8 comments on “The Story of Stuff: A Must NOT WATCH! Crockumentary

  1. I didn’t take the time to read your entire post, but the title would’ve been enough. Amen is all I can say. Wish I had the patience and tenacity to get so specific.

    So did you actually manage to sit through the whole video? I made it less than ten minutes before feeling the need to kill something.

    • I sat through Lee Doren’s The Critique… Easier to stomach when someone is pointing out what you know, and making fun of “Little Annie Lunatic” (GOD, she needs a dose of REALITY!). She didn’t even bother “Googling” half the “facts” she presented. Her sources were beyond bias, and as I stated in the post, it shows you what kind of life this twit has lived.

      Thanks for reading, and I hope you stop by more often.

    • Okay, you get your reply and I get mine. Just in case you delete it, because your kind usually does, I will paste it here in my comments for my readers to see…

      *****

      I can’t disagree with you enough. You try to mediate between two views, one supported by facts, the other well-funded propaganda which its creator has put out to twist the facts. Did you not notice how she purposely misstated certain points? Like how there is supposedly only four percent of the original forests left? Lee Doren and other have pointed out that in her on footnotes, this point is contradicted by the source she cites. That isn’t all though…

      For commercials? I doubt watching an advertisement for the new television show on NBC or an advertisement for that new movie is theatres has as serious an impact as the Story of Stuff. In the New York Times’ article on this piece, they discuss how Rafael de la Torre Batker, a 9 year-old-boy, is terrified that wanting to get a new set of legos will destroy the Earth. Explain to me how this is the same again? You can’t. The movie is specifically targeted at young children to guilt them into a lifestyle “Little Annie Lunatic” wants them to live. Aside from commercials generally pushing one product or another on a consumer, there is nothing there that needs a sit-down talk or therapy to deal with.

      Increasing your standard of living by eating meat? How don’t you understand this? My time spent in Nantong, China showed me that this makes much more sense than you would want to admit. I took my students to McDonalds one day to find out that they don’t usually eat beef, they can’t afford it. Beef is a luxury, one the average Chinese person cannot afford. Even Chicken is used sparingly outside the major cities. As funny as that might sound to you, but meat is generally only something those with money can afford to have on a regular basis. Without meat, there growth is stunted, they are thin and poorly nourished, as well as a slew of health problems we don’t deal with here because of our lifestyle. That graph? Look up the straw man fallacy. You want to debate, debate the points.

      On efficiency? You come off once again as an ass. Setting up a house on the outer core? You COMPLETELY ignored his point on oil byproducts, along with his points on the discovery of different materials and fuels. The more and more I read this article, the more and more I see it as an attack on those willing to do the research you refuse to. As for your point on coal mining going on forever, that isn’t what he said. “Little Annie Lunatic” was purposely trying to link coal mining with our modern way of life, when in actuality, it has been going on for centuries. I made a point about this myself, attacking her when she tries to pin the materials economy to the 1950s. She purposely twists the facts to push an unapologetic propaganda piece. If she really cared about all these materials, why publish a DVD? The disc, the box, the artwork, the packaging, etc all uses up materials right? How about transporting those discs across the country? If you really want to split hairs, she is a hypocrite of the first order. There are renewable and non-renewable materials, something which is COMPLETELY ignore by you and Leonard when you push this argument… Pathetic…

      A little economics? Ya, in your hand that is a dangerous thing. You are a twit you know that? I’m going to educate you because it is obvious you need to be. There are elastic and non-elastic goods, things that’s demand will be or won’t be affected by price changes. If the price goes up on CDs and DVDs, demand drops, meaning fewer and fewer people will buy it. This is an elastic good. If the price of food goes up, while people will buy less of the “luxuries”, their demand for the basics will not change much. This is an inelastic good. Same goes for oil. Without a proper substitute, demand drops slightly when prices rise. Before you criticize “Corvan” (I corrected it, his name is Doren) for not explaining this, be sure to read up on the steady decline in tourism following the spike in oil prices. Demand doesn’t shift much for enough oil for basic uses, it does affect whether or not the family decides to go on that trip to Florida to see Grandma or to Disney World. As for your discussion on theory, LEARN IT! Economics isn’t a soft social science like politics or sociology, it is ground firmly in history and mathematics. I spent four years of my life getting my degree, not four minutes on Google. You don’t debate these hard truths like supply and demand you twit. It doesn’t take into account the effect to people living on the Earth? Last time I check, capitalism was raising the standard of living, THE QUALITY OF LIFE, for everyone who partakes in it. Don’t believe me? Ask the Chinese…

      You want to continue insulting my education, you want to continue throwing around nonsense? Okay, fine….

