Capitalism: A Propaganda Hate Film

Michael Moore is the Leni Riefenstahl of our time. Or, perhaps he would be better characterized as a Bizzaro World Leni Riefenstahl, because while she propped up with propaganda the political powers of her time, Moore uses the same techniques to bring down the powers of our time, be it GM (Roger and Me), the gun lobby (Bowling for Columbine), the government (Fahrenheit 911), the health care industry (Sicko), or free enterprise (Capitalism: A Love Story).

In this latest installment in his continuing series of what's wrong with America, Michael Moore takes aim at his biggest target to date, and the result is a disaster. The documentary is not nearly as funny as his previous films, the music selections seem contrived and flat, and the edits and transitions are clumsy, wooden, and woefully short of what we've come to expect from the premiere documentarian (Ken Burns notwithstanding) of our time. And, most importantly, the film's central thesis is so bad that it's not even wrong.

First, let me confess that even though I have disagreed with most of Michael Moore's politics and economics throughout his career, I have thoroughly enjoyed his films as skilled and effective works of art and propaganda, never failing to laugh -- or be emotionally distraught -- at all the places audiences are cued to do so. My willing suspension of disbelief that enables me to take so much pleasure from works of fiction does not always serve me well when pulled into the narrative arc of a documentary. Thus it is that with his past films I have exited the theater infuriated at the same things Moore is...until I rolled up my sleeves and did some fact checking of my own, at which point Moore's theses unravel (with the possible exception of Bowling for Columbine, his finest work in my opinion). But with Capitalism: A Love Story, Moore's propagandistic props are so transparent and contrived that I never was able to suspend disbelief.

What was especially infuriating about Capitalism: A Love Story was the treatment of the people at the bottom end of the economic spectrum. The film is anchored on two eviction stories contrived to pull at the heart strings. One family filmed the eviction process themselves and sent the footage to Moore in hopes he'd use it (many are called, few are chosen), and the other was filmed by Moore's crew. The message of both is delivered with a sledge hammer: Greedy Evil Soul-Sucking Bankers (think Lionel Barrymore's villainous Mr. Potter in It's a Wonderful Life) are tossing out onto the streets of America poor innocent families who are victims of circumstances not of their making. Why? First, because this is what Greedy Evil Soul-Sucking Bankers do for fun on weekends. Two, because the economic crisis caused solely by said bankers has made it impossible for families to make the payments on those subprime loans they were tricked into taking by those same bankers, who themselves were suckered into a Ponzi-like scheme cooked up by Alan Greenspan and his Wall Street/Federal Reserve buddies to take back the homes fully owned by (first) the elderly and (then) the poor. In the fine print that the bankers carefully slipped past the elderly and the poor for these second mortgages and subprime loans, the contracts said that the rates on variable rate loans could go up, and that the house was collateral for the loan such that if the loan payments are not made the home is subject to foreclosure and repossession by the bank (which is what the bankers are hoping happens).

In Michael Moore's worldview, a goodly portion of the American people are ignorant, uneducated, clueless pinheads too stupid to realize the fundamental principle of a loan: you have to have collateral to secure the loan! No collateral, no loan. You say to the banker "I would like to take out a loan." The banker says to you "what do you have for collateral?" What happened in the housing boom was that bankers relaxed their standards for what they would require for collateral (and income, assets, etc.) because (1) the government told them to do so and promised to cover their losses if it didn't work out, and (2) they wanted to make more money; and borrowers wanted in on the cash cow that everyone was milking, from individual house flippers looking for a quick buck, to ordinary families wanting extra cash for remodeling, tuition, or whatever, to mortgage giants wanting corporate expansion. And all were driven by the same motive: greed!

Yes, greed. Those evicted families knew perfectly well what they were doing when they freely chose to climb onto the housing bubble and take it for a ride. I have a much higher view of the American public than does Michael Moore. I don't think the American people are so stupid or uneducated that they didn't know what they were doing. This wasn't rocket science. It was even on television, the ne plus ultra of pop culture! I well remember watching A & E's television series Flip This House, and reading all those magazine articles and get-rich-quick books on how to make a fortune in the real estate market, and thinking "Wow, everyone's getting rich except me; how can I get in on the action?"

