The Take

The Take

2004, Economics  -   68 Comments
Ratings: 7.90/10 from 77 users.

Production jobs in developed countries are moving to lower cost locations such as South America and China. Globalization and the relocation of production allows for lower-cost production which benefits the consumer with lower prices and thus leading to an increase in purchasing power which the American dream is all about isn't it? It comes at the cost of lost jobs in the production sector in home countries which leaves people with a lack of options for other employment.

'Economic growth' is based on a paradigm that we live on a planet with infinite resources. Corporations spend great effort into setting up stranglehold trade agreements with 3rd world countries. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank ensure that third world countries have to open their markets, while the 'free market western economies' set up fences around theirs. The set up is such that NO jobs are available in third world industries, apart from the ones created by western companies, who pay scarcely over cost-price to the producers, while making record profits on selling their goods to rich westerners.

In a true free-market, those third world countries would have an equal change at exporting their OWN products to the West, which would result in profit being made by the third world producers. However, there are tax-barriers where it's okay for the third world to export their raw materials (hence all the oil-export, fruits and vegetables) but where the amount of import-tax on end-products (such as phones, computers, cars, etc.) is so high that it makes their products by default noncompetitive.

The only exceptions to this rule are companies that have head-quarters in the US or the EU region. The current struggle within the EU is actually quite a good example of how badly globalization works. It works for Capital (which can move freely and generate profits wherever they are to be made) but it leaves weaker countries with enormous trade-deficits.

IMF and World Bank politics and demands are destroying local industries and they're introducing true poverty. The 'globalism works' argument comes from sources that benefit from cheap labor and resources and who try hard to down-play the true consequences.

Directed by: Naomi Klein, Avi Lewis

More great documentaries

68 Comments / User Reviews

  1. David

    "Capitalists of the world unite, you have nothing to lose, not even a brain, while right libertarians are completely insane. "

  2. Justin

    Nobody mentions )ewish involvement in crappy working conditions, screwing the poor, lending money at interest, ruining societies and just being plain evil. Dancing !sraeli "art students" were caught celebrating as WTC fell during 9/11 to lure Americans into war. All those "Italian Gangsters" in movies are meant to trick us into believing that they're not )ewish. !srael knowingly attacked the U.S. Liberty in the 60s and killed many American soldiers. !srael attacked US Army barracks in Egypt in the 50s, to lure US into war. There is an endless list of provable things that they do and have done throughout history to earn getting killed or kicked out of 109 different places. They are in every country in the world. Communism and socialism are largely )ewish constructs and almost always end in genocide. They are among the worst scum of the Earth. Globalism is harmful, nationalism is healthy. Don't let history books brainwash you into believing that they are just random victims of misplaced hatred; they are destroyers of goodness.

    1. David

      Nations are nothing but sinister cults that brainwash people into identifying their self worth as being exceptional members of an exceptional society. Any criticism of their country is taken as a personal affront, as it attacks their self worth

      Religion, race, creed, nationality are all the fantasises of mans mind......they do not exist outside of our belief they are real, yet we slaughter ach other in the millions because our brand is the best. The same stupid mentality means we will wipe ourselves off the planet before long

    2. tribal robot

      You realise the director of this documentary is Jewish right?

    3. Jonathan

      Good grief, it's as if The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion were published just last week! Which may be true in the sense that QAnon and Infowars may have just received dog-eared blurry mimeograph versions of them. If you actually believe all this, Justin, you could pick up some guns and explosives and start shooting up and blowing up synagogues. You'd be on the side of the angels, right? In fact, for all I know you're already gearing up for your own private pogrom.

  3. chris

    During globalization it was the bush administration that decided that their market shares should expand into other nations. As an example, the president of Guatemala was being coerced to accept slush funds in exchange for the US to buy out power plants. And in doing so, would raise the prices beyond human capabilities. When their president declined the offer, he was assassinated by a Jackal that was sent in by the CIA in 1954. Calculated demonstrations were also created to shift public opinion so people could vote in the next corrupted leader. Much like the bush administration and how they got in when George Senior helped the FBI in setting up the 1994 bombings after his release as president. His son helped orchestrate by handing over maps of both buildings.

  4. UrbanDweller

    Just like the Nazis were hunted down so too should these crooked bankers, crooked government officials, financial extortionists and corporate thieves! It's not enough for then to leave and flee but hunted down, ALL their stolen resources returned to the people and then place them on trial!

