Michael Moore the capitalist needed a dictionary before titling new film

by Kay B. Day

Somebody should’ve given filmmaker Michael Moore a dictionary before he set out to make his latest film. He should have titled the film ‘Cronyism’ instead of ‘Capitalism.’He seems to confuse the two terms. ‘Capitalism’ is defined by Encarta as “an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods, characterized by a free competitive market and motivation by profit.”

A story at CNN said Moore has an “eight figure-net worth,” and I haven’t seen announcements he plans to re-distribute his wealth anytime soon. Same goes for the tax-loving Democrats who control Congress—their latest ploy is another ‘sin tax’ on soft drinks. I don’t like sweet drinks, so I can be objective here. A new tax is not the answer. Government reform is the real answer and no politician to date has the [insert your favorite male anatomy vulgarism here] to take on true government reform. That would involve cutting spending. Dems are completely incapable of doing that and I don’t see the GOP braving that battle either, unfortunately.

I took a look at the trailer to Moore’s latest film, “Capitalism, a Love Story,’ and I admit it made me laugh. As Moore grilled AIG execs and politicos, I appreciated the irony.

But Moore fails miserably in his central thesis, that capitalism is the culprit. Fact is we are not practicing true capitalism in the US and we have not done so for some time. We all know what we are practicing—cronyism. And how might that term be defined? Encarta said cronyism is “special treatment and preference given to friends or colleagues, especially in politics.” We’re all familiar with that—the government’s encroachment on lending, auto-making, healthcare (past not present) and “green” energy are a few examples.

Moore can blame capitalism all he wants to and the choir singing along with him may do the same. What we are in at the moment is a period Ayn Rand might describe as ‘lootism’ and a taxpayer might describe as highway robbery. I'm not sure why Moore is confused on the real meaning of capitalism. As I said, it has been an excellent system for him.

It could be worse. He could've stooped to the level of Oliver Stone whose been busy with his own film, likening developments in Latin America to "a Renaissance."

Still it’s ironic that someone who enjoys wealth via the quasi-free market would attack capitalism. I’d think someone who really hates capitalism would try very hard to give all his own money away and refuse to take another buck beyond subsistence level. I mean if you really want to be fair, you’d only take for yourself the amount that the poorest would get, right?