What I felt is, I'm sure, what lots of people felt. I looked into securing a second mortgage on my home in order to build a second home on an undeveloped portion of my hillside property, and then selling it to turn a tidy profit. Everyone was doing it. What could go wrong? Well, for starters I thought, what if it takes longer to build the home than I projected? We all know how slow construction projects can be. Could I make the payments on the second mortgage for an additional six months to a year? And what if I couldn't sell that second home? Could I make the payments on the new loan indefinitely? What if my income decreased instead of increased, like it was at the time (and, subsequently, did...dramatically!). And what would happen if I couldn't make the payments? The answer was obvious, and it wasn't in the fine print: I could lose my primary home.

Forget that! Making a profit on a second home would be nice, but losing my first home would hurt more than twice as much as making a profit on the second home would feel good. That's a basic principle of risk aversion: losses hurt twice as much as gains feel good. Now, I'm not really a risk-averse guy (I gave up a secure career as a college professor for an insecure career as a writer and publisher), but even I could see the inherent risks involved when the home you live in could be taken away. My hillside remains sagebrush and wild grass.

What about the people on the other end of the economic spectrum -- the bankers and Wall Street moguls? Why aren't they being evicted? Now, given that I'm a libertarian, you might expect me to come to the defense of Corporate America. Not so. Here I am in complete agreement with Michael Moore that, as I've been saying since the day it was first pronounced, "too big to fail" is the great myth of our time. None of these giant corporations -- GM, AIG, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, et al. -- should have been bailed out. In fact, they should have been allowed to fail, their stocks go into the toilet, their employees tossed out on to the gilded streets of lower Manhattan, and their CEOs dispersed to work as greeting clerks at Walmart. They gambled and lost on all those securities, bundled securities, derivatives, credit default swaps, and other "financial tools" that I'll bet not one in a hundred Wall Street experts actually understands.

If you really believe in free enterprise, you must accept the freedom to lose everything on such gambles. These CEOs and their corporate lackeys are nothing more than welfare queens who adhere to the motto "In profits we're capitalists, in losses we're socialists." Sorry guys, you can't have it both ways without corrupting your morals, which you have, along with the politicians you've bribed, cajoled and otherwise coerced to your bidding.

The solution? I have some suggestions of my own, but Michael Moore's solution is beyond bizarre: replace capitalism with democracy. Uh? Replace an economic system with a political system? Even the über liberal Bill Maher was baffled by that one when he hosted Moore on his HBO show. How does a democracy produce automobiles and computers and search engines? It doesn't. It can't.

Capitalism: A Love Story, ends with a remarkable film clip that Moore discovered of President Franklin Roosevelt reading from his never proposed second Bill of Rights (he died shortly after and the document died with him). Included in the list are:

• The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
• The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
• The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
• The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
• The right of every family to a decent home;
• The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
• The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
• The right to a good education.

That's nice. To this list I would add a computer in every home with wireless Internet access. I'm sure we could all think of many more things "under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all -- regardless of station, race, or creed," in Roosevelt's words. But there is one question left unstated: Who is going to pay for it? If there is no capitalism, from where will the wealth be generated to pay for all these wonderful things? How much does a "decent" home costs these days, anyway?

Do you see the inherent contradiction? Of course you do. So does Michael Moore, who elsewhere in the film longs for the good old days when the "rich" were taxed 90% of their earnings. So did Willie Sutton, who answered a similar question after being nabbed by the FBI during the Great Depression and asked by a reporter why he robs banks: "Because that's where the money is."

 

 

Follow Michael Shermer on Twitter: www.twitter.com/michaelshermer

Comments

[back office drone]

I like this article. Perhaps I'm becoming a Libertarian, I don't know, but the anathema people have towards Capitalism is just so masochistic. As HeevenSteven commented, we don't have to choose between Capitalism and Socialism. We can mix it up. Let the government provide the bare essentials, health care, public works, environmental protections, a minimum standard of housing and food, and let our Capitalist instincts provide strong economies so we can stay relevant on the international stage.