  5. Space Ace

    We ask from them, for so little.
    They take from us, EVERYTHING!

    1. David

      I am from the west, and our standard of living has only been made possible by genocidal imperialist resource theft, and the misery of sweat shop slave labor. The ignorance and apathy in the west is beyond belief. Every vote for a major party in the west, is death sentence for someone in the exploited nations.

      One of the most disgusting intervention was in Indonesia in 1965

  6. hiiii

    This was by far one of the best documentaries i've watched
    everything about it was brilliantly done and obviously the subject is a feast for thought
    thanks for posting and making this

  7. Geo

    Wanted to add that no govt does well with corrupt people running it. To judge capitalism by some capitalists is similar to judging Christ by some Christians.

    DustUp makes some good points, if these guys are not buying the factory.

  8. Geo

    Such is the problem when you refuse to see to it wise honorable people who sign a contract to create term limits... see to it they are running for all offices from all political parties. And see to it all the media and politician lies are exposed widely.

    Hats off to these brave souls who did exactly the opposite of what the Globalists(communists) want. They want people to starve and kill each other for food. They want billions to die and they etched it in stone. See the Georgia Guidestones. Look it up.

    Everyone else's motto should be: Everyone who is in agreement with the Guidestones must lead by example.

    1. xxx

      globalists are capitalists not communists

    2. Andreea

      you have to be american as hell to watch a documentary about the consequences of capitalism and say it's communism's fault...

  9. suzanne petersen

    These men had balls of steel. You are not going to see anything like this where I live, in the US; in the US the workers just watch stupidly as jobs bleed out of the country. They even contribute to their own job loss by buying china/jap/korea whenever possible. Anti union government propoganda is used to convince them that foreign is better. And they believe it! Because the US government never lies, right? American highways are littered with broken down Hyundais. They save gas because they don't go anywhere. Dumpsters everywhere are full of Chinese crap that works for a month, if at all. A lot of people don't bother to take it back to Walmart because they have to wait in line behind 30 other people doing the same thing. I make a point of it though, because if enough people return this stuff, maybe Walmart will get the message and seek other suppliers. I see that since the workers in Argentina had taken over the factories, and the factories are no longer being milked for millions by the fat cats, suddenly there is profit for everyone.

  10. adzkia21

    Production jobs in developed countries are moving to lower cost locations such as South America and China. Globalization and the relocation of production allows for lower-cost production which benefits the consumer with lower prices and thus leading to an increase in purchasing power which the American dream is all about isn't it? It comes at the cost of lost jobs in the production sector in home countries which leaves people with a lack of options for other employment.

  11. Hugh McNab

    A beautiful story of imagining what is possible to do to make a fair world.
    No IMF dream will ever work.

  12. Tanja

    Majke ti, samoupravljanje i "tvornica radnicima" u KAPITALIZMU! FENOMENALNO!!! Wonderful! Self-management and expropriation in the heart of capitalism! Well-done Argentina! (and it IS fair, cause workers have been suffering expropriation of their fair share for long time)

    1. DustUp

      Suppose I take over the house and car you have for sale and began using it to help my friends, you evil home and car owner! You owe it to me since I mowed the yard and painted and cleaned the house and windows and fix and maintain the car, that you paid me to do.

      Sadly, you misunderstand Capitalism. Workers can start and own their own company. Most don't because they are too chicken to risk the money it takes to lease or buy the equipment and lease or buy the space to put it in. But some do. However, it is much easier to extort from those owners who risk. That is what chicken unions do to get higher pay, rather than risk starting their own business.

      When they get the equipment and plant fairly appraised and pay the owners for it, then they will be the capitalists you despise. Until then, they are thieves. The same thieves as you claim the capitalists are.

      They never had to agree to work for someone for low pay forever. They could have gathered together, pooled their funds at any time to start their own business.

      If the owners don't want to sell. So what. If they are making enough to lease or buy equipment then they can do that. If they aren't making enough, they will go out of business when the equipment wears out or they get kicked out. Better to plan ahead.

      Let me know when you start a company where the workers make more than you do. Have I ever started a business? Not one that employs workers. Why would I want to deal with ungrateful people who think they should make more than I do just because they show up? They can start their own business.

