Michael Moore Blasts Wolf Blitzer...It's GREAT!!!

[Universe Prince]

On the one hand, I like the column because Stossel is exactly right on this one. On the other hand, I still have to wonder why he even has to write it. Not that he shouldn't write it, but (and I say this as someone who has had to frequently explain precisely that "freedom and benevolence go hand in hand" position) how is it that he feels it needs explaining? How have we come to this? Why does arguing for freedom and limited government need to have, almost as a caveat, this "no, it really isn't about every man for himself" explanation? Of course it isn't about every man for himself. How did "helping people" become equated with "government program"?

[Michael Tee]

This thread took on a surreal tone when Moore was blasted for (a) dragging the war into a health-care debate and (b) attacking CNN "journalists" for being paid by corporations.  ("So what?  Moore's paid by a corporation too.")

The war is the 800-lb. gorilla in every room where any kind of social benefit program is discussed.  That's because you can't have guns and butter, as the U.S. is finding out.  You can't fund a $12 billion a month war AND blaze new trails in public health and welfare.  And there's no free lunch.

And I guess any thinking person over the age of 12 realized that the corporations which pay the CNN "journalists" are, indirectly, Big Pharma, with a vested interest in keeping government out of any kind of health care, and the corporations which pay Moore are media corporations NOT dependent on Big Pharma to any appreciable extent, which can make money by promoting left-wing OR right-wing POVs and thus have no economic axe to grind, although I would venture to say that most Hollywood movies that I have seen tend towards the right of centre, with a few notable exceptions.  They won't risk pissing off the heartland on Motherhood, the Flag or Apple Pie.

CNN came out swinging in their attack on Moore, and then his web-site nailed them in all their broadcast lies, so they HAD to go back on to defend their (now non-existent) reputation.  I caught some of it last night on Larry King Live, Michael against Sanjay Gupta and Blitzer, two "journalists" whose ethics belong in a whorehouse rather than a newsroom.  A lot going on here, so I only had a few minutes watching time, but the few minutes I saw were truly comical, Gupta seemingly back-pedalling furiously from any attack on Moore and King trying to cut Michael off, mostly unsuccessfully, every time he was scoring a point, which is to say every time he opened his mouth. 

The Stossel piece was interesting.  I guess the one thing you can say for him is that he's not a whore like the others who attack Moore with bogus "facts" (i.e., lies) but he's a throwback.  He's pushing a philosophy which has no relevance in the complex society we live in today where issues of industrial production impact directly on health issues, as does foreign policy.

<<But why would a philosophy that was good enough to build a successful society be unsuited to sustaining that society? >>

Because society changes over time?

<<Individual freedom, with minimal government, made it possible for masses of people to cooperate for mutual advantage. As a result, society could be rich and peaceful. >>

It was NEVER very peaceful.  Not in the U.S.A.

<<As the great economist Ludwig von Mises wrote, "What makes friendly relations between human beings possible is the higher productivity of the division of labor. . . . A preeminent common interest, the preservation and further intensification of social cooperation, becomes paramount and obliterates all essential collisions.">>

And what happens when population AND productivity grow to the point where there are a whole bunch of people whose labour isn't really necessary for anything?

[Brassmask]

Aaaaawwwww, ain't that sweet?

By saying that Americans shouldn't participate in widespread benevolence using government as a tool, Stossel (and supposedly all libertarians) are actually benevolent!

That's really rich.  Maybe if he doesn't want to participate in an America that is benevolent and expresses that benevolence through the will of the people's democratically approved apparatus, he should preach voluntary charity instead of attacking Michael Moore.

[Xavier_Onassis]

And what happens when population AND productivity grow to the point where there are a whole bunch of people whose labour isn't really necessary for anything?

=================================================
We have already reached that point. You can come to Miami and see them for yourself.

Some of them can be seen cruising down the highways in expensive sportscars and limosines bought with daddy's money.
Others can be seen standing along the off ramps with signs like "Will work for Food".


It is likely that many of both groups can actually perform any useful labor even if it were needed.

Than we have all the folks who work in the casinos. Not much productive done there, when you come down to it.

[Brassmask]

And what happens when population AND productivity grow to the point where there are a whole bunch of people whose labour isn't really necessary for anything?

Begin converting to an RBE right now, so that when this moment comes, labour will be automated and we for the most part be an intellectual society of maintenance folk for robots till we get the maintenance robots up and running on their own.

If the bots become self-aware, then we'll make something else to take care of them.

Every human should be able to live with dignity.

[BT]

Every human should be able to live with dignity.

At the force of a government gun, no doubt.

