can turn your home into a CDOs cash cows.

WORD FROM THE STREET PROPHET


80% of American people both middle and low-income families ARE NOT officially home owners. They just pay rent by co-option to buy. If you want to be a home owner, buy the whole house, avoid the home loans, and just pay taxes.

Neda Soltani, you always be remembered my sweet liberator.

[ccbatson]

Moore transparently using clearly misleading partial facts and deceptive techniques by itself lost him the debate. On top of that, the hypocricy described by Hannity of a man trashing the very entity that allows him to be successful [[capitalism) that met no response by Moore...the nail in his coffin for this debate.

[Diehard]

Moore transparently using clearly misleading partial facts and deceptive techniques by itself lost him the debate. On top of that, the hypocricy described by Hannity of a man trashing the very entity that allows him to be successful [[capitalism) that met no response by Moore...the nail in his coffin for this debate.

No, he didn't. Hannity asked him how much money he made, and Moore said I'm comfortable, but it's none of your business. Moore clarified that he's not against the theory of capitalism, he's against what it's become in practice in the U.S. Did you miss that part, huh? Did you miss that part? Of course you did, you didn't watch the video.
The rest of us actually found it and watched it instead of just parroting the right-wing talking points.

[rb336]

Michael Moore's Capitalism, a Love Story used the clip from a Jesus film to juxtapose Christianity view of capitalism as a sin to Jesus Christ a capitalist. The clip mocked Jesus and the rest of Christianity and it upset lot's of Church members.

no, it didn't. anyone upset by it is WAY too touchy, and probably has a low-level understanding of the bible

[ccbatson]

Much of organized religion is collectivist. The excuse being that, at that time, the virtues of individual liberty were relatively unknown.

[elganned]

"The virtues of individual liberty were relatively unknown"?? Everybody was just sitting around waiting for the Great Prophet Rand to reveal the wonders of liberty? I suppose Aristotle and indeed the entire 6th Century BC in Greece didn't really happen?

Your world view and reality are really not tangent at any point, are they?

[ccbatson]

Aristotle started the process that is true...still relatively unknown and certainly never instituted and practiced on a significant scale.

[elganned]

You are...hopeless.

[Danny]

no, it didn't. anyone upset by it is WAY too touchy, and probably has a low-level understanding of the bible

You're statement is NON SEQUITUR. You didn't think about the other folks who view the movie and provide their critiques. Plus Jesus was NOT a capitalist. He even threw the money changers and said," THIS HOUSE IS THE HOUSE OF PRAYER. BUT YOU ALL HAVE TURN IT INTO TO A DEN OF THIEVES!" Moore just mock Christianity buy using Jesus' image and voice over to make him a message of financial advisor.

[ccbatson]

Jesus wasn't a capitalist because there was no such thing at that time. If there were...??? Who knows?

[Danny]

When Jesus saw that his Father's House was turn into a mini mall, that was capitalism in action. You don't just to mass produce goods to be a capitalist, just assemble the things of the earth and sell it and the customer pays it. The consumer will become a capitalist when he or she buy a product[[s) from a marketplace or bazaar. The word 'Capitalism' may not exist in the ancient world, but people were buying, selling and trading goods and services.

[Trumpeteer]

When Jesus saw that his Father's House was turn into a mini mall, that was capitalism in action. You don't just to mass produce goods to be a capitalist, just assemble the things of the earth and sell it and the customer pays it. The consumer will become a capitalist when he or she buy a product[[s) from a marketplace or bazaar. The word 'Capitalism' may not exist in the ancient world, but people were buying, selling and trading goods and services.

Danny,

First you "decapitalised" your name and now you've lost your "Street Prophet" job as well?

[ccbatson]

This capitalism

Capitalism
–noun
an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

I don't know what you are referring too.

[oladub]

You're statement is NON SEQUITUR. You didn't think about the other folks who view the movie and provide their critiques. Plus Jesus was NOT a capitalist. He even threw the money changers and said," THIS HOUSE IS THE HOUSE OF PRAYER. BUT YOU ALL HAVE TURN IT INTO TO A DEN OF THIEVES!" Moore just mock Christianity buy using Jesus' image and voice over to make him a message of financial advisor.

The quote reminds me of President Andrew Jackson's speech to the assembled directors of the Federal Reserve bank of his day. Unlike President Obama's stated intention to expand the Fed and give it more power over us, Jackson said to the bankers,

"Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter, I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a DEN OF VIPERS AND THIEVES. I intend to rout you out, and by the grace of the Eternal God, will rout you out."

Jackson did just that. That's what the story says Jesus did too. He routed out the money changers. It would follow that Obama, doing the opposite with respect to the Federal Reserve and his support of the Wall Street bailout, must be, by your definition, a capitalist by supporting this latter day den of thieves.

I'm waiting for everyone's take on Jesus as a financial advisor or capitalist in Mathew 25: 14-30 the parable of the talents.

[elganned]

The irony of the "cleansing of the temple" event is that the money-changers were providing a needed service to the Temple. Roman coinage was not allowed to be offered in the temple, as it had the emperor's image on it. Therefore, to make offering at the temple devout Jews had to exchange their Roman coinage for currency which did not bear an image. Hence the money-changers.

So by casting the money-changers out of the temple precinct, Jesus was actually interfering with religious worship and flouting Mosaic law with its long-standing prohibition regarding "graven images".

And Cc, capitalism has existed as long as markets have existed. They just didn't have a specific name for it. You really, really need to take a history class or two.

[elganned]

I'm waiting for everyone's take on Jesus as a financial advisor or capitalist in Mathew 25: 14-30 the parable of the talents.

"...I reap what I did not sow and gather where I did not plant"; "those who have much will be given more, but those who have little will have that little taken away".

Sounds like a capitalist/Republican to me.

Kinda flies in the face of "the last shall be first, and the first shall be last" and "the meek shall inherit the earth", doesn't it?

[rb336]

then read Matt 25 following the parable of the talents

[ccbatson]

Once again, common sense principles of individual liberty have always been present, however not codified and understood sufficiently in the time of Jesus to be properly applied on a large scale.

[elganned]

Once again, common sense principles of individual liberty have always been present, however not codified and understood sufficiently in the time of Jesus to be properly applied on a large scale.

?? The whole world isn't a large enough scale for you? There were merchants, farmers, and manufacturers everywhere, since long before the pyramids were built. I think they all understood exactly what they were doing--controlling production, buying, selling, saving and amassing wealth [[= "capital", since you often have to have it spelled out).

The word "capitalism" was coined as a label after some people identified and recorded practices that already existed. It wasn't an invention of the industrial revolution.

I agree it wasn't codified [[whatever that means--BTW, what does that mean?) but just because something wasn't yet certified by Ayn Rand doesn't mean it didn't exist.

[ccbatson]

Organizing it was very much the cause of the industrial revolution and American prosperity.

[elganned]

But it wasn't new, Cc. That's the point.
It's a difference of scale only, not of substance.

[rb336]

Organizing it was very much the cause of the industrial revolution and American prosperity.

ahhh, it's always fun when you get historically challenged, Bats. American prosperity -- at least through the civil war -- was largely do to agrarian production, not industrialization.