      Milton Friedman is NOT a central planner. A central planner, you idiot, is someone who crafts a plan and runs an economy under a central power, meaning the government. This is how countries like Soviet Russia and Communist China USED TO run their economies… RIGHT INTO THE GROUND! The economy is more like a living and breathing being than a mathematical formula, mainly because at its core, the economy is simply the gather of people to buy and sell goods and services. It usually follows the basic theory, but various outside forces, like natural disasters and social/political circumstances, can cause it to behave differently. Now Milton Friedman, like others before him, was an economic adviser to the President of the United States, at the time, Ronald Reagan. The president asked Friedman and others what the government could do to help the economy, to fix the problems that the prior administration left, like double digit unemployment, interest rates and inflation. Friedman didn’t plan anything, he simply advised Reagan to take certain actions so that the economy could grow. If he planned it, there wouldn’t have been some the problems “Reaganomics” created, like the continuing growth of inflation. Get that through your head you twit!

      Economics being simple? Where did you get that idea, on the back of a cereal box? Economic theory has NEVER been simple. The Bullionist practices of the Spanish brought their country into economic collapse, the fur trade in Canada was crippled by changing fashion trends in Europe, the mismanagement of the investment and banking sector in the 1920’s gave birth to the economic depression the the 1930’s, etc You talk, like Leonard, as if all this is new. IT ISN’T! Cartels existed long before OPEC, and government itself is the most insidious form of monopoly, especially when it comes to health care and food production. You talk as if people going poor and hungry is our fault, but last time I checked, these poor areas are usually consumed by civil war. Money given to buy food ends up in the hands of dictators looking to improve their military arsenal. It was only eight years ago, but I guess you forgot the Oil for Food program with Iraq didn’t you? Once again, you don’t know what you are talking about, but a little economics is truly a dangerous thing isn’t it?

      As for debate? There is no debate with falsities. Her facts are wrong, Doren and others have provided evidence to prove this, even Leonard’s own footnotes do damage to her nonsensical argument. You act as if downright lies and slander are simply the other side of a one-sided issue. Facts are facts, and no straw man argument you concoct will change that. As for your many appeals to emotion, I am not someone who is going to feel bad that I have what I have and someone else does not. I work hard, whether it be in school, around the house, etc for what I have. I worked far harder than any of my coworkers in China to make as little as I did, but you know what? I felt good about it. You want to truly end poverty? GET PEOPLE JOBS! You want to sit around discussing how we shouldn’t enjoy our luxuries, tell you what, instead of buying a new laptop, how about you instead donate that money to the needy? After all, with your lack of a proper education, you won’t be needing to it debate people like Doren and myself. You won’t? Of course not, hypocrites like you never want to make the sacrifices you demand we make…

      I do want to think about this nonsense less, since thinking about the lunacy you and “Little Annie Lunatic” push angers me. You are talking about denying economic progress to those who truly need it, you talk about keeping the poor on the farms, condemning them to a life of servitude to you and others who ignore their struggle and are obsessed with romanticizing peasant life, etc I want to think about this less because obviously thinking about it more has given voice to the uneducated radicals in our society. You want to think about something? How about new ways of mining ore, more environmentally friendly AND economically viable ways to improve our standard of living (I included the AND because people like you and Leonard purposely ignore that), etc because that is where time should be spent. You want to live the “environmentally friendly” life you preach, fine, but don’t expect the rest of us will follow suit.

      You know very little about the environment, even less about economics, and you ask me why I am vociferous? You insult my education, my father’s education, the millions of hard working North Americans who participate in our system, the millions more in developing countries who wouldn’t achieve our standard of living if “Little Annie Lunatic” got her way, etc and you expect me to be okay with it? No, no I won’t be. Get informed and stop “drinking the Kool-Aid”, you’ve had enough…

      By the way, I copied and pasted my response because all of you drones are alike. You hold the same nonsensical beliefs, from the same uneducated sources, so why should I bother debating each and everyone one of you? Like I copied my response, you are simply a copy of the next drone pushing this garbage…

      Pathetic… Downright pathetic…

  2. More from my conversation with Mark, the misguided individual who doesn’t seem to understand what Lee Doren and others have been saying about this “Crockumentary”…

    *****

    I criticize you because you refuse to listen to reason. Why I continue commenting is beyond me, but I see a wrong, and I feel a need to right it…

    Simplistic? He was simply pointing out serious problems in Leonard’s argument. If you want to talk about simplicity, why not look at “Little Annie Lunatic’s” video? She ignores the renewing of forests, the recycling plants in North America, etc Last time I checked, the United States still gets the majority of its raw material imports from Canada, not from the third world as she implied. She also puts fixed numbers on resources we can’t even measure. How many trees would have to be chopped down before we look elsewhere for lumber? In actuality, forests in the western world have grown, the quality of life has gone up, the quality of air has improved. Case in point, we no longer hear of the London Smog which was a serious health risk for Londoners during the Industrial Revolution. Her logic is far too simplistic on this issue, and Lee Doren simply explains these complexities in simple terms.

