Capitalismâ€a Propaganda Story Essay

Michael Moore is the Leni Riefenstahl of our time. Or, perhaps he would be numberter characterized as a Bizzaro land Leni Riefenstahl, because while she propped up with propaganda the political powers of her time, Moore uses the identical techniques to bring down the powers of our time, be it GM (Roger and Me), the gun lobby (Bowling for Columbine), the government (Fahrenheit 911), the strongness c ar industry (Sicko), or part with enterprise (capitalist economy A Love Story).In this latest inst every(prenominal)ment in his continuing series of whats wrong with America, Michael Moore consequences beat at his too largegest target to date, and the result is a disaster. The documentary is non nearly as mutantny as his previous films, the symphony selections unwrapm design and flat, and the edits and transitions be clumsy, wooden, and not nearly as effective as what weve happen to expect from the premiere documentarian (Ken burn down notwithstanding) of our time. And, most importantly, the films exchange thesis is so bad that its not even wrong.First, let me avouch that even though I shed disagreed with most of Michael Moores politics and economicals throughout his course, I accept well enjoyed his films as skilled and effective whole kit and caboodle of art and propaganda, never failing to gag or be emotionally agitated at all the places audiences are cued to do so. My willing suspension of disbelief that enables me to halt so such(prenominal) pleasure from over represents of fiction, does not always serve me well when pulled into the narrative arc of a documentary. olibanum it is that with his past films I bugger off exited the theater of operations infuriated at the uniform things Moore is until I rolled up my sleeves and did some circumstance checking of my own, at which point Moores theses black market (with the possible notwithstandingion of Bowling for Columbine, his handsomest work in my opinion). hardly with ca pitalism A Love Story, Moores propagandistic h doddering are so transparent and contrived that I never was able to set aside disbelief.What was especially infuriating about Capitalism A Love Story was the interposition of the multitude at the bottom c lackdown of the economic spectrum. The film is anchored on 2 legal ouster stories contrived to pull at the heart strings. One family filmed the eviction process themselves and sent the footage to Moore in hopes hed use it ( legion(predicate) are called, fewer are chosen), and the other was filmed by Moores crew. The message of both is de stretch outred with a sledge hammer Greedy abuse Soul-Sucking Bankers (think Li angiotensin-converting enzymel Barry more(prenominal)s villainous Mr. Potter in Its a Wonderful Life) are tossing out onto the streets of America poor naive families who are victims of circumstances not of their making. wherefore? First, because this is what Greedy Evil Soul-Sucking Bankers do for fun on weekends. Two, because the economic crisis caused solely by said bevelers has make it impossible for families to understand the payments on those subprime brings they were tricked into taking by those same bankers, who themselves were suckered into a Ponzi- resembling scheme cooked up by Alan Greenspan and his Wall Street/Federal keep back buddies to confine back the folks fully possess by (first) the remote and ( in that respectfore) the poor. In the fine issue that the bankers carefully slipped past the elderly and the poor for these second mortgages and subprime loans, the contracts said that the place on variable rate loans could go up, and that the signaling was indirect for the loan such that if the loan payments are not made the station is subject to foreclosure and repossession by the bank (which is what the bankers are hoping snuff its).In Michael Moores worldview, a goodly portion of the Ameri move the great unwashed are ignorant, untaught, clueless pinheads too di m to realize the fundamental principle of a loan you surrender to have collateral to secure the loan No collateral, no loan. You say to the banker I would like to take out a loan. The banker says to you what do you have for collateral? What happened in the housing wave was that bankers relaxed their standards for what they would require for collateral (and income, assets, etc.) because (1) the government t octogenarian them to do so and promised to cover their losings if it didnt work out, and (2) they wanted to make more money and borrowers wanted in on the cash cow that everyone was milking, from individual house flippers looking for a quick buck, to general families wanting extra cash for remodeling, tuition, or whatever, to mortgage giants wanting corporate expansion. And all were driven by the same motivating greedYes, greed. Those evicted families k forward-looking perfectly well what they were doing when they withdrawly chose to climb onto the housing bubble and take it for a ride. I have a oft higher view of the American public than does Michael Moore. I dont think the American multitude are so stupid or uneducated that they didnt know what they were doing. This wasnt rocket engine science. It was even on television, the ne electropositive ultra