Why do Conservatives feel the need to defend Wall Street? - Inside Job (2010) Discussion

[–] felstein 14 years ago

"...its more important to disagree with left wingers on everything"

That's it in a nutshell. Disagree with Dems in general, and with Obama specifically. Otherwise, I think they're afraid their Bible-belt and teabagger constituency might lynch them.

"You know you can be a conservative, vote Republican and still attack the greed and corruption of Wall Street."

You can also believe in free market principles and not be a Christian fundamentalist. And vice-versa. But that's FAR too nuanced for the wingnuts.

(BTW... what exactly is the connection between Christianity and Capitalism? Racked my brain and I still can't figure that one out. In point of fact, I seem to remember something in the Bible about Jesus chasing the moneychangers OUT of the temple, not into it...)

reply

[–] Bozohead 14 years ago

(BTW... what exactly is the connection between Christianity and Capitalism? Racked my brain and I still can't figure that one out. In point of fact, I seem to remember something in the Bible about Jesus chasing the moneychangers OUT of the temple, not into it...)

Agree with everyone you wrote but to explain the link between Christianity and Capitalism take a look at Max Weber's work Protestant Work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.

The link between Christianity and Capitalism has basically shaped the modern world.

reply

[–] 2jdv 14 years ago

Not to dispute your point, but it is interesting to note that the earliest Christians practiced communism and this persisted in different communities in the Middle Ages, up to the Shakers in America. The Catholic Church, despite its vehement denunciation of Communism, continues the practice, as most orders of priests and nuns are "communal," i.e., communist. They like to split hairs about it, but that's what it is.

reply

[–] paloma54 14 years ago

No, the earliest Christians did NOT practice Communism, and you are willfully confusing the discussion between individuals choosing to live in a communal way, versus a state system which imposes socialism and equality of outcomes on all people. Communism, as commonly understood means the latter. Hence, what early Christians did and the other groups you mention, could not at all be considered "Communism", a system which goes so against the grain that it inevitably has to be imposed on an unwilling people.

Christians follow a faith which INVITES people to have a relationship with Jesus Christ, not one which forces superficial conversion or lifestyle. The use of force in matters of the heart and soul is contrary to the essence of the Christian faith.

reply

[–] There_Is_No_Sayid 14 years ago

Communism means a variety of things. Generally in modern parlance it's part of a spectrum of ideas which emerges from the thought and writings of Karl Marx. ONE of those strands is the state communism which we saw in the 20th century but there's a lot more to communism than that and indeed a lot of Marxists in the West were highly critical of the state communism of the Soviet Union and the PRC.

In a wider sense communism means any of a variety of communal living arrangements.

"Unless Alpert's covered in bacon grease, I don't think Hugo can track anything."

reply

[–] FlowWithTheGo 13 years ago

Christians follow a faith which INVITES people to have a relationship with Jesus Christ, not one which forces superficial conversion or lifestyle. The use of force in matters of the heart and soul is contrary to the essence of the Christian faith.

I would not call the systematic indoctrination of children by their Christian parents an invitation to follow Christianity. This brain washing is abuse & strikingly similar to what children are subjected to in totalitarian states, classic example the hitler youth.

reply

[–] Druff 13 years ago

Communism itself is indeed simply citizens living in a communal society.

Enforcement by the state is not intrinsic to Communism. It's called Totalitarianism, and it can be applied to virtually any system of government. Though I agree it's true that, generally speaking, wherever you find a communist society you will also find a totalitarian government. That's human nature for you. But theoretically, of course it's possible for people to freely choose to live together as communists with no need for enforcement by the state.

reply

[–] deeveed 13 years ago

But theoretically, of course it's possible for people to freely choose to live together as communists with no need for enforcement by the state.

hmm..that sounds like a great hey-day to me while it lasts...but they'll get 'round to it eventually.......;-).....

reply

[–] Druff 13 years ago

Yeah. Why are utopias always so far in the future??? ;P

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Druff 13 years ago

I guess you stayed home sick the day they taught the concept of the 'rhetorical question' in school.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] There_Is_No_Sayid 14 years ago

The idea of the Protestant Work Ethic has largely been discounted by serious historians as any kind of important political or economic influence. But Weberian ideas of the protestant work ethic don't explain the current alliance between Evangelical Christianity and free market capitalism. Christianity, after all has often been deeply suspicious of capitalism as being too worldly and injust. Hell, our pledge of allegiance was writen by a Christian Socialist and the history of American is filled with just as many Christian critics of capitalism as it has supporters. It's only really been in the last forty years or so that Christianity and free market capitalism have become politically linked.

