Judged purely as entertainment, CAPITALISM is an easy A. Michael Moore has a knack for blending humor with tragedy.
However, this is a pseudo-documentary (more like video op-ed) about politics, economics, and modern American culture. So, I have to judge it also based on the arguments presented. As such, it's just a B-.
The problem with this movie is while it does expose 'the haves' for their excesses, corruption, and greed, it doesn't turn the same camera on the protagonists in this film - 'the have-nots.' Consider the case of the family who is being evicted from their house, even being paid to essentially work as the cleaning crew for their foreclosure. The father describes how their mortgage payment went from $1700 to I believe over $2500. Moore fails to illustrate the fact that this couple had clearly signed up for an ARM - adjustable rate mortgage. They had the opportunity to lock in a fixed rate and chose otherwise. In this case, as in thousands of cases around the country, the homeowner has chosen to gamble, no differently than the Wall Street folks Moore condemns. He could argue that mortgage brokers didn't give its customers the best advice. But, that's like saying a car salesman didn't explain to me the benefits of owning a hatchback. They are all just salesmen. Only a lazy consumer listens and follows everything a salesman says.
Further, while discussing how the Reagon era brought some terrible economic changes not the least of which was increased consumer debt, he never explores why normal people decided to rack up that debt on unnecessary consumer purchases. Lenders can only be blamed for so much. Predatory lending? Sure. But, even if they gave out 0% home equity loans and credit cards, it wouldn't address the fact that people were living beyond their means. No one saved. And, you can't blame any bank for that.
Moore's exposure of the inherent corruption involved with the bailout bill passed just this past November was excellent and by far the highlight of the film. Not to discount the human element of the earlier scenes, but his account of just how deeply involved current/former Goldman Sachs executives where in the construction and execution of this bill really illustrates his core argument that 'the haves' are able to steal from the 'have-nots' with little to no repercussion.
Nevertheless, his conclusion (and that of several featured clergymen) that capitalism is inherently evil is false. Unregulated capitalism perhaps. But, unregulated anything can be evil. Capitalism is actually more democratic than our democracy. Remember, we are a republic. We don't vote on issues - we vote for people who vote on issues. But, capitalism allows everyone the ability to make a profit equally (though it can be argued that access to education and credit may not be). Similarly, we each have a power as a consumer to vote with our dollars. This is something Moore failed to delve into - the idea that a consumer is actually more powerful than a voter. Anyone could decide tomorrow to stop shopping at Wal-Mart. It would be almost impossible for any organization/corporation/government to corrupt this simple relationship. You can pay off politicians. But, you can't really force people to pay someone for goods/services if they don't want to. Even with all their wealth, the top 1% can't make up much more than 5% of consumer spending. In this respect, they are economically powerless.
Capitalism is not the problem. Corruption is. Moore asks the question, what would Jesus think of capitalism? I think he would be indifferent. Socio-economic systems are just tools to be used. It's like asking what he'd think about knives. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't want anyone to stab each other. But, it'd be nice to have when making a meal. Of course he'd be disappointed by the sight of someone losing their house. But, I think he'd be equally disappointed in the people who have lost the home. Greed is not a luxury of the rich. It's practiced by normal, working people everyday.
However, this is a pseudo-documentary (more like video op-ed) about politics, economics, and modern American culture. So, I have to judge it also based on the arguments presented. As such, it's just a B-.
The problem with this movie is while it does expose 'the haves' for their excesses, corruption, and greed, it doesn't turn the same camera on the protagonists in this film - 'the have-nots.' Consider the case of the family who is being evicted from their house, even being paid to essentially work as the cleaning crew for their foreclosure. The father describes how their mortgage payment went from $1700 to I believe over $2500. Moore fails to illustrate the fact that this couple had clearly signed up for an ARM - adjustable rate mortgage. They had the opportunity to lock in a fixed rate and chose otherwise. In this case, as in thousands of cases around the country, the homeowner has chosen to gamble, no differently than the Wall Street folks Moore condemns. He could argue that mortgage brokers didn't give its customers the best advice. But, that's like saying a car salesman didn't explain to me the benefits of owning a hatchback. They are all just salesmen. Only a lazy consumer listens and follows everything a salesman says.
Further, while discussing how the Reagon era brought some terrible economic changes not the least of which was increased consumer debt, he never explores why normal people decided to rack up that debt on unnecessary consumer purchases. Lenders can only be blamed for so much. Predatory lending? Sure. But, even if they gave out 0% home equity loans and credit cards, it wouldn't address the fact that people were living beyond their means. No one saved. And, you can't blame any bank for that.
Moore's exposure of the inherent corruption involved with the bailout bill passed just this past November was excellent and by far the highlight of the film. Not to discount the human element of the earlier scenes, but his account of just how deeply involved current/former Goldman Sachs executives where in the construction and execution of this bill really illustrates his core argument that 'the haves' are able to steal from the 'have-nots' with little to no repercussion.
Nevertheless, his conclusion (and that of several featured clergymen) that capitalism is inherently evil is false. Unregulated capitalism perhaps. But, unregulated anything can be evil. Capitalism is actually more democratic than our democracy. Remember, we are a republic. We don't vote on issues - we vote for people who vote on issues. But, capitalism allows everyone the ability to make a profit equally (though it can be argued that access to education and credit may not be). Similarly, we each have a power as a consumer to vote with our dollars. This is something Moore failed to delve into - the idea that a consumer is actually more powerful than a voter. Anyone could decide tomorrow to stop shopping at Wal-Mart. It would be almost impossible for any organization/corporation/government to corrupt this simple relationship. You can pay off politicians. But, you can't really force people to pay someone for goods/services if they don't want to. Even with all their wealth, the top 1% can't make up much more than 5% of consumer spending. In this respect, they are economically powerless.
Capitalism is not the problem. Corruption is. Moore asks the question, what would Jesus think of capitalism? I think he would be indifferent. Socio-economic systems are just tools to be used. It's like asking what he'd think about knives. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't want anyone to stab each other. But, it'd be nice to have when making a meal. Of course he'd be disappointed by the sight of someone losing their house. But, I think he'd be equally disappointed in the people who have lost the home. Greed is not a luxury of the rich. It's practiced by normal, working people everyday.