Btw, I also thought Bowling for Columbine was Moore's best film. He's gone downhill from there.

[HeevenSteven]

Capitalism or socialism = false choice.

[texfly]

First of all I think the "replace capitalism with democracy" was not intended to mean democarcy as an economic system. Someone of Shermer's aptitude would know that Moore was trying to say "replace with something we know is fair". We can debate this but they give me only 250 words, Shermer gets1700+

He also makes the assertion that what made this country greta was rampant capitalism. Partially true, but what did it was the post-WW-II socialistic construction of the middle class. There were HUGE socialistic programs undertaken in the 50' s hundreds of thousnads of miles of intersates built. more than a million miles of welded natural-gas pipelines laid. (You remeber picking up welding rods in the trenches outside you house Michael? Remembe rplaying war in them? No? I didn't think so.) All of that was done with public investment, Micahel. Very little private industry money involved. THAT is S-O-C-I-A-L-I-S-M, Michael! That infrastructure ENABLED capitalism to fluorish, Michael. You see Micheal, capitalism AND socialism can coexist' They are complimentary systems. Just like mythos and logos. Just like creation and evolution.

[mmahamngttia]

Mr. Schermer's assertion that “the American people are” not “so stupid or uneducated” in financial matters, rings true to those who want to misplace blame for the economic meltdown. But, ignrnthllblly makes an excellent point never echoed in any MSM report; most Americans are “clueless” about mortgage financing.
I sold commercial banking services to small and large corporations. I was shocked to learn how naive these "educated" and "sophisticated" businessmen/women actually were in matters of finance. Now, I sell real estate to affluent, "educated" and "sophisticated" consumers. They are even more naïve.
"Clueless" is, in fact, the best word to describe the average consumer. Those who sold these unsuspecting rubes on these pernicious financing schemes participated in a grand fraud. However, the financial institutions that provided mortgages to those unqualified borrowers, along with a complicit Wall Street to whom they sold those worthless mortgages, perpetrated the grandest fraud.
A government audit of mortgage loans revealed that a staggering 50% were "no documentation" mortgages, wherein Banks don’t even verify a buyers income. You would expect the average Wall Streeter or government regulator not to be too "stupid or uneducated" about the inherent risk to any banks stability, and our nations economic stability, when such loans were a lopsided portion of their portfolios.
Obviously, the mortgage companies didn't verify borrower’s information because they didn’t want to know the truth about an applicant's financial stability - that would have ruined their obscenely profitable Ponzi scheme.
Free enterprise, ain't it grand!

[HeevenSteven]

You need a new moniker, but otherwise I'm proud to say I was your first fan. You really need do this more often. You are so exactly correct.

[HeevenSteven]

er...looks like I'm still your only fan.. Dude, comment more, and they'll come...lol.

[mmahamngttia]

Yo Heevenator, you're Number 1 !!!

Just today I was thinking I screwed up with that Moniker. (Bill Clinton was thinking the same thing.) Yeah, that's it, that's why I have butt one fan!

It's comments like these that keep you Number 1, and only.

[calfit32]

This is a great article and sums up Micheal Moore and his thwarted ideology nicely! I caught the Hannity and Moore interview and did an article myself–very interesting. I look forward to seeing his film this week.

[JohnFromCensornati]

"the fundamental principle of a loan: you have to have collateral to secure the loan! No collateral, no loan."

First of all, that is *obviously* not true.
Secondly, since your principle did not apply to lenders, why would Average Joe think your principle applied to him?

[Go Buckeyes]

The fact that we are even commenting here is proof that the movie is a sucess.

It is amazing how much power just the word "capitalism" has in the US. Say you are against the government, against religion, against the police system . . . just don't say you are against "capitalism".

Psalms 37

[WASanford]

I've not seen the movie yet.

I wonder though, who the real idiots were in this sorry tale. Everyone had bought into the notion that property values would increase without limit, even though wages had remained flat throughout the whole housing bubble goings on. No price was too high irregardless of the buyer's income. Somehow these "masters of mankind"* thought they could make a killing by squeezing $3000.00 a month mortgage payments out of someone working the graveyard shift at the local 7-11 store.