of pop culture I well remember watching A & Es television series Flip This House, and reading all those magazine publisher articles and get-rich-quick books on how to make a result in the real estate market, and mentation wow, everyones getting rich except me how can I get in on the action?What I felt is, Im sure, what lots of people felt. I looked into securing a second mortgage on my cornerstone in rewrite to build a second home on an undeveloped portion of my hillside property, and then selling it to turn a neaten profit. Everyone was doing it. What could go wrong? Well, for starters I thought, what if it takes long-term to build the home than I intercommunicate? We all know how slow social organization projects can be. Could I make the payments on the second mortgage for an additional 6 months to a year? And what if I couldnt sell that second home? Could I make the payments on the new loan indefinitely? What if my income decreased instead of increased, like it was at the time (and, subsequently, did dramatically). And what would happen if I couldnt make the payments? The root was obvious, and it wasnt in the fine print I could lose my primary home. go out that Making a profit on a second home would be nice, but losing my first home would scandalise well more than twice as much as making a profit on the second home would feel good. Thats a staple fibre principle of risk aversion losses hurt twice as much as gains feel good. Now, Im not really a risk-averse true cat (I gave up a secure career as a college professor for an equivocal career as a source and publisher), but even I could see the constitutive(a) risks involved when the home you live in could be take n away. My hillside cadaver sagebrush and wild grass.What about the people on the other end of the economic spectrum the bankers and Wall Street moguls? Why arent they being evicted. Now, given that Im a libertarian, you might expect me to come to the defense of Corporate America. Not so. hither I am in exhaust agreement with Michael Moore that, as Ive been locution since the day it was first pronounced, too big to fail is the great myth of our time. none of these giant corporations GM, AIG, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, et al. should have been bailed out. In fact, they should have been allowed to fail, their stocks go into the toilet, their employees tossed out on to the gilded streets of lower Manhattan, and their CEOs dispersed to work as greeting clerks at Walmart.They gambled and bemused on all those securities, bundled securities, derivatives, credit slight swaps, and other financial tools that Ill bet not one in a hundred Wall Street experts truly understands. If y ou really believe in free enterprise, you must accept the freedom to lose everything on such gambles. These CEOs and their corporate lackeys are nothing more than welfare promote who adhere to the motto in simoleons were capitalists, in losses were socialists. Sorry guys, you cant have it both ways without corrupting your morals, which you have, on with the politicians youve bribed, cajoled and otherwise coerced to your bidding.The settlement? I have some suggestions of my own, but Michael Moores solution is beyond bizarre replace capitalism with country. Uh? Replace an economic system with a political system? Even the ber broad(a) flyer Maher was baffled by that one when he hosted Moore on his HBO show. How does a democracy produce automobiles and computers and search engines? It doesnt. It cant.Capitalism A Love Story, ends with a unparalleled film clip that Moore discovered of chairwoman Franklin Roosevelt reading from his never proposed second Bill of Rights (he died sh ortly by and by and the document died with him). include in the list areThe safe to a useful and remunerative barter in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation The beneficial to earn adequacy to provide capable food and wearing and recreation The right of every sodbuster to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an halo of freedom from unfair competition and supremacy by monopolies at home or abroad The right of every family to a decent homeThe right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to extend to and enjoy good health The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment The right to a good education.Thats nice. To this list I would add a computer in every home with wireless Internet access. Im sure we could all think of many more things under which a new basis of security and prosper ity can be established for all no matter of station, race, or creed, in Roosevelts words. But there is one question leave unstated Who is going to pay for it? If there is no capitalism, from where will the wealth be generated to pay for all these wonderful things? How much does a decent home cost these days, anyway?Do you see the inherent contradiction? Of course you do. So does Michael Moore, who elsewhere in the film longs for the good old days when the rich were taxed 90% of their earnings. So did Willie Sutton, who answered a similar question after being nabbed by the FBI during the Great opinion and asked by a reporter why he robs banks Because thats where the money is.