- Login | Register
- Current Issue
- Most Read
- Back Issues
Coming to the defence of Raghuram Rajan, his Chicago University colleague and co-author Luigi Zingales has said the RBI Go
Rahul Gandhi today made light of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's announcement of a Rs 1.25 lakh crore package for poll-boun
As part of its attack on the Narendra Modi government which is nearing completion of one year in power, Congress today cha
Charging that corporate capital is trying to marginalise the Left parties in the country by exerting "control" o
Committing to more reforms and eliminating corruption, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley today said steps taken by the new gov
Remembering Mahatma Gandhi on his 145th birth anniversary, Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Akhilesh Yadav today said carrying
Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) Sashi Kant Sharma today made a strong case for effective dealing with the menace of
Union Minister and senior Congress leader Jairam Ramesh today said a probe should be conducted into the YSR Congress's ele
Infosys Executive Chairman N R Narayana Murthy was today presented the 2014 "Canada India Foundation Chanchlani Glob
Terming Narendra Modi as a "common candidate" for all corporates and communal forces, CPI(M) General Secretary
Michael Moore on 20 years of film-making and his latest movie in the Democracy Now!
This is the way it is now in this country. The wealthiest one percent right have more financial wealth than the bottom 95 percent combined. When you have a situation like that, where the one percent essentially not only own all the wealth, but own Congress, call the shots, are we really telling the truth when we call this a democracy? I know we get to vote every two or four years. Is that it? Just because we get to vote every now and then, we can call this a democracy, when the economy is anything but? You and I have no say in it. The people watching this, listening to us today have no say in how this economy is run. There’s not democracy in the workplace. I mean, through most of our daily lives, the idea of democracy is fairly nonexistent. And I think things work better when the people who have to work with whatever it is we’re working with have a say in how it’s working.
So I made this movie to do a number of things. One, to just go head on at this system. I’m not a reformer. I’m not looking for Congress to pass a few new regulations, which, by the way, it’s been a year since the crash, and they haven’t passed one of these things, which is what they said they were going to do right away, right? “All we need is a few rules. Don’t get rid of capitalism, just a few rules, and we’ll get everything back in shape.” Of course, they have no intention of doing that, and the banking industry has lobbied them successfully over the last year to leave them alone so that they can keep doing their crazy schemes. That’s one reason.
The second reason is, I wanted to present a filmed explanation of just what exactly did happen a year ago, what led up to it. I think a lot people, including myself—you know, we’re not economists. We don’t—we hear these terms, we don’t understand what they mean—derivatives, credit default swaps and all this stuff. And I thought, you know, I’ll bet you there’s a way to tell this story so that anybody will instantly get exactly what the looting was that took place a year ago this time. So I wanted to do that.
And then I guess I’m—I guess I’m doing what I’m always trying to do and what I think what all filmmakers try to do, is that I’m—I recognize that I’m asking you to leave the house on a Friday or Saturday night, get a babysitter, drive to the theater, spend money, spend outrageous amounts of money on popcorn and soda, and sit in the dark with 200 other strangers. I really want you, at the end of those two hours, to walk out of the theater saying to whoever you’re there with, “That was really—that was a good way to spend two hours. I learned something. I laughed my ass off. I cried.”
And I think this movie provides a range of not just emotions, but also really solid information and a number of exposés of things that have not been discussed in the media, or if they have been, they get brought up quickly and then are rejected, and nobody talks about them again. So I show you a number of things in the film. I think, you know, early audiences I’ve seen it with are fairly shocked at some of the stories that I presented.
For his story on the economics of Somali piracy, WIRED contributing editor Scott Carney spoke to one of the ocean-going hijackers. They talked about how to negotiate a ransom, when to kill a hostage, and how to avoid the Navy:
How do you pirates decide on what ransom to ask for? What makes them negotiate downwards?
Once you have a ship, it’s a win-win situation. We attack many ships everyday, but only a few are ever profitable. No one will come to the rescue of a third-world ship with an Indian or African crew, so we release them immediately. But if the ship is from Western country or with valuable cargo like oil, weapons or then its like winning a lottery jackpot. We begin asking a high price and then go down until we agree on a price
How much does it cost to outfit a pirate mission?
A single mission with 12 armed men and boats costs a little over $30,000. But a successful investor has to dispatch at least three or four missions to get lucky once.
Perhaps you too have been barraged with emails asking you to identify the author of the following lines?:
"Owners of capital will stimulate working class to buy more and more of expensive goods, houses and technology, pushing them to take more and more expensive credits, until their debt becomes unbearable. The unpaid debt will lead to bankruptcy of banks, which will have to be nationalized, and the State will have to take the road which will eventually lead to..."
Christopher Hitchens doesn't tell us whether or not such is the case with him, but he writes in the Atlantic:
....One or two writers predicted that Marx’s relevance would be rediscovered: John Cassidy was arguably the most surprising of these in that one hardly expected, in the fall of 1997, an essay from the economic specialist of The New Yorker announcing that the co-author of the 1848 Communist Manifesto could turn out to be “the next” significant intellectual for those whose job it was to study the markets. James Ledbetter, himself an accomplished business journalist, has since produced an admirable Penguin edition of Marx’s journalism (most of the best, which was very good indeed, having been produced for Horace Greeley’s New York Tribune). And Francis Wheen, who wrote a notable biography of Marx in 1999, has now published an anatomy of Capital (as I shall henceforth call it), which concludes with the opinion that Marx “could yet become the most influential thinker of the twenty-first century.”
Full article: The Revenge Of Karl Marx