After our recent experiences with capitalism, I'm surprised anyone believes it provides a workable economic system. It necessarily always leaves someone out. When that someone amounts to the majority of a countries citizens, you have the makings of yet another bloody revolution, as Russia's Czar found out.

Michael Moore's solution of replacing capitalism with democracy strikes me as a good idea poorly stated. Capitalism is a competitive economic system, perhaps Michael was trying to say that we should replace it with something more cooperative.

While I'm registered to vote as a Democrat, I'm an American first. Maybe we all should dump our unworkable ideologies and return to putting our country first.

* masters of mankind is a quote form Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations", chapter 4, volume III and it is meant to be sarcastic!

[JohnFromCensornati]

"Michael Moore's solution of replacing capitalism with democracy strikes me as a good idea poorly stated. Capitalism is a competitive economic system, perhaps Michael was trying to say that we should replace it with something more cooperative."

His point was that, if we lived in a democracy, the people would get more attention than Wall Street. In fact, ours is a pay-to-play system.

[Hirnlego]

Exactly right. The politicians are bought and paid for since long. Who do they listen to when election time comes again? To the people who will vote for them anyway or those who give large contributions? There's a reason WH has more lobbyists than politicians.

/
"In Michael Moore's worldview, a goodly portion of the American people are ignorant, uneducated, clueless pinheads too stupid.."

As one of the leading skeptics I find it very surprising that you disagree. A simply look at polls on what people believe should suffice to make it clear that people are pretty much clueless about almost everything.

[HeevenSteven]

Bingo!

[HeevenSteven]

So we're all on our own, or we tax the rich 90%? Michael, you of all people should know a false choice when you see one.

[JohnFromCensornati]

YOYO (you're on your own) is the Libertarian mantra.
A hate film?! It's stunning to even read that.

[HeevenSteven]

Agreed. I'm floored.

[ignrnthllblly]

As someone who did their time selling real estate and later brokering mortgages I feel compelled to say you need to do some more research involving the level of public perception involving real estate financing. I can assure you that it is not just 'po folks who are essentially clueless about the types of instruments put before them or the incentives to the broker to insure that they accept the financing the broker is intent upon selling them. I never met a customer who knew what he programs he qualified for and what he didn't. The fact remains that to steer anyone into a variable-rate loan when they qualify for an historically-low fixed rate is unethical outside of a few well-defined scenarios. Likewise with conforming vs. non-conforming loans. When I sold real estate, builders were enamored of pushing adjustable rates, with three-year teasers, on everyone. Lenders were more than happy to assist; buyers holding out for fixed-rate loans usually encountered some shadowy disqualification. I don't think the American public is too far gone to appreciate that their property secures a loan, but if you think even the slimmest majority is really in the know when obtaining real estate financing, you need to change the name of your magazine to "Naive."

[Bardmess]

I don't really care for Michael Moore films either, though I respect him for trying. Unfortunately a lot of people have become mentally lazy and silly entertainment is the only way they'll learn anything.

The Second Bill of Rights: sounds like a civilized society. What's wrong with it?

Whose going to pay for it? All of us together can pay for it and it will be a bargain compared to anything the private sector can come up with. We can not only pay for it all together, we can control it through our Congress, once they are disconnected from corporate money through campaign finance reform. The ones who will really pay are the ones we already hate; those who have been making a killing at our expense and then telling us that the great United States of America cannot afford to be CIVILized.

Skeptic Magazine, humm. Is that like the holier-tha­n-thou-and­-too-smart­-for-my-ow­n-good skepticism that still thinks the world is flat, tobacco is good for you and global warming is a hoax?

[Jackbequick]

"Skeptic Magazine, humm. Is that like the holier-tha­­n-thou-an­d­-too-sma­rt­-for-my­-ow­n-good skepticism that still thinks the world is flat, tobacco is good for you and global warming is a hoax?"

No,No,and No. Skeptic Magazine is a great read. They are pro science and critical thinking.