Capitalism: A Love Story
Capitalism is the best economic system in the world...or is it?
Whether you love or hate Michael Moore, his films always have a way of reaching the masses. Michael Moore's newest documentary goes over the economic recession due to capitalism, and how the government has done little to nothing over the years to help the middle class citizens of America. At the beginning of the documentary, he makes a brief comparison of our society to the once great Rome, back in Julius Caesar's time, on how that government had fallen due to corruption. Like all of Moore's other films, this movie primarily serves his own political views and agendas, while ignoring certain facts that would make this movie, an otherwise unbiased documentary. "Capitalism: A Love Story" goes over various historical events from the Ronald Reagon era all the way to the ending presidential era of George W. Bush, and how the downward economy has affected so many industries and middle class citizens. Showing the catastrophic effects of the recession from a small personal level, where a family is evicted out of their home, to a bunch of employees getting laid off without any compensation, as they're forced to strike. Indeed, this is probably one of Moore's most detailed documentary, I've ever seen. As he not only goes over the corruption of capitalism, within the United States, he also talks about how the government has been corrupted, as they've been bought out by corporate America. Moore shows how they constantly find ways to screw over the working class. Using various tactics from "dead peasant insurance", to using religion to justify their acts. Although Michael Moore continues to make these documentaries in a rather controversial way, while never providing a clear answer to the problem itself, he always manages to ask the right questions. Sometimes, just asking the right questions might be all we need to find the right answers. From talking to various people, many find Moore's views rather controversial and unfounded due to his tactics. However, what I find amusing is that these same people are the ones giving him that power to be heard. Overall, "Capitalism: A Love Story" is one of the most detailed yet controversial documentaries ever made.
Like I said before, Michael Moore is an expert at getting his views across whether you love him or hate him. Even people who hate his films, see them just see what the guy will say. Personally, my thoughts are if you hate Michael Moore's style of documentary, then just ignore him. He's only as powerful and influential as the media and public will allow him to be. If the masses ignored him, then his popularity would deceased. However, people don't think logically as it seems. Indeed, Moore's ludicrous tactics can seem a bit extreme at times; often reminiscent of the annoying co-worker or family member, you're often forced to put up with. However, unlike those types of situations, the audience does have a choice. Yet, Moore is able to make his documentary so controversially perverse, that even people that strongly disagree with him rally to see what he's going to say. Is it fair play for Moore to use his tactics? Why shouldn't they? They do work as it would seem.
However, as for the review of Moore's film, I would have to say that I probably did a lot more research into his topics, than I normally do for documentaries. Moore is correct about his take on corporate America owning the government, as that's been wide public knowledge for years. Although he talks about the financial woos of the years during the Reagan Administration, George H. Bush, and George W. Bush, he never talks about the Bill Clinton Administration or the Jimmy Carter era. Sure, he shows Jimmy Carter making a speech to the public, on how American gases will have to be rationed due to hard times. Yet, he never goes over why President Carter said that. Instead, after that speech, he immediately shows Ronald Reagan, during his movie days, as he tries to tell the audience that corporations only wanted to hear what they wanted to us to believe, so that's why America elected an actor. Anyway, for those expecting a full accurate assessment of the economy woos of last year, then you'll be sadly mistaken as Moore only tells you part of the facts, but not the full story as one would hope.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this is a bad documentary by any means, as Moore does make some valid points about how the upper class takes advantage of the lower and middle class citizens in America. Using such nefarious tactics like dead peasant insurance, where the employer puts out a life insurance policy on an employees life, without consulting them or their family about it. Such tactics are described as one of the many means companies tend to take advantage of their employees. Upon further research of this topic, Moore does bring up a valid point on "dead peasant insurance." During the documentary, Moore explores how some employers have been making money for years off their deceased employees, without paying so much as a penny to their families. When I first heard about this revelation, it was rather shocking to say the least. In the case of one family, where it talks about a man that was fired from a bank; his previous employers benefited from his death, for not only tax purposes, but a large financial sum. Such nefarious and devious tactics are one of the many means Moore uses to describe how corporate America; uses the the working class on a consistent basis.
Outlining religion as one of the methods used by corporations as a system, to control the masses. Moore goes on in his documentary to describe how many companies have used religion, to promote capitalism (i.e. quotes like, "In god we trust", on dollar bills).