      Everyone should start their own business. Then they can complain to the boss about how terrible things are and they need more pay! Seriously, one person can do what another person can do long as it is not too complicated. So blame someone else other than yourself. That always helps you get somewhere.

  13. Maurie

    sub titles would have been nice and benefited a wider audience - switched off after five minutes - do the producers really think that all are fluent in spanish ????

    1. xxx

      capitalism is jungle on asphalt not a form of civilization, its like cancer, just as democracy is rule of capital (thanks to globalization capital from rich country rule and exploit poor countries thru so called democracy - corrupted local politicians) voted by majority of stupid propaganda brainwashed wonder that rich countries wants to spread democracy all over the world is easier than taking countries by force...

  14. flash321

    This destruction of the middle class is going on all over the world. I like the idea of countries, and each country providing for themselves.
    Globalists don't believe in that. They see borders as inconveniences. Then they claim patriotism? What a lie!

  15. Jessica Casey

    The government hands out all of these subsidies and grants of tax-payer money to these companies with no specifications as to how it is spent, and the business still gets run into the ground. You're bloody right these people have the rights to these companies.

  16. Hanny Palmen

    For all those in favor of the owners. Rerun the documentary and listen more carefully to what is said about what they owe the workers ... No, the former owners had their chance and blew it, and be sure, they haven't ended up poor ... nothing to feel sorry for.

  17. web dev

    I find that story is biased in favor of the so called 'worker'. Did the factory owner not 'work' and 'risk' their own savings to set up the factory and provide jobs to the workers in the first place...Its nice to take the side of the worker, but lets not forget, the owner took on the risk and put sweat and tears to get the factory started.

    It is the owners of the expropriated factories who are the victims here! Why don't the workers simply 'buy out' the owner of the factory instead of expropriating the factory by force, it would seem to make more sense for all parties involved.

    Workers, owners, land lords, machinery all have their place, and all should be compensated for their efforts - not just the workers. The important thing is to keep the factories running.

    1. Michiel

      hmmmm... you clearly didn't watch very attentively. the factory owners owe the workers months of salary. the factory owners attempt to strip the factories of assetts so as to leave the workers completely destitute.
      You are talking big global corporations, not small entrepreneur ship. I know the difference, because as a small entrepreneur I have to compete with the globals who dominate the market by force and by bribing politicians (i'm london based btw)

    2. Hazxan

      Factory owners do not risk "their" savings in the factory. Limited liability separates personal finances from those of the corporation. When did a member of the wealthy elite last lose any significant money?

      The "sweat and tears" is put in by the workforce. Who ever broke into a sweat after a "busy day" investing? The main reward is taken by the owners. It is a form of rent. Getting paid merely for "owning", not "producing".

      I have no idea how you could ever think that somehow 'owners' are being short changed by the present system. In the real world,
      the past 30 years has been all about ever cutting the share of the workers, and giving it to the owners - and the totally non-productive financiers, of course.

      A factory without an owner will out-produce a factory without a work force every time.

    3. Miranda Rota

      Small businesses ARE getting short-changed, the moms and pops businesses. The bigger businesses are NOT getting short changed. Haha, I agree with what you say apart from that! When will people pull their finger out of their ear and SEE what is going on ...not what's shown on tv and newspapers!

    4. Guest

      No, they did not risk anything. People who own other people have no place in society. They are slavers. You are a m*ron.

    5. Darris Hawks

      Why not buy out the owner? They are buying out the owner. The owner owes them more than 3 million in wages and are offering to pay only 500,000. AND the owner only built the business with government help.
      The workers are taking the factory instead of repayment of wages.

      Landlords don't have a place. A landlord owns the land that no one created.

      A factory owner has invested either capital or labor into the creation of the factory. A landowner has not done a thing to create the land. It already existed. Either the landowner stole the land from the community, or they bought it from someone who did.

      That's why taxes should be shifted off of income and sales and onto land.

      It's a public good.

      Income is private.

  18. webman222

    I find that story is biased in favor of the so called 'worker'. Did the factory owner not 'work' and 'risk' their own savings to set up the factory and provide jobs to the workers in the first place...Its nice to take the side of the worker, but lets not forget, the owner took on the risk and put sweat and tears to get the factory started.

    It is the owners of the expropriated factories who are the victims here! Why don't the workers simply buy the owner out instead of expropriating the factory by force, it would seem more just for all parties involved.

