I almost hate to post this, because I want to avoid making this blog political. Political issues are polarizing, and my site is about personal finance, investing and careers. It’s not about how you should think or vote. Economics, unfortunately, leaks over considerably into the political realm (though it’s ignored by politicians more than it should be). Anyway, I saw the movie and here are some of my thoughts. Take it for what it’s worth.
I saw Michael Moore’s new “documentary” this weekend. I put documentary in quotation marks because it’s not what I think of when I think documentary. It’s not even handed. It doesn’t purport to be or attempt to be. It’s the equivalent of an op-ed piece from a man whose views most people are already pretty familiar with.
I personally disagreed with most of the movie. After watching the film, I wasn’t convinced that Moore has even a basic understanding of economics. I think this is frustrating. Anyone considering making a movie about capitalism should, in my opinion, become well versed in Friedman, Keynes, Smith and Ricardo. Todd Buchholz’s book, New Ideas from Dead Economists would have been an excellent place to start.
I think documentary film making is a pretty interesting form of education. The opportunity to interview experts in the subject matter, on camera, gives the viewer a unique insight into the subject matter, pulled together by the film maker. Unfortunately, very few experts were utilized to make the movie.
To prove capitalism was evil, he asked 2 priests and a bishop. They told us that capitalism was, in fact, evil, and that Jesus would reject capitalism. To further prove that it was evil, he showed factory workers that had lost their jobs. He showed people that had been evicted from their homes. He showed a wide variety of pain and suffering. And it was sad. It really was. Moore just chose the wrong enemy.
It’s not the first time he’s chosen the wrong enemy. I agree with Moore that healthcare is possibly the biggest problem in this country. I agree with him about several things, I suppose. I actually enjoyed Bowling for Columbine, but I think he chose the wrong enemy there, too. He went to Target and asked for a refund on the bullets used in the shooting. He framed Target as being partially at fault for the shooting. It was another demonstration of how he feels about capitalism. There’s only one reason that Target sells bullets in its stores – people want to buy them. (See another basic tenet: supply and demand).
Moore went so far as to argue the merits of socialism. I have no doubt in my mind that Michael Moore honestly believes that this would be better. Once again, he fails to show even a rudimentary understanding of economic systems. He’s a passionate guy. He’s a bold filmmaker. I’m not convinced he’s a very educated guy.
In one portion of the film, he shows a factory. In the factory, he explains, every worker is an owner of the company. Not because of stock options – each worker owns an equal portion of the business. He seems to be making the same argument that Karl Marx did, long before him – that profits are made based on the exploitation of the worker. He fails to account for one of the most basic tenets of economics – taking on larger amounts of risk allows you the potential for a larger return (or loss). Business owners do this. Entrepreneurs do this. Michael Moore sees the situation as very black and white. Those that succeed under a capitalistic system, in Moore’s eyes, are evil. Those who do not excel are good. Unions are good. Others are bad. People who wear suits to work are bad people.
Moore also frames foreclosures as the fault of capitalism. Neither Moore or any of the people being foreclosed acknowledge that they didn’t pay their bills, or that they borrowed more than they could afford to repay. When people lost their jobs, Moore contends that the company owed them jobs. Clearly, that’s not how capitalism works.
Milton Friedman would say that economic freedom is a pre-requisite to political freedom. Moore doesn’t see it this way. He thinks that socialism is freedom. I disagree.
The movie wasn’t without it’s interesting parts. I enjoyed Moore’s conspiracy theories about Goldman Sachs and the roles in government of Goldman Sachs alumni. I think this was one of the best parts of the movie.
There were parts of the movie agreed with, as well. Not everything can be properly handled in the private sector. For one, we probably shouldn’t privatize juvenile incarceration. Doing so ignored another basic tenet of economics, people respond to incentives. Juvenile incarceration were sure to go up when someone stood to profit from it. This is the same tenet that Moore ignores when he argues the evils of capitalism and apologizes for socialism.
