[ETWolverine]

YouTube - Make Mine Freedom ~ 1948

This cartoon is, in essence, every single argument in favor of free-market capitalism and against every incidence of government intervention that I have ever made. While rather simplistic, it makes some very good points. It was made in 1948 in response to FDR's New Deal policies and Truman's Fair Deal policies that expanded government and posed limits on free-market capitalism.

It is particularly noteworthy at this time, when the Obama admin is trying to expand government, nationalize industry, take control of health care, and curtail free-market capitalism all the more.

Those folks back in the 40s knew what they were talking about.

Enjoy.

Elliot

[paraclete]

YouTube - Make Mine Freedom ~ 1948

This cartoon is, in essence, every single argument in favor of free-market capitalism and against every incidence of government intervention that I have ever made. While rather simplistic, it makes some very good points. It was made in 1948 in response to FDR's New Deal policies and Truman's Fair Deal policies that expanded government and posed limits on free-market capitalism.

It is particularly noteworthy at this time, when the Obama admin is trying to expand government, nationalize industry, take control of health care, and curtail free-market capitalism all the more.

Those folks back in the 40s knew what they were talking about.

Enjoy.

Elliot

Just a little home spun story that belongs exactly where it is, in the past. Did you fail to see that it suggested the threats to an American utopia were foreign? The threats aren't foreign they exist in your own thinking, a thinking that capitalism and exploitation of labour is good and an end in itself instead of a tool. No one should be exploited for the benefit of industry and Elliot you, with your background should know this

[ETWolverine]

Just a little home spun story that belongs exactly where it is, in the past. Did you fail to see that it suggested the threats to an American utopia were foreign?

Where did it do that?

The film specifically stated that the threats to "American Utopia" were in the GOVERRNMENT'S CONTROL OF ALL AREAS OF LIFE and limitations on personal freedoms. Where did you get the idea that this was in any way talking about foreign threats?

The threats aren't foreign they exist in your own thinking, a thinking that capitalism and exploitation of labour is good and an end in itself instead of a tool.

Actually the threat is in the assumption that government can take control of industry without limiting personal freedoms. That's the same mistake you make.

No one should be exploited for the benefit of industry and Elliot you, with your background should know this

Can you show me an industrial worker who is being exploited by industry today? The days of sweatshops are long over, but businesses are treated as if they still exist.

In fact, the greatest threat to our industrial workers today is the unions who are supposed to be protecting them. They create contracts that force industry out of business or to seek cheaper labor overseas, thus putting the worker on the unemployment line. They collude with government to force those who do not wish to belong to the union to join anyway. The only threat to industrial workers is the unions, not the businesses.

The film is right on the money.

Elliot

[paraclete]

"The film specifically stated that the threats to "American Utopia" were in the GOVERRNMENT'S CONTROL OF ALL AREAS OF LIFE and limitations on personal freedoms. Where did you get the idea that this was in any way talking about foreign threats?"

Because Elliot I listened carefully to the script. Did you happen to notice the colour of the exploiter by the way. The "to be exploited characters" were clearly white and the exploiter wasn't. The negro wasn't part of the American utopia, The exploiter was of interesting appearance, somewhat middle eastern I would say, dark complexion, not very representative of government and very much representative of national socialism

"Actually the threat is in the assumption that government can take control of industry without limiting personal freedoms. That's the same mistake you make."

Elliot, I haven't made any mistakes. Your mistake is assuming that every other system of government in the world is wrong and more exploitative than your own

"Can you show me an industrial worker who is being exploited by industry today? The days of sweatshops are long over, but businesses are treated as if they still exist."

I'm sure there are many sweatshops in the world, Elliot, and owned by American companies, but just because they are offshore, they are ignored. How exploited are those foreign workers in your own industries? Why do you think you can buy cheap goods produced in Asia or latin America? Capitalism is still the great exploiter of labour and was the ISM bottle that those fellows all drunk from

Think on this Elliot America is far from utopia and the statistics used in that film clip demonstrate clearly the excesses of the American economy You may think you are better educated that the rest of the world but in fact you are not

[ETWolverine]

"The film specifically stated that the threats to "American Utopia" were in the GOVERRNMENT'S CONTROL OF ALL AREAS OF LIFE and limitations on personal freedoms. Where did you get the idea that this was in any way talking about foreign threats?"