    Workers, owners, land lords, machinery all have their place, and all should be compensated for their efforts - not just the workers. The important thing is to keep the factories running.

  19. Z

    Wow... Those people live a very different lifestyle compared to mine. 'Eye-Opening'.

  20. James Cox

    A wonderful visit with the people of Argintina. As mention by a character I look forward to the sequal.

  21. Vibeke Caroe

    Peter gets a brilliant idea. He sets up business and manufactures his brilliant product. He makes money for his own needs and to pay his workers and other production costs.

    Paul sees that Peter is making a good living and also wants to make and sell the product, and so they would have to compete to sell.

    But Peter does not want to risk missing out on potential sales revenue, so he trademarks his product, so that no one else is allowed to copy it. Again his company is growing, producing more, selling more, making more profit.

    At some point the market stops expanding, but Peter is not satisfied with the money he is making (because?).

    He concludes that he can only get more profit (because that is the perpetual indisputable goal of capitalism), if he can lower his production costs. So he moves the production to a low cost country, and he scores more profits again.

    But now some people in the low cost country discovers that Peter is selling the products at a very high price at home and paying very little wages to the workers there. They are able to think and calculate, and they are so poor that they can barely exist on the pay that they are receiving from Peter.

    One of them gets a brilliant idea. He sets up business and manufactures a product just like Peter's. He sells it in Peter's country, although at a much lower price than Peter,which is illegal, but he still makes a lot more money than he would working for Peter, so he does it anyway.

    But at some point he is not satisfied with the money he is making (because?).

    He concludes that he can only get more profit (because that is the perpetual indisputable goal of capitalism), if he can lower his production costs.

    And who is ALWAYS going to lose out? The workers - in both countries.

    Because that is the nature of capitalism when PROFITS are PROTECTED by regulation.

    There is no pure capitalism and no pure socialism anywhere in the world. Because even supposedly socialist/communist countries are ruled by - capitalists.

    1. Niccoleo

      Despite greed and any other human driven desires for more power or whatever you call it makes perfect sense under the pressure of competition to strive for that extra profit, even a fractional advantage in profit from his competitor would in the long term ensure "Peters" survival in a capitalist market.

      With the extra profit Pete could invest in technology which lowers the production costs and enables him to drive his competitors out of the market , if he does not do so his competitor will, and Peter will lose his business sooner or later.

      What I am trying to say is that we should not focus on fixing human nature in the sense that if Peter was not greedy the workers would not have suffered, or without human greed capitalism would be fine. The cause for this fascination for profit is mostly if not only the system.

      I have to disagree a little bit with you about the one that is always going to lose out, labor. Only under perfect competition ( practically impossible), when companies can not raise their prices because they'd lose costumers, only then, is labor the only victim, since labor is the only element on which "Peter" can increase his profit, and he does that through lowering its wages.

      However, nowadays far from perfect competition as we are He exploits not only his labor but also his costumers in the sense that we pay much more for goods than we actually should be, sometimes even labor is protected by regulations but the costumer is not.

      I agree with you on your last sentence though, last centuries socialism was a disaster, nobody wants it back , or at least me coming from the Balkans, do not want it repeated. Nonetheless, that is not enough of an argument to stop working for a better system.

      sorry for the long reply just felt tempted to write something after thinking about the "(because?)" you used :P:P

    2. Vibeke Caroe

      Thank you very much for a sincere reply! I must say that usually it is impossible to discuss this matter at all, without being hatefully attacked for being a communist and such.

      Changing human nature seems futile.

      There is no such thing as perfect competition, which would be the premise for perfect capitalism.

      All I wish for is a little after-thought. Like - do I really need more? Or do I just want?

      The senseless consumerism today seems to stand unchallenged. As long as there is enough to go around, no problem. I could not care less, if my neighbor wants a yacht or a golf course.

      But what compels human nature to care more about self-entitlement and less about community?

      I personally do not feel good, when I am confronted with other human beings living in poverty, hunger, despair? Especially since I do not want for nothing myself. Just seems unfair - what makes me better and more entitled than the next person.

      I guess it boils down to 'the human view': do I see people as untrustworthy, anti-social, greedy, and selfish by nature or as a product of environment?

      I believe that people are - by nature - constructive, active, social beings seeking meaningful lives. And if meaning is achieved, there is no need for greed.

