Without any consideration of the fundamental inequality engendered by treating the natural resources of the world as the property of the few, and not of all of us, there will be more housing bubbles, more oil bubbles, and other ultimately empty derivative bubbles. True, derivatives make these much worse, but you can't build a skyscraper without a basement, and here the basement is the collection of rent by private parties, not by the people. That is the foundation for the corruption built on top, no matter how towering the edifice.
Watching Capitalism, like watching the comtempory American economy, leaves one feeling like the American Bus has run out of gas, and more and more passengers are being forced to get out and push it up an ever-increasing hill, leaving fewer and fewer inside to ride as the � ���"Elite� �� � passengers. Capitalists, in Moore's world, seem only able to concoct schemes to move one pile of money onto their own pile, without actually producing anything of value along the way. It is not a zero sum game, it is a minus sum game, where the scams and bailouts steadily, and increasingly rapidly, diminish us all by indebting us, and making us distrustful � ��" hopefully, the real power believes, of each other.
But what George taught us 130 years ago still holds true; it is not the Country that is poor, it is the People. There is more than enough wealth in the land, when brought out by labor, to support us all � ��" but only if you break the monopoly of it and allow the true source of wealth to be distributed to us all. Although Moore reads � ��" correctly � ��" that the Constitution says nothing about basing the economy on Capitalism, he somehow missed Article One, Section 8, where it says that � ���"The Congress shall have Power"To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin"� �� � It's surprising that during Moore's screed against outsourcing, he missed this earliest and most damaging act of privatizing the very act of making money - relegating the U.S. Mint to a quaint institution worthy of little more than serving as the destination for children's school trips and as a source of State quarters for coin collectors.
Instead, Moore leaves us with a disdainful choice, though he never quite comes out and declares it: Capitalism vs. Socialism. His mocking portrayal of Socialism in purposely dated film clips of goose-stepping, state-worshipping parades will, unfortunately, strike some people as close to the mark � ��" though I doubt they are the ones who go to see his movies anyway. Still, even the most sympathetic viewer will be left wondering, well, didn't we already try Socialism, and didn't that lead to unproductivity, however much it may, or may not, have bolstered human rights and equality? It is perhaps not Moore's job to Lead the Way, but if not him, then who? Our leaders are funded by, or directly come from, Goldman Sachs � ��" a fact Moore does point out.
Seeing Capitalism, we are still stuck on the same two-dimensional line with Moore, he towards the left. Like the geometrical denizens of another movie, � ���"Flatland,� �� � we cannot see what is above us because we can only move along a plane, never looking up (or, really a line). This political economy teeter-totter � ��" a little raise for the ordinary people = a little dip for productivity and innovation - leaves us winded and sore, and just wishing we could step off. Even many of the � ���"evil rich� �� � might wish to step off, after having lost 30% of their equity in the latest crash, and perhaps being behind like the rest of us, after ten years in which the markets went nowhere. Moore misses an ironic opportunity to show that this so-called system-for-the-rich doesn't even work by their standards, in most cases. Yes, the top 1% make off with far too much of the spoils, but the overall wealth of the country is being lowered, sold, or squandered. The Power-Elites are left gobbling a larger piece of a shrinking pie, even while pursuing policies that make the pie shrink further.
Moore misses other opportunities to unite the so-called left and the so-called right. (Quick: Was bailing out the large banks something favored by Conservatives or Progressives? Well, both Conservative George Bush and Progressive Barack Obama pursued the same policy, while liberal Michael Moore and Arch-Conservative Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) argued against it, though, in Moore's case, it is merely implied. Again, we are left wondering what, exactly does Moore want to do differently?)
But, there is a third way, neither left nor right, nor some muddled middle; a way outside the bi-polar plane, if only we, or our designated storytellers, like Moore, could lift our eyes upward towards George.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
3
1
1
