However, we shouldn’t be providing enough aid for the destitute to watch HBO. This is a constant battle, as it should be.

Over the last 8-10 years we have allowed the top 1% to control more than their share (30 to 1 debt ratio at Goldman and other investment banks). This will obviously correct too far the other way. The real question will be if the majority on the poor side (includes middle class) and the majority of the rich side will be able to vote together to make the right choices (strong SEC, strong oversight, strong boards, etc.). Unfortunately, it seems that most on both sides have little understanding of how this mess actually happened.

Please read: Bailout Nation for a completely neutral view of how this mess happened. The guy who wrote it is only interested in making money, thus you get the truth.

Also, read “Why your world is about to get a whole lot smaller.”

I have nothing (financially) in either of these books. One gives you a good view of what happened and the other give you a good view of what will happen. You need to fit yourself in. As always there will be winners and losers regardless of belief. Unfortunately, all of this suggests less winners int he U.S. than the last 60-70 years have shown. Don’t be surprised.

One guy thought the homeless person would be able to pick himself up, while the other guy thought he’d be afraid of that much money, would waste it, etc.

Unfortunately the story falls apart here since I don’t remember the ending. I heard it in the early 90s, and maybe it was apocryphal anyway. But whether money can cure homelessness is a reasonable question. I’d say it can, but it definitely takes hope too.

There are people in this world that hit rough times or perhaps were born into rough times, and simply sit back and expect things handed to them – I have a feeling this naturally stems from the old lazy root or as you put it apathy. In the case of this segment of society I 100% agree with what you wrote.

However I also believe there are people that for whatever reason (upbringing, substance abuse, etc.) simply are not equipped with the resources to be able to pick up and move, retrain, do what it takes to pull out of the hole they find themselves in.

You write from your own corner of the world with your own perspectives of what you would do. Some people cannot do what you would do, it would never occur to them or the fears, mountains, hurdles between here and there are too vast.

I agree that capitalism is not the evil monster or that money is to blame. The root goes much deeper and needs to be addressed on a social level, not an economic one. Money doesn’t create problems nor does it fix them. The part of the population I write about would not be magically equipped for a “successful” life if given bags full of money.

I am in the middle class as you suspected most of your readers would be. I would hope that if I were to hit bottom I would take the path you suggested and climb up. It must be taken into account that I have no substance issues and was raised by an amazing family that taught me I could do and be anything if I put my mind to it. If a child is taught that they were born a failure and that they will always be a failure, if they are never at some point, given hope how would they begin to better themselves? Where would they start? More importantly; why would they start?

Without hope we are all lost….. Perhaps Michael Moore would be better off teaching that Hope is Good – if a person has hope that life could be better, that they could achieve more, if they believed that it actually was possible they would naturally do what it took to work toward that dream.

@ Chad, I saw the movie a long time ago, but I didn’t remember much about it or even that insider trading was his downfall.

When I started my first job and got on the employee stock plan, I saw how the stock price responded to our quarterly announcements. Big swings were not unusual. And I thought, “You know what, the executives know how the stock is going to move ahead of time. They can make some good money on that.” I just thought it was a nice perk of being an executive – I had no idea it was illegal.

I’m with you on letting them fail, instead of rewarding failure. Oh well, maybe next time.

@ Betsy, I think I just might print your comment and put it up on the wall!

@ Colin, I’ve always thought “Atlas Strugged” sounded interesting, but I’ve never gotten around to reading it. I might have to take it off the back burner.

@ Akemi, I look at Bill Gates and see someone who doesn’t appear to really care about money. It makes sense, because it doesn’t matter to him in his situation. Then I look at Donald Trump and see someone who wants more for the sake of more. He doesn’t need it, but he loves playing the game. As far as I can see, he’s ethical about it, though he’s about as “greedy” as you can get without being bad greedy.

I think wanting more for the sake of more is fine. Not that everyone should want that, because at some point it’s not practical. It’s more like a hobby, like a stamp collector who has far more stamps than they need to mail letters!

To me, greed is stealing bread when you’re not starving, by beating up a blind person. And that kind of greed can happen among the middle class as well as the rich.

I would use words like enthusiasm or passion for the healthy pursuit of wellness that you are describing.

And our current system do offer a safety net, including free housing. Homeless shelter is one, and there are government programs for rent assistance. When the person meets the criteria, they even pay the whole rent. (I don’t know the exact criteria, but I know some landlords who like to have these tenants. The government pays the rent – it’s sure bet for low income housing.)

And throwing away non-productive population is nothing new. I’m from an old world and we have plenty of stories and forklores of such. In the old agrarian community before the heavy machinery, the productivity (and therefore the survival) of the community depended on all member’s diligent work. If someone doesn’t measure up, sooner or later they get “thrown away”, usually to the mountains. So I think the modern system is a lot more compassionate and offers plenty of opportunities to those who are “hit hard”.

People tend to think the modern world (and maybe the very society they are in) is harsh, but the historical fact is it’s the other way around. I hope people make better use of this good system.

Moore definitely knows how to play the heart-strings of a big portion of the American public because of the widespread acceptance of (as Betsy puts it) ‘victimology.’ When everyone on TV and in the news is screaming at you that it’s not your fault and how dare the big-wigs do this to you, eventually most people will drink the Kool-Aid and think ‘yeah, how dare they! What could I have done?’

Definitely reminds me of the antagonists in ‘Atlas Shrugged’ by Ayn Rand. As the world is collapsing because of their ignorance and incompetence, the middle-men of the world (the ones who destroy value) are unanimously screaming ‘now is the age of the little guy! We don’t need you industrialists any more!’

When are people going to wake up and realize in this country, more than any in the world, they hold their precious destiny in their own hands? It will only be stolen from you when you choose to be an accomplice. No one owes you anything. There’s a reason for straps on your boots. They’re for pulling.

“In our current situation the “greed is good” scenario would have been to let the banks, homeowners, and GM fail. Sure it would have been scary and really really bad for a little bit, but we would already be past that by now. Old well run banks would have expanded, and new banks and investment banks would have sprung up stronger and better run. GM would have been completely reworked from top to bottom and be the better for it.”

They would buy a piece of failing Citibank, GM, etc. do a little reorganization (actually a lot) and sell it to a strong company for a nice profit. Sure, this profit seems excessive to people making $40k a year, but this process allows companies to fail and new or stronger companies to emerge. Most companies don’t have the expertise to buy a piece of a failing company, and reorganize and recapitalize it quickly and efficiently. They are willing to pay a premium to anyone who can do this for them.

In our current situation the “greed is good” scenario would have been to let the banks, homeowners, and GM fail. Sure it would have been scary and really really bad for a little bit, but we would already be past that by now. Old well run banks would have expanded, and new banks and investment banks would have sprung up stronger and better run. GM would have been completely reworked from top to bottom and be the better for it. The economy would be on the upswing from real growth, not the artificial growth spawned by government spending. Instead we rewarded failure. In return, we will get more failure from those same people.

By not allowing greed to work correctly (good risk = good rewards, bad risk = bad rewards) we have started a domino effect.

Michael Moore is good at the emotional thing surrounding a real problem. However, he is absolutely terrible at identifying why the problem exists or how to fix it. He is as extreme as the people he hates.