[Universe Prince]

The Stossel piece was interesting.  I guess the one thing you can say for him is that he's not a whore like the others who attack Moore with bogus "facts" (i.e., lies) but he's a throwback.  He's pushing a philosophy which has no relevance in the complex society we live in today where issues of industrial production impact directly on health issues, as does foreign policy.

Complete nonsense.

And what happens when population AND productivity grow to the point where there are a whole bunch of people whose labour isn't really necessary for anything?

Then they can find other means of making a living. I'm always surprised when people talk as if creating new jobs to do new things is somehow unthinkable. Or that getting training to do some job or other is impossible. What is really interesting is that the guy who thinks society has changed to the point of liberty being irrelevant (except when he wants to criticize America) apparently also thinks the people, who are the components of society, cannot change. Apparently, at some point when productivity is high enough, people are just going to become useless and unable to think for themselves to find something else to do. Too bad society can't come up with some way for people to learn new skills... oops, no, wait, it has. Well, too bad there is no way in society for people to create new businesses and... oops, no wait, there is. Huh. Maybe rather than Stossel's it is Michael Tee's philosophy that is irrelevant to the complex society in which we live. Yeah, I think so.

[Universe Prince]

By saying that Americans shouldn't participate in widespread benevolence using government as a tool, Stossel (and supposedly all libertarians) are actually benevolent!

No, not quite what the man said. You are not only distorting what Stossel said, you're glossing over what using government as a tool means. But then, you know that.

That's really rich.  Maybe if he doesn't want to participate in an America that is benevolent and expresses that benevolence through the will of the people's democratically approved apparatus, he should preach voluntary charity instead of attacking Michael Moore.

Reading comprehension become a problem for you? He wasn't attacking Michael Moore. Expressing disagreement with Michael Moore is not the same as attacking him. But you know this. You're just trying to denigrate those who don't agree with Moore.

Your nearly Orwellian doublespeak is ridiculous to say the least. Expressing benevolence through the will of the people's democratically approved apparatus? What a joke. Particularly from you, Mr. Any-government-conspiracy-theory-will-do.

[Michael Tee]

<<Then they can find other means of making a living. I'm always surprised when people talk as if creating new jobs to do new things is somehow unthinkable.>>

Bullshit.  There won't be any "other means of making a living" because fewer and fewer workers will be required for any and all productive tasks.

Any idiot can say "find something new to do."    But actually finding something new for hundreds of millions of people to do is just not gonna happen.  The problem with these libertarian fruitcakes is that they bring an 18th Century solution to 21st Century problems.

[Universe Prince]

There won't be any "other means of making a living" because fewer and fewer workers will be required for any and all productive tasks.

Upon what do you base this dire prediction? Just exactly how do you know that there won't be any other means of making a living?

Any idiot can say "find something new to do."    But actually finding something new for hundreds of millions of people to do is just not gonna happen.

Why? So far I see zero grounds presented as a basis for this assertion. What happens in the future that erodes human imagination to the point that hundreds of millions of people will not be able to find or create any sort of employment?

The problem with these libertarian fruitcakes is that they bring an 18th Century solution to 21st Century problems.

No, my friend, the problem with these libertarian fruitcakes is that they hold genuinely and progressively liberal notions about humans not needing old ideas about central planning to control their lives. Indeed, the old and tired and useless solution is the one that says we all need a government to tell us our place in society, to give meaning to our lives. You propose worn, outdated ideas that have no more worth to modern society than the model of the geo-centric universe. And to make your so-called solutions seem relevant, you propose a future where no one can find work, essentially trying to create a problem that does not exist. What a load of tripe and nonsense. You argue for a re-worked feudal society where the government owns most everything and citizens take what the government decides to give, and you're accusing the libertarians of bringing 18th century solutions to the table? I'll take ideas from the Age of Enlightenment over nonsensical solutions from the Dark Ages any time.

[Michael Tee]

<<Upon what do you base this dire prediction? Just exactly how do you know that there won't be any other means of making a living?>>

Just seems like common sense, Prince.  There's a fixed number of people on earth.  Each one has certain basic needs that are pretty well fixed as to quantum.  A man needs just so much food, air, water, housing, transportation etc. in his life and the means of production are getting more and more efficient.  The output per worker keeps rising due to economies of scale, scientific and technical advances, etc.  It's taking fewer and fewer workers to produce the same output.

Just look around you.  How many workers are there now without jobs?  How many millions more in India and China?  And more and more Indians and Chinese entering the labour market.  Stands to reason there are gonna be lots more people without work.


<<Why? So far I see zero grounds presented as a basis for this assertion. What happens in the future that erodes human imagination to the point that hundreds of millions of people will not be able to find or create any sort of employment?>>

I don't think human imagination can create non-existent human needs.  Up to now, the basic needs of the human being have been pretty fixed over time and human imagination has kept increasing productivity to meet that demand.  We are soon to reach a point where human imagination will increase productivity to a point where all need is oversupplied.  If trends in productivity continue as I believe they will - - THAT'S the effect of "human imagination" to date.  Hoping for "human imagination" to find new jobs for the masses in an era of maximised productivity is a lot like just hoping for a miracle or hoping for a deus ex machina - - it's not a solution.