Because Elliot I listened carefully to the script. Did you happen to notice the colour of the exploiter by the way.

So... now you think the cartoon is racist.

What I noticed was that the exploiter was a well-dressed, articulate, polished character with tanned skin that would have been common among the rich layabouts of the 40s and 50s. What did you see?

The "to be exploited characters" were clearly white and the exploiter wasn't. The negro wasn't part of the American utopia, The exploiter was of interesting appearance, somewhat middle eastern I would say, dark complexion, not very representative of government and very much representative of national socialism

So you think that the exploiter in the cartoon is black.

Sorry, but racism in cartoons has been thoroughly examined. And there was plenty of it. But this cartoon doesn't come close to it. Black characters in cartoons of the 40s and 50s were BLACK not tanned. They looked like chartacters with blackface. They had OBVIOUS negro facial characteristics. The antagonist in this cartoon had NONE of those features.

"Actually the threat is in the assumption that government can take control of industry without limiting personal freedoms. That's the same mistake you make."

Elliot, I haven't made any mistakes. Your mistake is assuming that every other system of government in the world is wrong and more exploitative than your own

I make no such assumption. The only claim I have made here is that Capitalism is the best system ever devised, and that this cartoon makes that argument extremely well, as well as making a strong argument against letting government put limitations on that system. I never mentioned any other form of government anywhere in the world. (Hint: Capitalism isn't a system of government, it's an ECONOMIC system. YOU are the one talking about political systems.)

"Can you show me an industrial worker who is being exploited by industry today? The days of sweatshops are long over, but businesses are treated as if they still exist."

I'm sure there are many sweatshops in the world, Elliot, and owned by American companies, but just because they are offshore, they are ignored. How exploited are those foreign workers in your own industries? Why do you think you can buy cheap goods produced in Asia or latin America? Capitalism is still the great exploiter of labour and was the ISM bottle that those fellows all drunk from

Interesting. What I see is that American companies go to foreign countries and employ those who were previously unemployed, pay them wages which, by the standards of their countries, are small fortunes, help pay for infrastructure rebuilding and improvements so that the companies can grow in those countries, and generally lead to the beterment of everyone in those countries. You see exploitation.

It's fine to complain of "exploitation" in the third world when you are sitting in Australia, earning a good wage and living pretty well by anyone's standards. But that third-world worker's "meager salary" is enough to feed his or her entire family, where before being employed by that American company, he or she was starving to death. By the standards of that country, that "poor exploited worker" is doing pretty darn well. And as that worker's lot improves, so does the lot of everyone around him or her... because that worker spends what he or she earns. EVERYBODY does a little bit better because that "exploitive" company employed that one "exploited" worker.

What you see as exploitation, I see as opportunity.

Think on this Elliot America is far from utopia and the statistics used in that film clip demonstrate clearly the excesses of the American economy You may think you are better educated that the rest of the world but in fact you are not

Yes, America is far from a utopia. But socialism, communism, tyranny, despotism, etc. are much farther from utopia than we are. Simply put, our poorest are better fed, better housed, better clothed, receive better medical care, have better entertainment, receive more income, and live generally better lives than any country in which government has curtailed freedom and/or the free markets in the name of building utopia. That was true during the Great Depression, and it is even more true today when we are "in the midst of the greatest recession since the Great Depression" (as Obama has put it). That higher standard of living is a product of capitalism and the free markets. And that higher standard of living defines us as being closer to utopia than anyone else. And that is one of the main arguments made in the cartoon.

Far from being exploitive, capitalism is the greatest promoter of individual freedoms and the growth of personal wealth at all levels of society in existence.

Elliot

[paraclete]

"So... now you think the cartoon is racist."

YES I do there was a clear racial distinction between the exploiter and the exploited

"So you think that the exploiter in the cartoon is black."

