i'm sure you could screen them and find some decent ones in there… ones that won't cost millions.

Maybe they should try a few good ways to not lose so much money. Pay "actors" 10 million instead of 25. Even 10 million is way too much for little acting in some crappy movies… Make less movies, most of the shit they produce isn't even watchable. And last but not least, MAKE BETTER MOVIES.

Many commentators would disagree with that view entirely. Put extremely simply, in the early 1990s Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac were forced, via legislation no less, to provide loans to low income borrowers, so called sub-prime loans. These loans carried a high risk of the borrowers defaulting. Freddie and Fannie's boards both disagreed with the legislation due to the risk of default. These loans were then sold to other entities and spread throughout the world economy, people defaulted in large numbers and credit was thus harder to come by. The root cause of this current crisis is at the US governments feet.

The movements of markets is largely due to people's confidence and perception about what the future holds rather than inherent attributes of the companies within it.

Oh yes they can. I dont live in the USA but it seems to me that when people are happy some of them choose not to vote and vice-versa". Basically at the moment it seems to me the vast majority of voters are not interested in copyright issues and hence wont vote on it.

"Now, I know that some people here think that there is a massive conspiracy between lobbyists and the government, and that somehow the lobbyists have so much power, that they can dictate the policies of government. That is completely untrue."

Once again your too black and white in your thinking. Business interests would not spend large amounts of money on lobbyists if they recieved nothing in return at least some of the time. It's hardly a conspiracy, it's a well-known and established procedure.

"To impose copyright on non-commercial usages is to claim ownership of ideas and thoughts for private usages, and to enforce it is thus tantamount to thought police"

No it does not. Copyright applies to any expressible form of an idea or information that is substantive and discrete. A thought is not substantive in any fashion.

"Rather, it is their own fault for bad business practices (such as failing to create good movies)."

Creating a bad movie is not a "bad business practice". If there was a way to make every movie good don't you think that movie studios would be onto it? It is impossible to ensure that every work is "good" and hence and point not worth making in your arguement against copyright. And who decides what is "good" in any case? One way is popular opinion, which means it makes a lot of money which is in opposition to your idea that "money makes art bad".

"The idea that they should just be given money because they are a business is just ridiculous."

That isn't what's happening here.

If America is not a culture why the hell are you always rambling about culture being downtrodden by money and this can be fixed by taking money out of the equation then?