<<No, my friend, the problem with these libertarian fruitcakes is that they hold genuinely and progressively liberal notions about humans not needing old ideas about central planning to control their lives. Indeed, the old and tired and useless solution is the one that says we all need a government to tell us our place in society, to give meaning to our lives. You propose worn, outdated ideas that have no more worth to modern society than the model of the geo-centric universe. And to make your so-called solutions seem relevant, you propose a future where no one can find work, essentially trying to create a problem that does not exist.>>

Central planning isn't new and neither is rugged individualism.  What's new is the permanently surplus labour force.  The solution to the new problem is neither central planning nor rugged individualism, but state welfare to assure a basic level of income support for all.

[Universe Prince]

There's a fixed number of people on earth.

Are you sure there is a fixed number of people?

There's a fixed number of people on earth.  Each one has certain basic needs that are pretty well fixed as to quantum.  A man needs just so much food, air, water, housing, transportation etc. in his life and the means of production are getting more and more efficient.  The output per worker keeps rising due to economies of scale, scientific and technical advances, etc.  It's taking fewer and fewer workers to produce the same output.

Okay, for the sake of argument, I'll go along with that.

Just look around you.  How many workers are there now without jobs?

I don't know. Last I heard, unemployment was fairly low, somewhere below 6%. Many U.S. states have unemployment rates even lower, below 4%.

How many millions more in India and China?  And more and more Indians and Chinese entering the labour market.  Stands to reason there are gonna be lots more people without work.

More people being employed means more people are going to be without work? I don't see how that follows at all. So far, you're talking as if the number of available jobs is some sort of finite number from which increased production is subtracting. This is not the case. There is nothing limiting the number of jobs available. New jobs can be created, as I believe the Indians and the Chinese have discovered.

I don't think human imagination can create non-existent human needs.

Why not? It has before. An awful lot of folks consider as needs having things like electricity and automobiles and telephones.

Anyway, who says it has to create needs? There are many jobs to be created in servicing human wants and desires. That's why we have professional sports teams and iPods and movies and television and gourmet wines and novels and music and restaurants and video games and...

We are soon to reach a point where human imagination will increase productivity to a point where all need is oversupplied.

I certainly hope so.

If trends in productivity continue as I believe they will - - THAT'S the effect of "human imagination" to date.  Hoping for "human imagination" to find new jobs for the masses in an era of maximised productivity is a lot like just hoping for a miracle or hoping for a deus ex machina - - it's not a solution.

Once upon a time, America was a mostly agrarian society. Then farms got more productive and many people had to find other work. Manufacturing jobs boomed. Then factories became more productive and many people had to find other work. These days, tech jobs are all over the place, involving the use of something that didn't even exist 50 years ago, desktop computers. And you're telling me that human imagination won't lead to new jobs? I find myself skeptical of your assertion. And no, I'm not hoping for a miracle. I'm merely expecting that humans will be able to do as they have done before. So far, you have not presented me with one single item that gives me a reason to believe productivity increases are going to leave millions of people without work. You claimed your position was one of common sense, but I see no sense, common or otherwise, in your argument.

Central planning isn't new and neither is rugged individualism.

Possibly, but I don't recall anyone arguing for rugged individualism.

What's new is the permanently surplus labour force.

Which, as best as I can discover, does not exist. And for which you have provided no evidence.

The solution to the new problem is neither central planning nor rugged individualism, but state welfare to assure a basic level of income support for all.

Just out of curiosity, how are you going to achieve the "state welfare to assure a basic level of income support for all" without central planning?

Anyway, I don't recall anyone suggesting that rugged individualism was a means to create jobs. I believe the general idea was to allow individuals to cooperate within a free society rather than force them into compliance.

[Michael Tee]

I guess I should have said that the number of people the earth can support at a given time is relatively fixed - - can't expand indefinitely although some increases in production would allow for increases in population.

What I'm getting at is that productivity advances a lot faster than population growth and a point will be reached where a relatively few people will be producing all that the existing population requires or can possibly use.

We already see it.  A "low" unemployment rate of 4% or 6% in a country the size of the U.S.A. means a lot of people without work.  as productivity increases, that number can grow practically without limit. 