NO! I told you I thought the exploiter was of middle eastern appearance, the absence of blacks was emphatic, not even the worker was black. If you really want my impression of the exploiter, I though he was depicted as Jewish

"It's fine to complain of "exploitation" in the third world when you are sitting in Australia, earning a good wage and living pretty well by anyone's standards. What you see as exploitation, I see as opportunity."

Yes we do live well here but not because we exploit the workers of the third world or our own, in fact, I think the average American would envy us and those opportunities you see are the ability to exploit others

"Yes, America is far from a utopia. "

AH! So the capitalist system doesn't produce utopia, how interesting

"Far from being exploitive, capitalism is the greatest promoter of individual freedoms and the growth of personal wealth at all levels of society in existence."

Capitalism the promoter of freedom, surely you jest. If your capitalist system promotes wealth at all levels of society, how come you have so many living in poverty in the US. Capitalism only promotes the wealth of those with the resources to take advantage of it, obviously you are one of those since you laud capitalism so loudly

That film was anti-communist propaganda and belongs in the waste basket of history

[zippit]

Cracke Barrel philosopher's huh?
Interesting.
Did you catch the flick-flub?
The guys name was Dr.Utopia the serum was called ISM,then after explaining capatalism they called him Dr.Ism
Great cartoon I remember as a kid and now I think it was what inspired me to take apart my mothers alarm clock.

[phlanx]

Morning All

Interesting Cartoon, reminds me of the propaganda films produced during WW2!

Unfortunately business has demonstrated time and time again they will use the work force as they see fit

This does not provide a stable environment

The cartoon showed no health and safety precautions, again business has demonstrated a total lack of care to its workers

Eliot, how often do you hear of buildings collapsing because there were too many people in the building, or stadiums collapsing causing the deaths of many many people

Nobody should die for their job, especially when it could be prevented, however, that film makes remarks that protecting people from businesses is against freedom

So what you are stating elliot, is people must be put in harms way for freedom to exist

Dodgy!

[ETWolverine]

"So... now you think the cartoon is racist."

YES I do there was a clear racial distinction between the exploiter and the exploited

"So you think that the exploiter in the cartoon is black."

NO! I told you I thought the exploiter was of middle eastern appearance, the absence of blacks was emphatic, not even the worker was black. If you really want my impression of the exploiter, I though he was depicted as Jewish

As an Orthodox Jew, I have to tell you I don't see a resemblance or a caricature of Judaism in there. The picture doesn't fit ANY of the traditional caricatures of Judaism. Jews are NOT darker skinned, don't have waxed mustaches, and don't wear clothing that is so fashionable for the time, at least not in traditional caricatures of Jews. Sorry, but your assumption is just that, and assumption with no basis in fact. It is your opinion.

"It's fine to complain of "exploitation" in the third world when you are sitting in Australia, earning a good wage and living pretty well by anyone's standards. What you see as exploitation, I see as opportunity."

Yes we do live well here but not because we exploit the workers of the third world or our own, in fact, I think the average American would envy us and those opportunities you see are the ability to exploit others

Exactly my point... you live in a capitalist society in which the people are NOT exploited and have great opportunity, despite your cries and protestations of exploitation by industry. Thanks for proving my point.

"Yes, America is far from a utopia. "

AH! So the capitalist system doesn't produce utopia, how interesting

Nor did the cartoon claim that capitalism creates utopia. In fact, the first thing that the protaginist of the cartoon argues is that the system is perfect... it's just the closest to perfect that we have yet invented, as proven by the greater standard of living in countries where free-market capitalism is practiced over those where it is not.. And that has been my stance all along... the system isn't perfect, but any attempts to get the government to create utopia result in less freedom, more poverty and the failures of statism, whereas free-market capitalism promotes opportunity, freedom of choice and wealth creation.

What, exactly, do you disagree with in that statement?

"Far from being exploitive, capitalism is the greatest promoter of individual freedoms and the growth of personal wealth at all levels of society in existence."

Capitalism the promoter of freedom, surely you jest. If your capitalist system promotes wealth at all levels of society, how come you have so many living in poverty in the US.

First of all, define poverty?

