My wife and I decided to see Michael Moore's latest movie this past Saturday afternoon. Neither of us is overly active politically although we are of course very interested in the economy as well as curious about various points of view. Mr. Moore has always been controversial, at least to the majority of Republicans and certainly to conservative talking heads. But I found his old TV show, Real Life or something like that, very funny. He's always funny when interviewed and besides, only the truly wise look at all sides of issues. Only the narrow minded cling to their own idealogy or dogma in the face of criticism.
Although the title is Capitalism, I had no advance knowledge of the movie's theme. Was it going to be an argument against the economic theory of capitalism or a defense of socialism? Actually, I believe its mostly an indictment of greed and the profit motive as the cause of our society's downfall, and the financial meltdown of 2008. If that qualifies as being anti-capitalistic then I suppose he's achieved his goal.
The main theme of the movie is that this era of greed, started in the Reagan years, culminated in the meltdown. Along the way the wealthy saw their taxes cut down from 90% (which paid for most civil projects by the way) and corporate profits were inflated while thousands were laid off. Moore uses many powerful examples of the pain caused by greed to support his theme
* Rome fell due to the wide disparity between the rich and poor. I can accept this.
* Moore blames the failure of GM on capitalistic greed. If that is what made them make shoddy products in the face of Japanese competition without dealing with their cost problems then I can agree with that. However, I've followed the car industry since the '80's and remember one folly after another. (Pontiac Aztek anyone? K-Car? GM X-car? GM diesels?)
* Wall Street controls the Presidency (a clip of Donald Regan admonishing Ronald Reagan is priceless)
* A family thrown out of their farmhouse because their loan payment went from $1500 to over $2700. Moore doesn't explain what caused their loan to adjust. I guess the implication is that some predatory lender swindled them into an awful loan. I agree these folks were probably victimized and lured into a loan product that was terrible for them.
* So-called "Dead Peasants" insurance. Apparently your employer can take out a policy (or place a bet) that a certain number of employees will die. This makes sense from a statistical standpoint and surprisingly it doesn't seem to be illegal. The whole concept definitely seems unethical though. He used Wal-Mart as one illustration. The closing credits stated that Wal-Mart has now reversed this practice. This was a very troubling part of the movie.
* The employees of Republic Windows in Chicago staged a sit-in to protest Bank of America shutting down their company. This part was inspiring. I agree that the banks were protecting their profits while driving people out into the streets. BofA should have worked more with the company to extend their credit and the company should have given their employees ample warning of a a shut down.
* A homeless family in Miami decided to occupy their former house. It is heartbreaking to see families living in a truck while houses sit idle. They were probably victimized by a predatory lender as well. Their lender should have worked harder to come up with a solution for them. There should be more loan modifications and fewer foreclosures. Were they right to break back into their house? No. But this is not a singular problem. Their whole neighborhood was in foreclosure. Clearly something larger is at stake than just one house.
* Moore makes a leap though to claim that the Obama wave was driven by the "have nots" or the downtrodden and disenfranchised railing against the rich. Obama had a lot of rich supporters including Warren Buffet and Bill Gates. I think the Obama wave was mostly a social revolution IN ADDITION TO anti-George Bush backlash. You have to admit Bush's wars, bumbling ways, and alienation of practically the entire world made him extremely unpopular. Despite that Obama's win was not an overwhelming mandate. Certainly class uprising was a factor but don't discount anti-Bush, anti-Conservative sentiment and the desire among the liberal factions to make a statement about our country be electing a minority president. Look at the HUGE financial juggernaut behind Obama. Remember the $25,000 a plate dinner that Barbra Streisand hosted? What about Oprah's refusal to give air time to the other side? I am glad about the revolution and I am glad he is the President but let's not make his victory more than it was.
All in all I believe Moore accomplished what a good storyteller or movie maker should. He makes you think. He exposes the evil that most folk think just can't be out there. He makes the statement that capitalism is evil which I don't think he proves conclusively. But he definitely shows that evil is out there in the corporate world and that it is beyond time for people to recognize it and fight it. Something has to be done and he doesn't say that it needs to be communism or socialism, but right now we have greed, unregulated greed, running amuck. We have wall street honchos (such as Henry Paulson, worth $700million) operating at the highest levels of our government. In this, I have to agree with Moore that something must be changed.