"Unless Alpert's covered in bacon grease, I don't think Hugo can track anything."

reply

[–] Strazdamonas 14 years ago

(BTW... what exactly is the connection between Christianity and Capitalism? Racked my brain and I still can't figure that one out. In point of fact, I seem to remember something in the Bible about Jesus chasing the moneychangers OUT of the temple, not into it...)

Well both doctrines are exploiting average worker. both doctrines have "elites", both doctrines think they are the only ones that should be used.

----------
I've been vandalized by Elvis! -Ernest, Ernest Goes to Jail (1990)

reply

[–] paloma54 14 years ago

Sorry, but this post is absolutely ridiculous. Christianity does not exploit anyone. That's a preposterous and completely ignorant assertion. And capitalism is simply the use of free markets, i.e. a transaction which happens between a willing buyer and a willing seller. Clearly, you understand neither the Christian faith nor Capitalism.

In case you're interested in some information: the reason capitalism works well and does not contravene the Christian faith is that it is based on two Judaeo-Christian concepts: 1. Mankind is fallen, ie. inherently sinful, and capable of great evil. 2. Mankind is the creation of God himself, and bears God's own image. So, we have a good news/bad news view of mankind.

What kind of system will be the most beneficial to mankind? The one which therefore places a restricting influence on human tendency to sin, while maximizing the creative aspects of human beings, ie, as God's image-bearers, all mankind has a certain tendency to create, just like God.

So, what we need is a system of incentives for creative behavior, and disincentives for evil, corrupt behavior. Clearly, in this film we've all watched, there is something very much off-kilter with the structure of corporations, in that the compensation system has been constructed in a way to provide incentivize selfish, risky behavior which is counterproductive to the businesses themselves. This could be changed through law, as corporations are set up under a set of laws which define them.

reply

[–] Strazdamonas 14 years ago

you claim that capitalism (and christianity) does not exploit people, and then go on to prove how both of them do.

----------
I've been vandalized by Elvis! -Ernest, Ernest Goes to Jail (1990)

reply

[–] MrSoloDolo 13 years ago

No, he doesn't. He typed a well educated and thoughtful response to your knee jerk drivel. Go away.

reply

[–] moviedudeofdoom 14 years ago

"(BTW... what exactly is the connection between Christianity and Capitalism? Racked my brain and I still can't figure that one out. In point of fact, I seem to remember something in the Bible about Jesus chasing the moneychangers OUT of the temple, not into it...)"

In my opinion....there isn't.

For all intent and purposes, liberal will mean democractish and conservative republicanish. Yeah I made up words. What are you going to do about it.

We live in a world where 99% of the people have never had an original thought and just repeat other rhetoric they hear, most of it which is just out right lies. I'm both an atheist with an extreme distaste for religion and a libertarian/conservative. I also grew up and still participate around the punk rock scene which is for the most part full of whiny self-contradictory people. The significance of this is that the punk rock scene probably has one of the highest percent of atheist our of any culture or subculture, almost all of which are also extreme leftist, not to say punk rock is inherently leftest or atheist, but leftest and atheist become attracted to punk rock. What I'm saying is, I've had this discussion many times with the very people who scream at conservatives and Christians and claim they are the same.

Historically and demographically the south has been more conservative and more religious. There are plenty of culture reasons for this but I'm going to skip that and take it as given. Today there exists a place called the south that is both very conservative and religious. Why this exists and why do people still tie them together?

To an extend this false relation has become worse then ever and a fault of both parties. Starting with the cold war, The Soviet Union was a Communist nation and declared itself atheist. In retaliation America (big mistake coming) decided it was a both a capitalistic and Christian nation. One can argue it is or isn't, but the point is the government of America decided to announce and make a point that it both capitalistic and Christian. We now have god in the pledge of allegiance which was inserted during this era. So this is false perspective created by government at the time.