In the USA, those supposedly living in "poverty" generally have homes to live in, food on the table, clothing, cell phones, cars, computers, TVs, etc. In the USA, those living in poverty live better lives than average people in most other countries in the world.

Poverty is defined in comparison to others in the same area... if you are below the norm, you are considered to be in poverty. But since the norm in the USA is so high, those living in "poverty" in the USA would be the envy of the rest of the world.

In point of fact, in the United States, "poverty" is defined by the "poverty threshhold", which measures the availability or ability to acquire goods and services that are commonly taken for granted by society. Thus, a person who cannot afford cable TV might be considered to be living in poverty even though he has a home, a car, a TV, a cell phone, and many other conveniences that you and I own. As a point of fact, according to that rather nebulous and random measure, 59% of Americans will spend at least one year below the "poverty line" between the ages of 25 and 75. Sorry, but such people are NOT poor by any real measure of poverty, especially when measured against the true poverty of the third world. A guy who can't afford cable TV is not living in "poverty".

Secondly, how many people in the USA actually live in poverty? You've said that there are "so many" living in poverty, intimating that the number of people living in poverty is high. How many are there living in poverty in the USA? How widespread is that poverty? Is it epidemic? Is it widespread? How badly does poverty effect the USA?

Capitalism only promotes the wealth of those with the resources to take advantage of it, obviously you are one of those since you laud capitalism so loudly

Actually, as I have explained, capitalism promotes wealth for everyone, because when one person becomes wealthy enough to purchase additional goods and services, others must be employed to provide those goods and services, which serves to make them wealthier too, so that THEY can now afford additional goods and services which employ a third tier or workers to provide them. Thus the improvement of the wealth of one individualk effects those around him positively, and improves their wealth too. EVERYONE'S position improves under capitalism.

That film was anti-communist propaganda and belongs in the waste basket of history

Actually, it was anti-New Deal and anti-Raw Deal propaganda, and it is as relevant in today's government-power-grab environment as it was in the 1940's government-power-grab environment. The arguments are the same, and the result will be the same.

Elliot

[excon]

First of all, define poverty?

In the USA, those supposedly living in "poverty" generally have homes to live in, food on the table, clothing, cell phones, cars, computers, TVs, etc. In the USA, those living in poverty live better lives than average people in most other countries in the world.

Hello again, p:

I see why Elliot thinks the way he does... He doesn't pay attention. That, or his right wing blinders prevent him from seeing all those people standing on the off ramps with their ragged signs.

Let me see, if you counted EVERY off ramp in the country, you'd come up with quite a few people who live under bridges and beg for food every day - that Elliot pretends aren't there.

excon

[paraclete]

First of all, define poverty?

Poverty is usually defined as having to go without meals or some other basic at least part of the time. In world terms it is defined as living on less than $2 a day

In the USA, those supposedly living in "poverty" generally have homes to live in, food on the table, clothing, cell phones, cars, computers, TVs, etc. In the USA, those living in poverty live better lives than average people in most other countries in the world.

Is this a justification, that people have the opportunity to spend their money and so they are not in poverty?

Secondly, how many people in the USA actually live in poverty? You've said that there are "so many" living in poverty, intimating that the number of people living in poverty is high. How many are there living in poverty in the USA? How widespread is that poverty? Is it epidemic? Is it widespread? How badly does poverty effect the USA?

Some Statistics on Poverty in America

According to this article 37 million that's 12.7% of the population and the statistics are little different in my own nation. I think it might be that many of these people don't live near you or I but they exist. This is the utopia capitalism produces;

Microsoft CEO Bill Gates has more wealth than the bottom 45 percent of American households combined.

I'll let the argument rest on that statistic so you can reflect on it. Bill Gates may have produced wealth for some but a society that concentrates wealth in this manner is not a good society and it will eventually pass

[phlanx]

I have no problem with the Bill Gates in this world, just his product :)

If you reflect on History and see what poverty was like a hundred years ago or two, you will see that the poverty line has moved up for the better

Are people really saying that we shouldn't try to increase this further?

Or are those in poverty at the moment, adequate and shouldn't be changed?

