I assigned my students to see Michael Moore's new movie "Capitalism: A Love Story", so I also had to see it. I also purchased and viewed "Broke" a movie that was supposed to counter Moore's. It is hard to even describe how misinformed Moore is. He even says capitalism should be replaced by democracy. Since when is capitalism a form of fovernment or democracy a description of an economic system? But oh well, there are just too many errors and misconceptions in the movie to describe. There are anecdotal sob stories that are never connected to capitalism or to anything. They are just sad stories. There is one funny point, where Moore is trying to have someone describe derivatives to him. He is totally bewildered -- of course he is in general but this is funny. There is one good point, when Moore skewers Chris Dodd for his favoratism as a Friend of Anthony.
So I rushed home to wash out my mind by watching "Broke". Unfortunately, it was boring and not much of a counter to Moore. It did fairly represent the fact that we make decisions often to go along with the herd, and this often leads to bubbles. So, perhaps the message is personal responsibility. I like that message, but it is not stirring or hard hitting enough.
I found it quite scary that the audience to Moore's move applauded when the movie was over. Perhaps they were just happy the long boring diatribe was done, but somehow I think not.
I am curious what my students thought of Moore's movie. I will relay that in a later post.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Boyes extends a point I raised in a previous post dealing with the civility of discourse over role of markets and freedom in society.
ReplyDeletehttp://libertyandresponsibility.blogspot.com/2009/09/proponents-of-true-capitalism-have.html
I am rereading Samuel Gregg's excellent book - The Commercial Society and he articulates civility, commercial society, the connection between the two with an emphasis on the moral nature of a commercial society.
It seems to me that Boyes is underscoring (if the sample at the Moore screening is a representative one) represents a decline in civility in Gregg's sense of the word as well as the impact, anticipated by Adam Smith, of the decline in cognitive ability associated with the division of labor on the masses.
So, this increases the responsibility of those of us who are in contact with young people to work toward civil discourse.
Boyes is to be applauded for exposing his students to a popular example of declining civility (as well as shoddy thinking) and to open a civil discussion with the goal of an ongoing dialogue.
It will be through dialogue and example that the commercial society will survive.
Gregg underscores the importance of tolerance in The Commercial Society. I can't help but think of Milton Friedman's obervation that free societies protect discourse such as Moore, Emma Goldman, or Alexander Berkman - while totalitarian states prohibit such discourse.