Capitalism, Economic Crisis, Economics, Movies and Film, Politics

“Capitalism: A Love Story”

Early last week, I saw Michael Moore’s new film, Capitalism: A Love Story.  There’s an excellent review of the movie at the blog, Naked Capitalism.

I would add that neither the film nor the review explicitly states this:  We Americans seem possessed by the notion that rich folks know better than poor folks how to run the country — or at least the economy.  The theory is rich folks have more experience running things.   On the other hand, rich folks seem pretty challenged just to make their own millions, let alone look out for the other guy.  But someone objects, “It’s no one’s job to look out for the other guy”?  Then that person knows less of politics than an elected dog catcher.  Political power largely proceeds from convincing people that you will work on behalf of their interests.

9 thoughts on ““Capitalism: A Love Story””

  1. “We Americans seem possessed by the notion that rich folks know better than poor folks how to run the country — or at least the economy.”

    Sadly true. That’s why we handed out monstrous amounts of money to the very people who tanked their companies, our retirement accounts, and jacked the housing market. Not surprisingly, these same people went out and gave themselves huge bonuses (or having scammed the taxpayer, I guess), went shopping for airplanes, and took high priced retreats.

    Now the banks that got huge bailouts are raising credit card payments and interest rates before new reform laws go into effect. Tragically, most Americans are seemingly willing to let this happen.


  2. I’m really looking forward to seeing this having enjoyed all of his previous work. Moore will continue to get criticised for his techniques and occasional errors of logic but no-one could question his passion and commitment to creating a better world.


  3. Thanks for commenting on my blog. I reference to your comment:

    “Perhaps the only time fundamental change is possible is when some disaster has shocked people into a willingness to change. At that point, change becomes possible — but not inevitable.”

    I would like to reply that the kicker may well be what we witnessed during and following the September, 2008 financial crisis–namely, the claim that we shouldn’t make any systemic change during a crisis that might weaken the major financial players still in the game. For example, reducing the size of the banks too big to fail. I would argue that such a caveat essentially renders any systemic change made possible by a crisis largely impotent or at the very least enervated.

    Thanks for your reply. I hope mine in turn has made yours worth your while.


  4. The inestimable Aaron Masih adds some perspective to this line-of-thought in his comments on my own Blog post: extortion: credit card companies caught in the Act

    “They don’t have a moral obligation per se; they have a capitalistic obligation within the confines of the rule of law.”

    You can read his comment, in it’s entirety, here:

    Meanwhile, please keep us thinking, and on our collective toes, Paul.



I'd love to hear from you. Comments make my day.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s