Filmmaker Michael Moore has recently squatted down and dropped another steamy pile of “documentary” into the can. His new film is an attack on Capitalism which I have not seen and don’t plan to see. Because I have not seen it, this article will not be an attack on the content of the movie. I will give Moore the benefit of the doubt and assume that he has abandoned his previous techniques — sensational and sophomoric attacks — and has decided to finally become a true seeker of the truth.
I assume he went to the Mises Institute to interview Lew Rockwell, Jr. and discuss the economic theories of Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, and Murray Rothbard. I’m sure Moore provided an in-depth argument explaining why prices should be determined by the Labor Theory of Value and not by supply and demand in a laissez faire system. Moore no doubt backed up his arguments with Rockwell with volumes of evidence to show how planned economies have outperformed free economies.
While at the Mises Institute, Moore probably sat down with Thomas Woods, author of Meltdown, since Moore’s movie is supposed to be a look at Capitalism’s role in the financial collapse. They surely discussed the Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle and the role of interest rates in the market. They probably also discussed the role of the Federal Reserve in inflating the money supply and artificially setting interest rates and how that caused the housing bubble. Moore no doubt was able to show how it was capitalism that caused these problems and not the manipulation of the market by the Federal Reserve, government-owned enterprises like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and government action such as the Community Reinvestment Act. Moore also probably pointed out how the Stimulus and all of the bailouts have saved capitalism just like the New Deal “saved” it in the 1930’s.
After Moore’s intellectual debates with Rockwell and Woods, he probably hopped aboard the Amtrak and rode with the “common people” down to California to meet with Yaron Brook from the Ayn Rand Institute, to discuss the moral and philosophical implications of capitalism as explained by Ayn Rand’s Objectivism vs. Marxist and Rousseauian Socialism. Moore obviously made reasoned and logical arguments for why the ideas that people should be “forced to be free” and goods should be distributed “to each according to his need, from each according to his ability” are morally and philosophically superior to ideas like voluntary cooperation and working in one’s self-interest.
I’m sure that he didn’t resort to his usual tactics and stand in front of AIG with a megaphone shouting that he “is making a citizens arrest of the board of directors…” Oh wait, he did that in the trailer?!? I’m sure that was just to attract an audience, but the rest of the movie will be full of facts, logic, and deeply thought-provoking arguments.
Anyway, what I really want to know is, how is he going to handle ticket sales, and how will he pay his employees? After all, profit is bad, and Moore is the defender of the “common man” (i.e. the proletariat.) Perhaps he is going to use Marx’s Labor Theory of Value when deciding how much tickets should cost and how much his employees should be paid. Will people have to bring a pay stub and their recent tax return to determine their ability to pay? Will they also need to bring proof of their political and economic affiliations to show their “need”? Obviously libertarians and objectivists are the most in “need” of watching this movie since we are the ignorant masses that still believe that capitalism is the only way to ensure individual rights and liberty. Conservatives will have to pay slightly more, and progressives and socialists will pay the most (unless they are poor) since they don’t even “need” to watch this movie. How will we determine “need” vs. “ability”? How much would a rich conservative pay? Would a poor libertarian actually make money if they go? A rich progressive would have to sign over the lease on his Prius for a ticket. And how will Moore determine the cost of the labor applied to making the movie by his cameraman, writers, producers, grips, editors, etc.? How much is he going to pay himself? Is he making the same amount as the cameraman?
Or does this movie belong to the people (read: State)? How can Michael Moore claim any ownership of this film? Film is art and art belongs to the people, right? How very greedy of Mr. Moore to try to keep this movie to himself AND to make money off it! He should sign ownership of this movie over to the people of the world, and give all the money he has made from this movie and any of his other films to the government. Once he has signed over all of his property, he should work in whatever job the collective decides would most help the collective (the show Dirty Jobs has some great ideas), send all of that money to the government and sign up for welfare and Medicaid, so the government can take care of him just like in his favorite country, Cuba.
Todd Hollenbeck is a weekly contributor to The D.C. Writeup.
Loading ...
September 25th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Ohh!! You said a dirty word (socialism).
Oh, come on. Why must neo-conservatives use “dirty words” to get attention. By the way, an Amtrak trip is usually very relaxing.
I’m no socialist. But the “dirty word” game is a bit tiring.
Regards,
A J Cabal
Auburn, NY
[Reply to this Comment]
September 26th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
AJ Cabal: Why must every person who sees socialism and says, “Hey, thats socialism!” be labeled a neo-con using a dirty word? Maybe because it is impossibly difficult to attack the message in this case, so you are left with a feeble attempt to discredit the messenger. If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, clearly its Michael Moore spewing more socialist nonsense. In an ideal world no one would want to see this movie, since it requires giving money to a hypocrite promoting a failed ideology. Unfortunately there is you.
[Reply to this Comment]
October 23rd, 2009 at 1:46 am
Mr. Hollenbeck wrote an outstanding satire of the inane, unscientific, uninterested-in-truth approach of Moore, compared to how an honest, intellectual leftist (if such were possible) who really wanted to understand capitalism would approach the subject, and whom such a person would seek to debate.
[Reply to this Comment]