    As for commercialism? So what? I see a commercial for a new movie, I know right away that the company pushing that ad has paid for air time. Money given to broadcasters which is used to pay salaries and hire new workers. I go and partake in that good or service advertised and my money, which I am freely spending (if I buy something, it is because I want or need it, not because someone is forcing me to buy it) is going to whoever is providing that good or service. I take my disposal income, “invest it” and that puts money in the pocket of another person who can do the same. It keeps the system growing, and this brings prosperity to more and more people. The Story of Stuff is the anti-ad, its purpose is to stop the machine from moving, to scare children into accepting radical beliefs that they cannot understand at their young age. I am sick and tired of hearing how profits are evil, especially when it is that “evil” that allows small and large companies to raise wages and hire new workers. Understand? And what was that nonsense about free markets don’t exist in a vacuum? When is any science truly uniform? Like economics, scientific theory is constantly changing and correcting itself. Take climate change science for example. Even the name itself was changed from “global warming” only a year or two ago, which was changed from “global cooling” a few years before. Just like science, basic economic theory can be proven through simple tests and examples.

    The imbalance in the economy can be corrected either by invoking new government policies or by removing older ones. Milton Friedman pushed what is known as “laissez-faire” economics, a purely free market ideology. While farther more preferable than what we see now in the United States, it has a few flaws. The “invisible hand” can sort out most of the problems an economy can face, but without restraint, such unrestrained competition encourages monopolies and oligopolies, creating an imbalance in the markets. A guiding hand of government can control this, but only when it isn’t wrapped around the throat of the economy. Maintaining balance is the key, and if it were as easy as Leonard and you have suggested, we would have central planners. Advisers are nothing like these foolish central planners in Soviet Russia or Communist China, people who blindly followed Karl Marx’s teachings, ignoring common sense. Look up Deng Xiaoping, the man who moved China towards the market economy. His rejection of central planning got him thrown out of the Communist Party twice by Mao Zedong, and for his “blasphemy”, he still is hated by the hard line Communists within China.

    As for the food shortages in the third world, who is to blame for that lately? The push toward bio fuels have drastically raised the price of wheat. Risks of death? How about the resurgence of malaria? DDT nearly wiped it out, but environmentalist radicals prevented that. Those living below the poverty line around the world have more to worry about than the ice caps melting. You want to actually help these people? Get out of their way, let them develop. You will see their quality of life improve…

    And as for how I know their quality of life will improve? I LIVED IT! I was going to let it go, but you act as if my knowledge on this subject doesn’t matter without a chart to back it out. I could point to GDP growth rates in China, I could point to the urban development in both small and large cities, but seeing as how I lived in underdeveloped Nantong, I am pretty sure I know what the truth is. Other than camping in your backyard and going on protest trips, what have you done with your life? Where have you been? Nowhere… I have climbed the Great Wall, been to the tombs of the Emperors, shopped in Shanghai, etc and all that time, I saw how the country was changing. In Nantong, KFC is everywhere, McDonalds can be found downtown and Pizza Hut is just a short walk from there. Doesn’t sound impressive? Well we take those restaurants for granted, we don’t understand that to a country that has known real poverty (their homeless don’t have clothing, let alone cellphones), to be able to enjoy a Big Mac is considered a luxury. Because of “evil” corporations, China has become the second largest consumer market in the world, and as their quality of life continues to increase, it will surpass the United States in that regard. These people can afford to purchase what they make for us, they can enjoy the very same luxuries that we have taken for granted for far too long.

    Next time you DARE to question that truth, I won’t bother being nice, I will do more than call you out as a naive environmentalist who has no understand of economics or how your arrogance is hurting those you claim to want to help… Enjoy your laptop, enjoy your Starbucks Coffee, etc and know that of the 750+ students I taught, EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM WOULD TRADE PLACES WITH YOU IN A HEARTBEAT! Grow up…

  3. Pingback: The Story of Cosmetics Critique; Fiction in, fiction out « Northern Thoughts And Reflections

  4. Pingback: Quick Post; Annie Leonard getting tax dollars to indoctrinate school children « Northern Thoughts And Reflections

  5. Pingback: Quick Post; Two Years of HowTheWorldWorks « Northern Thoughts And Reflections

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s