The 60's then took this idea, created the hippie, threw new stuff in the pot and basically created the gigantic cluster *beep* of liberalism we have today. Today liberal are associated with youthful rebellion and interests groups. There are environmentalist, atheists, socialist, gay/women/minority activists. Now is reality there is no relation between any of these interest groups. There is some relation between some. Both atheists and socialist hate the self proclaimed Christian capitalist. As for the women and minority activist part, I can debate which party has actually helped more, but in the eyes of the youth, change is rebellious, and equal rights sounds like change. Obama ran a whole campaign of that word. It is very easy for people to pretend "i don't think we should give reparations to black people" to mean "I hate black people." To a certain extent, helping minorities is a government redistribution of wealth and a socialist movement. Thanks to the 60's, activism in general is associated with hippies and socialist. As for gay activist, well there is no connection. They have never been poor or at economical advantage, but black rights, women rights and gay rights all sound like they should be on the same side right? In reality they are separate issues. Womens rights, gay rights, and minority rights might all be about equality, but because of historical differences minority rights is more closely a battle with poverty and the inequality created from history. Gay right are blatantly targeted by Christians to the point that any secular arguments against them is overshadowed by religious doctrine. So basically we have a dozen interests groups who joined together to fight two enemies that never should have allied.

Also the terms liberal and conservative mean, new thought and old thought respectively. (edit coming cause i hit post too soon). There is inherently a problem with categorizing politics in this fashion. A new idea becomes an old idea over time thus adding to the cluster *beep*.

And I do believe your question was sarcastic, but in case in wasn't...or for those who don't believe so...

reply

[–] 2jdv 14 years ago

Of course you can be a conservative and still denounce greed and corruption. But the prime point of the movie was that Wall Street bought Congress, through massive contributions to political campaigns, and that continues. Politicians cannot get re-elected these days without huge infusions of money for ad campaigns, etc. The AMA and pharmaceutical companies, insurance industry, Wall Street, etc., all know this and they OWN Congress. Wall Street lobbied Congress to deregulate the industry under Reagan and even after the S&L scam it continued unabated. Never mind conservatives, the neo-cons arose under Reagan and they have nothing to do with conservativism. They now control the Republican Party utterly, and their interest is the interest of the wealthy and the power-hungry and they have put donkey ears on a majority of American voters, using the rhetoric of religion and "toughness" to dupe us into letting one scam after another take place. They have no political philosophy at all, but are simply corruption personified. Honest conservatives need to regain control of the Republican Party, or conservativism is doomed.

Democrats take the money also, and are even more to blame since they pretend to be the party of the middle class and the poor. But as someone once said, when the Democrats want to create a firing squad, first they form a circle. They are too disorganized to run a car wash, much less Congress.

reply

[–] deeveed 14 years ago

heh heh oh I wonder how the politicos side up on this current Sokol/Buffet stock purchase incident. Seems "squeaky-clean" Warren really didn't ask too many questions with one his top execs (Sokol) before Berkshire bought another company. That exec bought shares right before the buy. he made a coupla million. Not too good for Berkshire, not too good for Wall Street especially when it happens with a supposedly "ethical" Buffet. Really if it happens now to Buffet well what's the prognosis, eh?

reply

[–] myopic_shift 14 years ago

What I've found interesting is a growing common interest to be found on both the left *and* the libertarian right against what is rampant crony capitalism.

It's time to get over yourself.

reply

[–] Boricanator 14 years ago

Even though I´m a liberal in 90% of the issues, I agree with certain conservatives ideas like a free market system. I think it is important to have that and to have it at a global scale.

However, it needs to be heavily regulated to avoid situations like the 2008 collapse.

reply

[–] druss44121-1 14 years ago

Just because you like a free market doesn't mean you should like Wall Street... which in many ways RIGS the game and takes away the "free" part in free market.

Free market means FREE MARKET, not the rich and powerful can hijack it, break the law, and drive all others out while also insider trading with each other to screw all but the biggest boys on the block.

reply

[–] paloma54 14 years ago

Good point, druss, wish I had made it myself!

reply

[–] wholovestroma 14 years ago

Odd, every Republican I know despises Wall Street.

reply

[–] druss44121-1 14 years ago

"Odd, every Republican I know despises Wall Street."

