Capitalism: A Love Story (dir. Michael Moore, 2010) - Movie Review Example

Capitalism, A Love Story In the movie Capitalism: A Love Story, Michael Moore, the filmmaker, shows how greed and different policies which have been implemented in the United States, especially since Ronald Reagan, have destroyed the American Dream. Since 1980, unions have been busted, taxes have been cut for the very wealthy, and banks were deregulated. All of these policies have worked together to bring what we have now – stagnant wages, high unemployment, people losing their homes, and an overall sense that the rich are getting richer and the rest of us are getting the shaft. This essay will look critically at this documentary. First of all, it's obvious that Michael Moore is very critical of supply side economics, which refers to the economic policy invented by Ronald Reagan in the early 1980s. Bartlett (2009) states that, even though he was in the Reagan administration, and helped to usher in the tax cuts in the 1980s, it was obvious that these tax cuts did not work for the long term. He felt that John Maynard Keynes was the economist who thought most deeply about the problems that were facing the economy, and Keynes' prescription for the economy is the opposite of what Reagan prescribed. He felt that Keynes understood the monetary origins of the Great Depression from day one, but that Keynes could not make the policy makers go through with his recommendations. The simple idea behind Keynsian economics is that budget deficits stimulate growth and inflation is caused by low unemployment. Therefore, Keynes would say that we should not reduce taxes and spending, but that we should spend more. Ronald Reagan instituted a directly opposite policy of this policy, as he instituted not just tax cuts, but also cuts in spending and deregulation (Jacob, 1985). And, as Robert Reich (2009) explained, the tax cuts did a lot of the people at the top of the ladder, as their wealth grew exponentially since 1980. However, unfortunately, everybody else's wealth either stagnated or actually suffered a reduction. This was one of the central themes of the movie. The basic theme is that the rich got richer, and the poor got the shaft. He shows this, time and again, in scene after scene, the effect of this. He begins the documentary by showing a family that is about to be kicked out of their home by the sheriff. Then he remembers the days when he was young, and there were good jobs to be had, and middle class prosperity, and the cars that were being made in Detroit powered the economy. He did mention that one of the reasons why there were such good jobs in Detroit is because Germany and Japan were in shambles, but the main thing that he was trying to get across is that our economy doesn't work when the wealth is concentrated at the very top. Another point that he made was that the blacks had a more difficult time existing in today's economy than did whites. This was a subtle point that he made, as he didn't come right out and say this, as he might have. But many of the people that he showed who were struggling were African-American. These were the people, by and large, who were left behind in Katrina, and these were the people who were shown trying to get by on meager wages. Gradin (2010) states that African Americans in America are at more of a disadvantage than are whites, because they are suffering from having gone to bad schools and they also tend to have more children than whites. Their wages are lower, as they are more likely to work in a service industry, where the wages are extremely low. Gradin (2010) further states that one of the reasons why blacks have lower socioeconomic statuses than do whites is because of the decline of unionism over the years. This is another major point that Michael Moore touched upon – he stated that unions used to be the backbone of the country, and he blamed the lack of unionism for the decline of the car industry. He states that Japan and Germany, who have strong unions and, at least in the case of Germany, the workers have so much power that they have the ability to hire and fire the Board of Directors, make better cars. Cars which are cheaper, more fuel efficient, and safer than American cars. This is partially because of unionism. Also, Moore showed examples where workers were taken advantage of, like the workers who went on strike in Chicago, and won their demands. This is something that wouldn't happen if the unions were strong, because unions have the ability to make things better for the workers, and the unions keep the corporate power in check, so that the corporations cannot take advantage of their workers, like they are able to do right now. Kalleberg (2011) states that unionism has suffered a decline in the past thirty years, beginning with Ronald Reagan. This is consistent with what Michael Moore showed. Furthermore, Kalleberg (2011) states that there has been an overall problem with employment, in that too many employers have attempted to cut costs on the backs of workers. That is, they are too quick to cut their staff and decrease their employees on the books, and this has led to a great transfer of wealth from the workers to the people at the top of the corporate food chain. In other words, this widespread policy that too many employers have of laying off workers is the cause of our wealth inequality in this nation. This is also a central theme of the documentary. The documentary started with the fall of Rome. One of the reasons why it fell was because there was such great wealth inequality, and they had the haves and the have nots. Then Michael Moore rhetorically asks what people thousands of years would be saying about our society, the society of the United States of America in the modern era. Would they be saying the same thing about us? That our great society fell because of wealth inequality? Then Moore made the point about how most of the wealth was going to the people at the very top of food chain, income-wise, ever since Ronald Reagan. One of the reasons for this is because employers pay their workers too little, and are too quick to cut their forces when things get rough. This puts more people out of work, but it increases the corporate profits, so that the rich continue to get richer. Finally, Moore also emphasized the devastating effect that the bank collapse has had on everyday people. Several times he mockingly goes to the bank headquarters with a bullhorn and states that he is there to make a citizens arrest. He puts a yellow crime scene tape around the building. He gets on a bullhorn and demands that they come out to answer for their crimes. Plus, he shows how people are hurt, were hurt by what happened. He talked to a bank officer who states that 80% of all lending fraud was because of the banks, not because of the people getting loans. He looks at people who lost their homes because of bad loans, which often had balloon payment and interest rates that shot up, making their payments unmanageable and led to the banks foreclosing on their homes. These are the people who were hurt, and there were many more throughout the film. This is all confirmed by Kindleberger (2011), who notes that the 2008 financial collapse was the result of complicated issues that the bank undertook, including credit default swaps and other risky moves. Moore attempts to explain this in laymen's terms, but it is still very difficult to understand. Conclusion Overall, Moore did an excellent job of skewering the policies which are espoused, and continue to be espoused, by the Republican party of today. This party continues to advocate for failed policies which are found in this film. He shows how the American Dream has died, and he does this with humor and satire, as well as pathos. He shows the people affected, he talks to some of the decisionmakers, he displays the policies which have brought us here. If there is one complaint, it is that he spent a little bit too much time talking about how corporations take out life insurance policies on their employees. I am not sure why this even matters, as there is no indication that the employers did anything wrong in doing this. Yes, it seems somewhat morbid to essentially be betting on your employees to die, and it is unseemly to be making money off these employees dying, but there really isn't anything wrong this, in my opinion. However, I felt that the rest of the documentary is spot-on, and shows why we need more progressive politics in this country. We need stronger unions, higher wages, more regulations and more taxes. Like we had during our time of prosperity, the 1950s, which was also shown by Moore. These are the only ways that American can get back on its feet and have a growing economy that lasts. References Bartlett, B. (2009). The new American economy: the failure of Reaganomics and a new way forward. Macmillan. Gradin, C. (2012). Poverty among minorities in the United States: Explaining the racial poverty gap for Blacks and Latinos. Applied Economics, 44(29), 3793-3804. Jacob, C. E. (1985). Reaganomics: The Revolution in American Political Economy. Law and Contemporary Problems, 48(4), 7-30. Kindleberger, C. P., & Aliber, R. Z. (2011). Manias, panics and crashes: a history of financial crises. Palgrave Macmillan. Reich, R. B. (2009). Obamanomics Isn’t About Big Government. Wall Street Journal. Kalleberg, A. L. (2011). Good jobs, bad jobs: The rise of polarized and precarious employment systems in the United States, 1970s-2000s. Russell Sage Foundation. Read More