[Catsmine]

If you reflect on History and see what poverty was like a hundred years ago or two, you will see that the poverty line has moved up for the better

Are people really saying that we shouldn't try to increase this further?

Or are those in poverty at the moment, adequate and shouldn't be changed?

I think we can all agree that improving the lot of those in poverty is desired. The debate is on how and who should do it.

Elliot argues that individuals or individual groups raise the standard of living higher and faster than governments do.

Ex and Clete seem to be arguing that governments are more fair in raising the standard for the entire state.

The only really clear examples of each I can think of are the laissez-faire policies of the U.S.' first century and the Soviet Union's central planning committees. Neither did their peoples a perfect job. In toto, though, I think I'll stay in the U.S.

[paraclete]

I think we can all agree that improving the lot of those in poverty is desired. The debate is on how and who should do it.

Elliot argues that individuals or individual groups raise the standard of living higher and faster than governments do.

Ex and Clete seem to be arguing that governments are more fair in raising the standard for the entire state.

The only really clear examples of each I can think of are the laissez-faire policies of the U.S.' first century and the Soviet Union's central planning committees. Neither did their peoples a perfect job. In toto, though, I think I'll stay in the U.S.

Please don't put words in my mouth. What I am arguing here is that the unfettered capitalism that Elliot espouses has failed to address the issues of poverty because the fundamental tenet of capitalism is exploitation not fairness. The Soviet state also didn't produce a lack of poverty because it destroyed incentive through exploitation.

So, capitalism cannot not be allowed to operate laissez-faire and nor can communism. What governments are good at doing is regulation, it is just sad that the only time they are motivated to regulate is when the exploiters have ignored their social responsibility. The answer has been apparent for a long time, governments acquire the means to address poverty through taxation but the laissez-faire capitalists object because social responsibility is not part of their vision. No state can allow a large percentage of its population to live in poverty without addressing the issue, to do so is to set the stage for anarchy

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, p:

I see why Elliot thinks the way he does... He doesn't pay attention. That, or his right wing blinders prevent him from seeing all those people standing on the off ramps with their ragged signs.

Lemme see, if you counted EVERY off ramp in the country, you'd come up with quite a few people who live under bridges and beg for food every day - that Elliot pretends aren't there.

excon

Really? Is that your experience in Washington State? Because that is NOT what I have been seeing on New York and New Jersey.

But we're not talking about whether there is real poverty in the USA. We're talking about how widespread that poverty is... which Clete is assuming based on GOVERNMENT NUMBERS which are based on a faulty definition. If you actually look at REAL POVERTY, the incidence is MUCH LOWER than Clete assumes. And frankly a lot lower than you are intimating.

So... just for the record... how many is "quite a few"?

Bet you can't answer that. But I'll also bet you're going to make everyone think that it's a widespread epidemic anyway, despite not actually having any real data to support your position.

Feel free, though.

[ETWolverine]

Poverty is usually defined as having to go without meals or some other basic at least part of the time. In world terms it is defined as living on less than $2 a day

But that is not the definition that the US government uses... which means that your assumption about capitalism causing widespread poverty... REAL POVERTY... in the USA is false. Or at least it is not supported by the government figures that you are relying on.

Is this a justification, that people have the opportunity to spend their money and so they are not in poverty?

No. It is a statement that those that the US government statistics indicate are living in "poverty" really aren't poor by any real standard. At least not in comparison to the poor in any non-capitalist society.

Some Statistics on Poverty in America

According to this article 37 million that's 12.7% of the population and the statistics are little different in my own nation. I think it might be that many of these people don't live near you or I but they exist. This is the utopia capitalism produces;

Are you aware of the fact that the poverty line that is being discussed in that article is anyone who earns less than $10,830 (for an individual)? Compare that to poverty in any other country in the world... where poverty means earning less than $2 per MONTH (like Obama's half-brother in Kenya). Are you really going to compare someone earning $10,000 per year to someone earning $24 per year? Are we supposed to buy that nonesense?