The increasing work force and economies of China and India are not inconsistent with my argument.  There are undeveloped markets in the world, for sure.  There will be a growth in employment as those markets are filled.  At some inevitable point those markets too will become saturated.  Productivity will continue to rise simply because, as you yourself pointed out, human ingenuity cannot be stifled or repressed for long.  This results in more unemployed people.  BTW, not every job "created" in India or China is really a new job - - often they are just transferred or outsourced jobs formerly done by somebody else in a more developed part of the world.

<<Anyway, who says it [human imagination] has to create needs? There are many jobs to be created in servicing human wants and desires. That's why we have professional sports teams and iPods and movies and television and gourmet wines and novels and music and restaurants and video games and...>>

Sum it all up as "leisure-time satisfaction industries."  There is just so much leisure time each individual needs to have satisfied through purchasing.  Two hundred years ago, the best singers and dancers in the world would have reached only a few thousand people at the most.  Today the most untalented teenage screamer can reach an audience of millions.  Talented artists, an audience of hundreds of millions.  Again the ability of fewer people to satisfy more and more consumers is growing astronomically.

<<Which, as best as I can discover, does not exist. And for which [a permanently surplus labour force] you have provided no evidence.>>

Oh, please.  Talk to any one of the "mere" 4% or 6% unemployed, or just count them up as individuals and not as percentages.  And while you're at it, ask the BLS or whoever makes up your unemployment stats, just who's included in the stats and who's not.  You might be surprised to learn that those who haven't been looking for a job for six months or more, i.e., those who just got discouraged and don't look for work any more, are NOT counted in the unemployment rates.  Similarly those who never even looked for work.  The unemployment rates you quoted don't even begin to show the real permanent surplus labour supply.

[Universe Prince]

What I'm getting at is that productivity advances a lot faster than population growth and a point will be reached where a relatively few people will be producing all that the existing population requires or can possibly use.

Yes, I know that is what you're saying, but it simply does not make any sense. There is no basis to believe that this future of hundreds of millions of people being out of work will come to pass. Once upon a time, computers were going to not only create a paperless society, they were going to get rid of physical money and leave tens if not hundreds of millions of people out of work. While computers have resulted in many monetary exchanges existing merely as binary data, none of that has come to pass. If anything, the computer has led to the use of more paper and to the creation of more jobs. In other words, the situation changed and people adapted to the new situation. I have a hard time believing that people are going to lose all powers of imagination and adaptability in the future.

The increasing work force and economies of China and India are not inconsistent with my argument.  There are undeveloped markets in the world, for sure.  There will be a growth in employment as those markets are filled.  At some inevitable point those markets too will become saturated.

This assumes of course that they will also loose their imaginations and adaptability.

Productivity will continue to rise simply because, as you yourself pointed out, human ingenuity cannot be stifled or repressed for long.

If you agree that is so, then why do you believe people will some how stop applying or be unable to apply that ingenuity to the creation of jobs?

Sum it all up as "leisure-time satisfaction industries."  There is just so much leisure time each individual needs to have satisfied through purchasing.  Two hundred years ago, the best singers and dancers in the world would have reached only a few thousand people at the most.  Today the most untalented teenage screamer can reach an audience of millions.  Talented artists, an audience of hundreds of millions.  Again the ability of fewer people to satisfy more and more consumers is growing astronomically.

You're joking, right? You're pulling my leg. There are more professional musicians, singers, storytellers, dancers, composers, artists, et cetera, now than ever before. And a greater variety of them as well. And rather than become satisfied with less, the average consumer is becoming more discriminating, creating more and more niche markets. Which in turn, creates more jobs as people see opportunities to cater to those smaller markets within the larger overall market. Your notion of people being satisfied by fewer and fewer artists simply does not hold up. It does not reflect the reality of the situation.

The unemployment rates you quoted don't even begin to show the real permanent surplus labour supply.

Oh dear. We're going to dredge that up again, are we? So you have some evidence all these people are permanently unemployed? That there are no jobs of any kind for these people?

[Michael Tee]

 <<So you have some evidence all these people are permanently unemployed? That there are no jobs of any kind for these people?>>

All which people, Prince?  The BLS stats don't count people who haven't looked for a job in the past six months.  We have no way of knowing how many of them there are.  (Actually, maybe there is a way but I don't know about it.)  If you're trying to argue that nobody is permanently unemployed, I won't buy it.  I know quite a few people I would consider unemployed and unemployable.  (Maybe I should join a better country club.)

Most of the rest of your post is just reiterating earlier positions and we seem to be locked into an "are not" "are too" kind of argument.  I for the record don't think human ingenuity will end suddenly, I just don't think it can work miracles.  Simply repeating "human ingenuity" like a mantra is not a solution to all problems, no matter how many potential problems were averted in the past by it.  Your computer-age analogies prove nothing except that predictions can be mistaken.  I already knew that.  YOUR prediction can be mistaken just as easily as mine, though, so your argument cuts both ways.