Please, bring them here!

reply

[–] aragorn_lordofthering 14 years ago

Bribery :)

reply

[–] Misanthwopical_Bweed 14 years ago

that the free market and self-regulation is not always something that is beneficial to society in general

and they dont want to admit that sometimes regulation is good

"The US was founded by a group of slaveowners who told us all men are created equal."

reply

[–] nypoet22 14 years ago

the left wing blames the right wing, the right wing blames the left wing, and both are sold that bill of goods by a system that corrupts the leadership of both sides. any politician who doesn't tow that line gets a ton of money thrown against them. republican leadership is more overt and democratic leadership more covert about it, but both are forced via political pressure or tricked via media and rhetoric to betray their genuinely liberal and conservative constituencies. regular people have many reasons for not wanting to believe this is true of "our side," whichever side they think that might be.

reply

[–] macchiavelli1513 14 years ago

Sorry to veer a little off topic, but does anyone think the US should have compulsary voting for the general and mid term elections?

What do you think would happen to the makeup of congress if that were to happen?

My personal theory is that it would be the single most catastrophic thing to happen to tea party conservatives and partisans in general. I don't think it would give a clear or lasting majority to either side but it would put the fringe back in it's place.

50% of voters don't vote and I am pretty sure that the voting half of the country has little in common with the non voting half. Conservatives like to boast that this country is generally more conservative than liberal and they're right, but what it is even more than either of those is moderate; besides, try finding any country in the world where that's not the case.
Amongst the 50% that vote you'll find the ones that are more highly motivated and those are usually the fringe, the wingers, the nutbags, the partisans and anyone else who thinks that "XYZ = HITLER!!!" is a fine arguement.

Oh, and on that note, anyone remember when Ben Stein actually said on FOX that giving a speech with many people listening, like in a stadium, is unAmerican and something only Hitler and the Nazis do!? I swear, what is this rabid fascination with the brown shirts amongst the fringe? Also, I thought that Ben Stein's business model was to work on his image as being supa dupa smaht, em, OK then... :D

Anyway, just a few thoughts, but not exactly on topic, I know :(

reply

[–] jtaboada 14 years ago

I'll take the question. I have no clue about what compulsory voting would do to American politics, but I do think that compulsory vote, in general, is not such a good idea. I'm Peruvian, where voting is mandatory. The result is that an enormous buch of people who don't care about politics decide their vote for all the wrong reasons. Besides, I think that in a democracy, voting should be a right, and not an obligation or a burden.

reply

[–] deeveed 14 years ago

hmmmm...compulsory voting in a "democracy?"...Right, I'd think that the whole idea behind 'democracy" is freedom. In this case, freedom to vote or not.

And as for jtaboada, I'd be curious to know if it's thought that if they didn't have compulsory voting there in Peru would the public policies there be different? I'd think politicians thinking if they had an edge would use it to their advantage if they're up on the political currents in their country and knwoledgeable about their constituents.

reply

[–] Bastiaan09 14 years ago

Ofcourse it will never happen but it's interesting to hypothesize what will happen. The 'lower' class used to be more alienated to politics and less likely to vote. Now, traditionally the lower class was more left orientated, but with populism on the rise all over the world, they are shifting more to the right.

Especially in the US where the false prophecy 'the American Dream' is ever so present.

What would be a better imo is to distribute an objective information package with the programs of all political parties (signed of by these parties) so that folks don't have to rely on sponsored messages through the media.

reply

[–] paloma54 14 years ago

I agree-it's ridiculous to force people to vote. As it is, there are for more people voting who understand nothing at all either about their constitutional rights, the American political system, the U.S. government, economics, etc.

As a matter of fact, I think the voting age should go back to 21. After all, if Americans are not able to handle alcohol, why should they be permitted to vote? Most Americans are pretty clueless at age 18, they have not yet supported themselves, don't pay taxes yet, and are likely to jump at anything which sounds good. The fact that you have to be 21 to drink shows you how little we esteem our civic responsibilities.

reply