You see, that is my basic point... even someone living supposedly in poverty in the USA is earning 450 TIMES what someone in real poverty in the third world earns. Our "poverty-stricken" are infinitely better off than those living in poverty in any other country.

I am not trying to argue that there isn't poverty in the USA. I'm trying to say that because of capitalism, the poorest of the poor in the USA (or any other capitalist society) are infinitely better off that the poor of any other society.

So tell me how much better off the poverty-stricken of socialist Kenya are than the poor of the USA or the UK or Australia.

Microsoft CEO Bill Gates has more wealth than the bottom 45 percent of American households combined.

And yet he started as a lower-middle-class kid. Gates is the PERFECT example of how ANYONE can become rich in the USA... and end up employing thousands of others as well, thus making their lots in life better too. He is the perfect example of how capitalism is NON-DISCRIMINATORY and can create wealth for more than one person at a time.

I'll let the argument rest on that statistic so you can reflect on it. Bill Gates may have produced wealth for some but a society that concentrates wealth in this manner is not a good society and it will eventually pass

You see economics as a net zero game where there is limited assets, and if one person gains, it must mean that someone else loses. The fact is that Bill Gates becoming rich hasn't hurt a single person, didn't take anything away from any other person, and in fact created thousands of jobs. Not only that, but the computers that he made so common have created additional wealth and opportunity for MILLIONS of people. Not to mention access to information, accessibility of communication, and incredible convenience. Because of computers, others have been able to open businesses that they otherwise would not have been able to open, and have thus created more jobs too.

Capitalism is NOT a net zero sum game... lots of people can win without hurting anyone else. ONE PERSON can win without hurting anyone else. And your example of Bill Gates is the perfect one to prove my point about capitalism.

As for those statistics, again, the poor of the USA cannot be compared to the poor of the rest of the non-capitalist world... they are infinitely better off by ANY standards than their counterparts in other countries. And this is based on the US government's definition of poverty.

Elliot

[galveston]

I have a question for you who clearly do not like capitalism.

Give us an honest answer.

What would YOU like to replace capitalism with?

[paraclete]

As for those statistics, again, the poor of the USA cannot be compared to the poor of the rest of the non-capitalist world... they are infinitely better off by ANY standards than their counterparts in other countries. And this is based on the US government's definition of poverty.

Elliot

Elliot you live with blinkers or is that blinders on. I don't really care what the US government's definition of poverty is but I know this whether the income earner is in the US or Australia $10,000 is not adequate income by any means. In my country only youth or someone on welfare would have such an income. If I compare this with a third world country it would be thought such a person is living in luxury but it is an illusion and you know that. I know for example that a reasonably well off person in Pakistan, for example, earns 3000 rupees a week, that's around $60, but is that person well off my my standard, not really, in fact, I might consider that person living in relative poverty.

The question isn't whether they are better off than some third world place, but whether their income is adequate, whether they can consistently afford the basic accommodation, food and health care. What the statistics tell us is 13% cannot and that if you look behind these statistics you see that the blacks and hispanics are the ones who make up much of the numbers, the incidence among those people is above 25%. Where is the capitalist utopia for these people. A nation that can create a Gates or a Murdoch has a long way to go to address opportunity for many of its population not the lucky few who seized an opportunity. When capitalism provides all who seek work with a well paid job, tell me again how great it is

[TUT317]

[QUOTE=ETWolverine;2098729]YouTube - Make Mine Freedom ~ 1948

This cartoon is, in essence, every single argument in favor of free-market capitalism and against every incidence of government intervention that I have ever made. While rather simplistic, it makes some very good points. It was made in 1948 in response to FDR's New Deal policies and Truman's Fair Deal policies that expanded government and posed limits on free-market capitalism.

Hello Elliot,

Having looked at the cartoon. It seems to be about the dangers of 'isms.' Whether it be unionISM, totalitarianISM ( the little politician character) and capitalISM. It also seems to be arguing for the status quo. It also seems to be saying that government intervention is important in order to maintain the status quo.

[Catsmine]

When capitalism provides all who seek work with a well paid job, tell me again how great it is

When ANY other system works as well, tell me again how bad capitalism is.