Overall, most of the people that see the movie will probably agree with it, because most of the people agree with Michael Moore. I don’t think anyone who studied economics will agree with it. Maybe I’m wrong. Moore has the courage to ask people tough questions. I admire that. I think I would have enjoyed the movie more if Moore had asked some questions of some people that didn’t agree with him. I think he’s become what Rush Limbaugh (or Glenn Beck) is to the right. For me, they’ve both become caricatures that I can’t take seriously. They’re two uneducated, extreme personalities that are good at gathering sheep to follow them. Whatever your politics are, think for yourself. If you end up seeing this movie, I’d love to hear what you think in the comments. If you both see this movie and studied economics, I’d really love to hear what you think. Thanks for reading.
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
Watching the movie, I felt like Moore was trying to hypnotize the audience with emotional appeals and feel-good platitudes about equality and community spirit, whilst ridiculing capitalism as an outdated and evil holdover from America’s unenlightened past. I agree with you completely that the film is far from a documentary and that it will be received with more public fervor than a serious examination would have been.
I also agreed that Moore’s challenges are difficult. Crony capitalism is a problem, and so is the privatization of jails. And all of the sob stories were genuinely sad. But addition to all evictions and layoffs, there was that third-act Obama plug, which really ticked me off because it used the audience’s sympathy for the American racial minority part of the film’s propaganda. Much of the audience in the theater with me were black and some of them were clapping at the end (including the girl next to me). I was thinking to myself: What can I say or do about this? How many of these (mostly young) people actually know more about the relationship between capitalism and democracy than what Moore has just shoved down their throats? How many of them will go out of this theater and support government policies that advocate forced charity, not seeing the fundamental paradox? How many have fallen for Moore’s emotional and race-driven smoke screens? Probably few, and even fewer amongst the Obama crowd and amongst minorities. The film really targets those audiences and tries to make it impossible for them to remain objective on the topics at hand.
I fear for my freedom. And I think the whole film attacked the wrong side of the problem of crony capitalism. What if the big-government evolution of democracy is the problem, and not capitalism?
You made the point I’ve been asserting about Michael Moore’s movies since Roger and Me.
His strength is in pulling on the heart strings with stories that encourage sympathy. However, he uses that smoke & mirrors tactic, in order to distract the audience from what he lacks – education and/or knowledge about the subject matter.
His movies are all one-sided. Every now and again, he’ll raise issues/questions that are worth discussing, but he doesn’t address them or remind the audience to seek the answers. He plays the blame game without cause and that’s why I can’t take him seriously.
Thanks for posting your opinion of his latest rant.
Paula
The problem with socialism is that it begins with an act of evil; namely forcing someone to do something which, were they free to choose, they would not otherwise do or taking from them something which they would not otherwise give. Mr. Moore enlists the assistance of the clergy in his film to confirm that capitalism is evil while at the same time conveniently ignoring the evils of his proposed alternative; namely socialism. I find this to be ironic because conspicuously missing from the passages Moore quotes from the bible is the admonition from Paul against the attitude, “let us do some evil now so that good may come of it later”.
This is a frequent tactic employed by Mr Moore in his films; he cherry picks situations or people that support his argument, presenting them in the best possible light, while ignoring completely the majority of cases which do not. Mr Moore should be careful what he wishes for when he promotes socialism as the “way forward” or as Winston Churchill said, “Capitalism is the worst system; except all of the others which have been tried.” Are there flaws in the present financial and monetary systems in the United States? Yes. Can they be fixed? I am not sure. Is socialism the answer to the financial crises? Absolutely not.
I am a pretty avid Michael Moore fan, but I never look to him for “news”, because I recognize his bias. I think he’s an entertaining filmmaker who, through his own agenda, can pull up some interesting points worth debating. I don’t look to his work as Gospel! In fact, as soon as I’m done with any of his films, I immediately look for rebuttles like this so I am fair to both sides of the argument.