Of course, "Capitalism: A Love Story" does go over the Chicago strike, that happened on Goose Island a while back. As it goes over how over two-hundred and fifty employees were laid off due to the recession, despite their employers receiving bail-out money from the government, so they could pay their employees. This was one of the causes that inevitably led to the strike, on Goose Island. That forced employers to cave in to their demands once public media became involved, so they could save face. This along with many other examples were used to illustrate just how deeply corporations were willing to screw over the working class, during the economic recession.
Moore even goes on to describe how some salaries are grossly under paid, due the economic recession; namely airline pilots. Making an outrageous claim that airline pilots make about the same salary range as a person working at McDonald's, or less in some cases. Naturally, I found this news to be a bit far fetched, to say the least. Therefore, I took it upon myself to research the average salaries of McDonald's employees and Airline pilots. According to various sources, it's true that some managerial positions, at McDonald's, tend to make around the same or more than a lot of first year airline pilots. However, a lot of it depends on which airline we're referring to, as some companies like Southwest Airlines, tend to start their pilots on a salary around $49,572 a year. Needless to say, that's surprisingly low for an airline pilot; none the less. However, it's still higher than most of their managerial positions, with the exception of McDonald's Operations Supervisor whom makes $56,120 a year. When I first heard of this claim by Michael Moore, I was very surprised to hear this; as one would think that pilots would make significantly more than a McDonald's employee. Moore does bring up a valid point about our society with this piece of information, as it seems many of the economy's important positions like pilots, law enforcement, teaching, and others are vastly under paid.
Moore even describes the differences between capitalism and socialism, and points out some of the benefits; that our republic could gain from a socialist society. Although, I can't say I completely agree, but he does bring up a lot of valid points throughout the comparison, on how socialism encourages more emphasis on the middle class. Whereas capitalism, typically favors the upper class of our society.
Indeed, Moore goes over many of the hypocrisies about our society, and how capitalism has constantly put the lower and middle class down for decades. Although he does bring up a lot of valid points throughout the film, he only displays the negative economic developments during the republican presidency ranging from Ronald Reagon to George W. Bush. While conveniently ignoring how much of an impact, Jimmy Carter made on our economy as well. Since the economic recession at the time, played a huge part in Jimmy Carter losing in his campaign for re-election to Ronald Reagan. I won't go into details about it, since this article is simply to review Moore's documentary. However, it does seem odd Moore would conveniently just go over the economic woos and blunders of the republican party for the past few decades, while ignoring the impact of the democratic party as well. Even in the film, most of the politicians he interviews are democrats; rarely speaking to a republican politician. This is sadly the only flaw that "Capitalism: A Love Story" has, as it fails to be unbiased.
Don't get me wrong, I loved this film as I felt that Michael Moore touched on a lot of important issues that America is currently facing. Depicting an accurate portrait of how hypocritical our society has become. Although like most of his other documentaries, Moore doesn't necessarily provide direct answers to why our economy is this way, but he does feed the viewer enough information, to ask a lot of the right questions. Sometimes, just asking the right questions, can often lead to the right answers.
"Capitalism: A Love Story" is definitely one of the best documentaries of the year. Providing a lot of information, that will make the audience question the structure of our society. Invoking many unique questions that will keep viewers intrigued throughout the movie. Although the film is biased, it's still worth watching. "Capitalism: A Love Story" is one of the deepest and most informative documentary, I've ever seen.
Sources for those wanting to know some of the truths and fallacies of Moore's documentary.
- Dead Peasants Insurance FAQ : Questions & Answers about Corporate Owned Life Insurance (COLI), J
- Welcome to MichaelMoore.com
- Capitalism vs. Socialism: Happiness Could Care Less | LiveScience
Socialist or capitalist, new research argues that being bailed out feels better than going under.
- Socialism vs. Capitalism
Personal finance and economics
- Airline Pilot Salary, Career Information Pilot
Airline pilot salaries vary greatly from the first year as a first officer to the 10th year as a pilot. So if you are considering a career as a pilot here are some pilot salary information.
- PayScale - Salary Search: Job
Conduct salary research on any job or topic. Get a precise salary range and free salary report for your exact position.
- Airline Pilot Salaries: How Much Does Your Captain Earn? - The Middle Seat Terminal - WSJ
There was a time when wide-body international captains worked a few trips a month and earned $300,000 or more a year, but those days appear to be long gone.
- PayScale - Salary Search: Employer
Conduct salary research on any job or topic. Get a precise salary range and free salary report for your exact position.
Definitions of Socialism and Capitalism
Capitalism-An economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by a private decision, prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.
Socialism-1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership
and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done