Response to Michael Moore’s statement: “I’m kind of
tired…and bored of debating a sixteenth century economic philosophy versus a
nineteenth century economic philosophy. It’s the twenty-first century. Can’t we
come up with something new?”
Well, this is actually a pretty easy
statement to respond to, because it’s so basically nonsensical. To begin,
though, I’ll put a little background up on this: Michael Moore is saying that
he is sick of hearing a “sixteenth-century economic philosophy” (Capitalism)
being debated with a “nineteenth century economic philosophy” (Socialism and,
eventually, Communism). So, that’s where he’s coming from when he makes that
statement.
To respond to it is simple, though: Why
ignore things that are still relevant today just because they were created
several hundred years ago? We use concepts born since the beginning of time and
never have any issues with them—an idea is an idea wherever it comes from, and
if a better option isn’t out there, then we use what we have. Just because it
was created in a past century doesn’t make it any less valid if it is still
applicable in today’s markets, which both ideas have proven to be.
I guess, from my viewpoint, his
statement is simply nonsensical in nature. It’s not an applicable argument
towards why something should or shouldn’t be applied to economics; “I’m tired
of hearing about this” doesn’t make it any less true. If those are the two
reigning economic models in the world today, then they are what we have to work
with. The “new” ones that he seems to want to badly really haven’t panned out
at all. In fact, they don’t even appear on a decent-sized scale because they
simply aren’t plausible. Simply because something was created at a later date
doesn’t always make it better.
So, in conclusion, then, I would say
that his statement isn’t a valid one. It implies a lot that isn’t the case and tries
to ignore a debate due to irrelevant factors. If he wants to push an agenda, it
would be nice if he could at least use an argument that works with facts rather
than just opinion.
No comments:
Post a Comment