Moore on Capitalism

You can read whatever take you want; I’m going to avoid commenting on the film itself since I haven’t yet seen it. (I have read a number of reviews and I have spoken at length with a friend who saw the film).

According to many reviews, Moore has quite a spin, and lies outright at times. I’m not going to comment on that, I’m simply going to note this:

Michael Moore has finally decided to take up a special program to loose wight.
The Fahrenheit 9/11 director is said to have enrolled on a crash course at a $3,800-a-week celebrity center, as he intends to lose 5.4 kilograms (12 pounds) during the first three weeks.

The 51-year-old activist and film-maker went to Pritikin Longevity Center And Spa in Aventura, Florida, where he is learning to cook healthy meals and will undergo “life re-education”, according to

Let’s see… $3800/week, 3 weeks, 12 pounds. That’s $11,400 to shed 12 pounds. A hair under $1000 a pound.

Riddle me this. Can anyone describe any economic system ever conceived by the mind of man, other than free market capitalism that would allow anyone — anyone at all — who values his weight loss at $1000/pound to get the kind of treatment Mr. Moore and other celebrities receive at this spa?

Yes, I’m sure Communism allowed party leaders to get similar treatment, and for “free”, no less. But could the average worker get such treatment? At any price? No chance, unless, of course, you’re referring to the black market which was conducted along evil capitalist lines.

I wouldn’t pay $1000 to drop a pound. Neither, probably, would you. Neither would nearly anyone I can think of. But some people, somewhere, will. To them it’s worth it.

And that’s the beauty of free market capitalism; a willing buyer and a willing seller meet at a price point. Even if the transaction makes no sense to us, it makes sense to them.

It’s called freedom. I like it.


2 Responses to “Moore on Capitalism”

  1. Sam Adams says:

    Gaaah. What a horrible, hypocritical, self-serving man Michael Moore is. I’d prefer to describe him more as an RL troll, but that might verge on ad hominem, so I’ll stay away from that.

    The last movie of his I saw as “Bowling for Columbine”, which started well and had a few good points, but degenerated into grandstanding, pontificating, and stupid, pointless public gestures.

    I’m not much of an apologist for capitalism, but I’ll be the first to say it’s been responsible for considerable social benefits, such as the raising of the standard of living, etc. etc.

    But ONLY when tempered with effective controls so it doesn’t become predatory and parasitic.

    I haven’t seen the movie either, and I’m not likely to, but from I know of Michael Moore, he’s probably confusing capitalism from the excessive behavior of American corporations, which are absolutely amoral and predatory.

    Not the same thing.

    But then Mike has never been distinguished himself for his fine intellect and reasoning.

    As far as his personal wealth goes, I think it’s a mistake to confuse wealth with corruption and poverty with righteousness, but that seems to be the paradigm his public persona goes with. Big ol’ flannel wearing working class guy from Michigan. He’s earned money from his movies, and good for him, he worked for it (ironically in our free market, capitalist system) but his public image can’t reflect that because he would lose credibility.

    I don’t see him as a “liberal” in any way, and especially as a part of the “left”. If anything, I’d say he’s more of a centrist. (But this is meaningful only if I knew what ANY of these labels meant.)

    Wish I could do a “I’d like to see less of Moore” pun, bit it’s been done too many times.

  2. Sam Adams says:

    Damn. Sorry for my bad proofreading. I write slowly and always embarrass myself when I re-read what I wrote. Blame it on my bad eyesight.

Leave a Reply