    3. Darris Hawks

      The workers are also moving for higher wages, so it should always tend toward making everyone better off.
      The reason that isn't the case is because of the private control of the commons.
      A factory owner should own his/her factory because he/she paid for it. Their capital paid for the labor and capital is a result of labor. Even if the capitalist didn't himself/herself labor for the capital he/she owns, he/she is still entitled to it if it was given to him/her freely.
      The problem is landownership. No one created land. It exists without regard to capital or labor. It existed before humans. It is the natural inheritance of all humans and all societies need it to function.

      When one builds a factory, one should rent the land on which the factory sits from the community. Each plot of land should be leased to the highest bidder.
      The money gained from this should be divided equally among all the citizens in the form of a Citizen's Dividend.
      Then, if an employer chose to only hire at low wages, the desire to work with that employer would be truly voluntary.

      A worker might decide it isn't worth it. This would increase the demand for workers and naturally increase their wages.
      Minimum wage hurts workers. It makes low wage jobs illegal even if the worker wants to accept it.

      Better than a minimum wage is a dividend equal to the average value of land owned paid to individual persons.

  22. Moon E n V o L

    Sometimes I just want the world to end, but it is documentaries like this one that gives me hope that even after the collapse of world economies the people will band together to take over the responsibility of creating and making life work. To the people of the world I give my heart and hope for a future free from the greed of Corporate Banksters. There is a reason the poor out number the rich a million to one: The majority of folks have a true moral foundation to do what is right and good for all and not just themselves.

  23. fonbindelhofas

    at the end they let them to have some little factorys... what is it compared to silence and IMF titanic interests... basteds win :(

  24. seanmichael CONWAY

    Its comical to see the level of ignorance that exists among American people when it comes to the word 'socialism'. Take the time to read up on it. All systems are imperfect as the human element inevitably makes them so. However the capitalist system is without question the most destructive. Its effects on the environment and peoples quality of life is really quite appalling. Socialism has never been given the opportunity to succeed as it has been repeatedly undermined by the capitalist system which simply outsources many of its impacts onto wider world. The monetary system with the banks at its head are another obstacle to its successful implication. I highly recommend that you, the reader, read both 'Envisioning real utopias' and 'Making globalization work'. Trust me they will open your eyes. It certainly worked for me. The world MUST change course soon before its too late.

  25. wpsmithjr

    I agree that globalism is an issue... but socialism, communism, democracy... none of these are the solution. The only form of government that has allowed people to get out of digging in the dirt for their food is a REPUBLIC... not a democracy. Democracy, rule of the majority, just leads to socialism and then on to communism, like Winston said. Once the people realize they can vote themselves largess from the government, it all comes crashing down... just like it is now in the U.S. and other parts of the world.

    Capitalism, with a constitutional republic, made the U.S. the greatest country on earth. But, somewhere around 120 years ago, when the federal reserve took over our banking system, the income tax was instituted, and we became slaves to an oppressive group of elites... we gave up on following our constitution.

    We're supposed to be 50 independent states, with the federal government providing protection to the states from each of the other states, and from outside forces...ONLY. They aren't supposed to be involved in energy, education, welfare, or any of the other 100 things they've formed unconstitutional agencies and departments to handle. They are supposed to provide the 3 branches, the military, and that's it. The states are supposed to be competing for businesses and people by providing low taxes, good working conditions, high wages, and efficient benefits for the citizens. If your state is not providing those things, you can vote with your feet and move to a state that is. The federal government getting involved with everything from our lightbulbs to our retirement is the problem with our country.

    And now they've spent us into oblivion.

    1. SquidvsBear

      How about congressional oversight of interstate commerce via the 10th amendment...? What about the unenumerated powers that are implied by the general welfare clause...? Don't pretend to know what we are 'supposed to be' that is something that was never fully established while our Founders were hashing it out, and its clearly something that is in flux today. There has always been, and necessarily so, a give or take between the states and the federal govt in an effort to ensure the right endowed unto us all by the Bill of Rights, The Constitution and those implied by the Declaration of Independence. The Civil War, womens suffrage, civil rights, child labor laws, all these things required action by the federal govt to make sure that we could enjoy the dignity we are supposed to enjoy under the institutions each state 'claims' to believe in. Without this there would be no 'United' in United States.

    2. from_the_bleachers

      "The Civil War, womens suffrage, civil rights, child labor laws, all these things required action by the federal govt to make sure that we could enjoy the dignity we are supposed to enjoy under the institutions each state 'claims' to believe in."