At the start of the movie, when the sob stories were running, I’m touring their house saying to myself things like: OK, don’t buy a gun, don’t buy a ______ , etc if you can’t pay your bills. So I’m completely on board with you in the boat of: not pitying those who bite off more than they can chew.
However, I’ve got to say that mortgage lenders are pretty big crooks. Obviously those lenders can’t remain afloat, and it is not worth their time without banking some profit, but it really can be extortion, and they can get away with it because 90% of the population can’t do it any other way.
Even on a decent interest rate with ‘good credit’, you can’t pull off a 30 year, 200K mortgage without shelling out twice that. Sure, a shorter term would cut the total payment….a little….but if you’re just living by your means on this 30 year payment they’ve got you on *with or without catches*, how on earth are you supposed to make the 15 year rate and stay secure?
An average 200K, 30 year mortgage runs you about $1,100, but when you actually divide up the raw cost with no interest, the actual ‘worth’ is about $555 dollars/month. Even if you paid (the equivalent of) 150-200 dollars a month just in interest *I recognize that what is interest and what is equity changes over time, just think about design*…you suppose a working class family couldn’t find productive use for that extra $4,000+ a year?
And what’s your alternative to this system? Renting? Renting from landlords with multiple properties who have to cover their own costs off this lending system, so in order to cover their own extorted costs and make enough supplemental income for it to be a worthwhile venture, they have to set their rent high enough to be a LITTLE bit cheaper than buying. Unless of course they already have more than enough capital and don’t need to RELY on renting as income, but do so anyway because its an easy way to invest with great returns…to that I say ‘good for them’, but how does just anyone get ahead, then?
So of course….we’re pummeled with propaganda that ITS SMART TO BUY!! DONT THROW YOUR MONEY AWAY TO RENTALS THAT YOU’LL NEVER OWN!! ITS A BUYERS MARKET!! …..well sure it is, if you have enough money to buy the houses outright.
But how many people just looking for a nice, safe, modest home for their family are in position to do that? Few….so this “buyers market” stuff becomes propaganda for more honest families to buy into a mortgage (which the lenders profit a couple hundred thousand from, each), and really it only BENEFITS real estate investors with lots of personal capital, who I wouldn’t consider to be crooks if their prey were not victims of a corrupt, abusive system.
First, why don’t you think he understands economics when he is showing the effects of the system and that it has on the people in our country: you have people that win and people that lose. I’m not saying all the ways he showed that in the movie were okay but the basic principle is there: that we have enough to share the wealth so that people have somewhere to sleep, they have food to eat; so that everyone can enjoy equal standards – what’s the problem with that?
The fact that so many people are against the viewpoint in the movie is evident that capitalism is so engrained in how we were taught to live and think.
How do we change the system? It starts with leadership and how they are going to allocate money and if they are going to bail out the big businesses. Rent/housing ect. will all fall into place once CEO’s in charge of those business’s are making the same amount as police officers ect. – once everybody is above the poverty line…
We need to get rid of it at the top before we worry about how socialism will look like – and just because there are theories of how socialism is like doesn’t mean we can come up with our own system of making it work – why can’t we define socialism for our own country? Do we have to follow everything that it says in the books or can it really start with the well fare of everyone and making sure everyone has basic rights. The money/finance issue needs to be dealt with first which is what Micheal Moore made a point of saying about highlighting how the government has worked with big businesses to help us get to the mess where we are at today.
And the problem is that arn’t some points in economics based on the fact that you are living in a capitalist society? I don’t think we would have the theory – taking on larger amount of risks could allows for a greater amount of profits – if we were living in a socialist society because competition and making profits would not be the focus or purpose and it would not be something that would be taught in all of us to obtain from a young age. Of course that would only pertain to living in a capitalist society – taking on more risks for greater potential return.