      People, people took action.. People very firmly, and at times violently, demanded these changes from the federal government. The federal government did not just give us all those things.

      Nowadays people have turned weak, we talk and talk and demand changes yet we are ignored. Power does not yield itself to the masses, history shows us that it's always the masses that aggressively FIGHT for their rights.

      The federal government is like any corporation, it's main focus is to preserve itself above all else, and hold on to its power and control over the masses.

      The only way to fight a government gone rogue like ours is with 2 things: Brains and Balls..

      By the look of it, the country has lost half of both things, if not we wouldn't be in this mess.

    3. wpsmithjr

      You can't use the "interstate commerce clause" anytime you want to, to make up any law you want just because commerce is occurring. The Bill of Rights, especially the 10th amendment, said the federal government should pass "no law" regarding all kinds of stuff and they even said, essentially, "if we left anything out, the fed gov can't pass a law about that either... it should be left up to the states and the people."

      There is no "general welfare" clause. "General welfare" is mentioned in the preamble as a reason for establishing the constitution itself. It's also mentioned in the law that gives Congress the power to tax the people. The law was established to give Congress the power to tax...not to suddenly say it's ok to pass a law regarding anything just because Congress can tax "for the general welfare".

      All of those laws you mentioned that the federal government passed could have been left up to the states. It was the PEOPLE'S OPINION toward civil rights that really changed things... not the government. People can change without a bureaucrat passing a law to FORCE them to change. Less and less people are smoking today because of EDUCATION... not because we passed a law against it.

      We have so many laws. It's simply ridiculous. Life isn't really that complicated.

    4. Rainmaker

      How can someone in clear mind put socialism, communism, democracy and republic under ONE category? Then include mammals and some other unrelated stuff as well! Geez, read Wikipedia, if you haven't learned the basics in school.

  26. Winston Smith

    socialism is democracy taken to it's natural (and morally just) conclusion

    1. soytcheck

      only natural is liberalism. Socialism is unreal and kills motivation. What about those who produce more but got the same as the others.

    2. Vibeke Caroe

      well, is motivation only to get money and about getting more for yourself?

    3. Rainmaker

      Socialism is a type of economic system, while democracy is a form of government. Think sometimes before you post something like that.

    4. Rocky Racoon

      My understanding of the two is that they are inter-related. To me the economy which in classical terms included the word Political-Economy since it is a human activity, and is basically the manner in which we produce and reproduce as a species and everything is a reflection of that basic activity. I would prefer to live in a socialist democracy. Production has been globalized I don't know why the ownership shouldn't be as well. Imagine by John Lennon pretty well embodies many of the principles of what I view as socialism.Surely global capitalism based primarily on private ownership is the most heineous form of production ever devised by human beings. 2 world wars constant depressions-Starvation and death in the midst of plenty-it is not as if we do not have the productive capacity the technology to advance to a higher form of being-socially. We will never get their as long as the capitalist social order remains in power. The internal contradictions alone while it brings production to it's knees won't die on it's own especially with government's supplying it with blood transfusions from the general population and transfering it to the privledged few at the top-the "wealth creators" who managed to disappear trillions of dollars from the public at large on a global scale. And it won't die on it's own either not as long as any area of the life world remains to be turned into a commodity. The struggle now is the re-colonization of Africa-Libya is ground zero in that regard. I don' t think China Russia or India are going to let this situation stand much longer. China captures markets bringing roads and hospitals and technology to other nations in a win win situation in the pursuit of needed resources on the continent-The West does it with predator drones daisy cutters and cruise missles. And they may believe Libya was a great conquest but I think it was the last straw. Soon like Afghanistan and Iraq the Libyian people will view the west as occupier's not liberator's and the current civil war will continue. Niether they nor the domestic populations in the West can stomach much more-in spite of the demonization of these targets by the propaganda machines called the free press in our capitalist democracies. Imagine an economic system based on class antagonisms being called a democracy. An oxymoron if their ever was one.

  27. Sam

    Peter, mis-read ur post... I thought u said "I think IMF is...".

    MILTON get her to read Chomsky!

  28. Sam

    Patrick, that IS socialism, or a form of it at the very least. Lose the fear of that word America! Many parts of ur economy are already state-owned and run (although the public-private partnerships are slowly putting the 'running' part of that).

    Peter, the IMF has a long history of decimating economies. It usually goes like this... find a stuggling country, isolate it (in terms of intl. trade), push it to the point of bankcruptcy, provide a nice big loan that can never realistically be paid off, then impose all manner of political and economic reforms (that usually force subsidised imports at some stage) and leave the manufacturing sector in ruins. Oh, The Corporation is a very documentary :)

  29. ralphie

    i did not know this..thanks

  30. Patrick Leonard

    I'm very impressed with this documentary. It seems like the best way for industrial workers to produce is through collectivism. Is it true that their productivity is higher than under the traditional system?
    Perhaps we in America can use this model more aggressively. (Not socialism or communism, but the microeconomic bulldog of collectivism, where each worker is a partner in the company)

  31. Dodgy

    Its like I've swung the pendulum. After watching the doc about workers in Asia being demoralised to seeing this group take their jobs and pay themselves what's needed. You don't see a lot of stories where the little guy wins. Refreshing.

  32. chris

    What an utterly inspiring group of people

  33. Peter

    I would be so sweet, if expropriated businesses eventually got so widespread and competitive that the multinationals lost interest in using slave like labour. Just think. If the people had run it all along, how gigantic piles of money coulda been saved from the elites greedy accounts.


    If she think IMF is an instrument of good, she's an ignorant. "The Corporation" describes them better then this docu.

  34. santosh limbu

    truee democracy.......People power........

  35. milton

    My international business teacher is mad at the current administration. She supports the elite and the IMF

  36. Chris

    my neighbor was from argentina she would say how beautiful it was but more than it beauty i admire the strength and will of the people we might start getting stuff done in the us if we took to the streets like they do they put the fear of god into their politicians and police im sorry but most americans have lost their backbone

  37. Nick

    I agree, ive seen some attempts to do this in Australia but alot failed.
    We need more support in the community and in the Countrys where jobs are being forced overseas!
    We need to take this theory, take a factory or shop or whatever, and run it by the people!

  38. Hector

    Good on you Pete - the giant sucking sound will be a constant if these white-collar thieves can drag their investments from country to country - pulling dispensations from govts persuaded that white collars don't have black hearts.

    Gizza job - It's Yosser's cry from The Boys from the Blackstuff

  39. Pete

    Extraordinary program!! I wish more people (i.e. voters) here in the U.S would watch it because we definitely have that "giant sucking sound" of jobs leaving this country too. Globalization is really only good for the multinational corporations which have no moral compass, or soul. Maybe all these millions of workers here in the U.S. should lock themselves inside their "plants" and start up them 'ole machines again! Whoo Hoo ... kinda gets the blood flowing a bit - although I'd rather just have a job though .....

    1. Sebastian van Dalen

      I understand you have great faith in economic models, and thus in globalization. I do not wish to comment on everything you said I just want to make two remarks. First I think you should not value everything just by it's lower prices or higher purchasing power, you should also look at the effects on environment and society, effects that are not calculated in the GDP. And second you should not have "faith" in economic models that always claim to have the best outcome, IF certain conditions are satisfied (like perfect competition, complete transparency, no transport costs!!!!!!) conditions that as you and I know are never satisfied. It's great to have the best possible outcome in theory, but guess what, we live in reality. Otherwise communism would have worked........

      I hope you are open to discussion instead of living under a western rock, because I think you clearly don't see the havoc globalization wreaks on the environnment and the society's of third world countries.
      And on the western countries for that matter, read Marcuse and understand the term "repressive sublimation"

    2. Guest

      Hugely wrong from another i*iot who has no understanding of the world and how people are exploited indentured slaves.

  40. prole

    carpenter, they didn't vote for menem, he lost resoundingly.

    it was so bad, actually, that he withdrew from the election early rather than face the shame of getting landslided.

    that said, the current leadership isn't much better.

  41. carpenter

    After watching this doc the only thing came to my mind was,do the people in Argentina have some kind of short term memory lost?? Half of the country wanted to vote for the same guy who brought the country to its knee? that I don't get.

    1. Rainmaker

      Well, in the U.S. Americans did re-elect George W. Bush as well. In Russia, Russians re-elected Eltsin. Similar examples are in many countries. During an aggressive election campaign it's all about emotions, dominance on mass media channels, amount of financial support, budget, etc. Not so much about considerate and objective analysis or critical thinking.