is actually a bit of an injustice for Michael Moore to call this film a bad movie
...if he didn't say he was making a documentary,
more precisely, "Capitalism: A Love Story" is:
top notch The comedy Jiu
Liu's documentary
"Capitalism: A Love Story" is composed of multi-thread spindles
(many people would think that these multi-thread spindles are connected together, but in fact there is no...unless you put the jumper relationship It also counts as a kind of logic)
1. The poor story of people who were evicted from their mortgaged houses because they didn’t pay
2. The situation of American workers is difficult
2a. Civil aviation pilots are treated extremely poorly
2b. "Dead Peasant", the company buys life insurance for employees , employees die and still make money
3. Wall Street bank in crisis, but get bail out
4. Michael Moore solo show
Then what? The conclusion is that capitalism is evil, capitalists be damned
If you see this, leftist blood cells in the veins Go straight to the brain
and plan to give your life to deal with evil capitalists in the end
. Then you too underestimate Michael Moore, who is called
"Giant Socialist Weasel" by Trey Parker and Matt Stone (the original author of SouthPark).
Michael Moore is not very good at making documentaries, but It must be admitted that he is a master at editing documentaries,
he is good at putting his own subjective logic,Piece together a movie from seemingly objective fragments
However, the logical connection in the middle of the clip is extremely weak or not at all.
Maybe Michael Moore himself did not understand
, maybe Michael Moore knew it, but deliberately skipped it so as not to affect his main axis of publicity
, so everyone saw "Oh, the officials and businessmen of major Wall Street companies colluded and messed around. Cause the poor people to lose their houses"
and so on, is there something missing in the middle? Let's
start with "1. The poor story of people who were evicted from their mortgaged houses because they couldn't pay"
Are these people poor? Look at the video Of course, it is very pitiful,
but why do these people lose their houses? (This sentence needs to be corrected)
Because they either use loans to buy houses, or they use their houses to mortgage and borrow money after they have a house.
In fact, they are
In other words, those who are not "their houses" at all, when applying for a mortgage
and borrowing money from a mortgage (the two are actually the same thing), the
house actually belongs Banks (or any agency that lends money to homeowners & helps homeowners pay homeowners bills) are
these organizations that help people pay homebuy bills or lend cash to homeowners to spend?
If the mechanism of home loan does not Existing, how long does it take for the average person to save enough money to buy out their own house?
And during the period of saving, do you still have to find a place to live, or do you have to spend rent
and use a loan mechanism to let people move into a house that they will own in the future in advance , what's so abominable?
If you are not allowed to use your own house as a mortgage to borrow money, what should these people do when they need cash urgently? When taking out a
mortgage loan, it is clearly written in black and white how much money is borrowed and how to repay
the money when lending money to these people Is there less to give? How much is required when paying back?
What's the hate?
But these "details", Michael Moore will not tell you
how these people get the loan and spend it? How can
these people live in a house they can't afford to enjoy the home life and the extra financial freedom?
You can't see it all
In the movie, these people are only seen as if they lost their homes for no reason. They are
completely unilateral victims
. 2. The situation of American workers is difficult?
The treatment of civil aviation pilots is originally determined by the market
. Either try to save costs
or increase the price to maintain the income, but if the price rises too much, everyone will transfer to another plane,
so the main part is to save the cost.
Of course, the mechanical part cannot be saved, and the FAA is concerned about saving it. Fines, serious accidents
can save the only thing that can be saved is to reduce the treatment or reduce the flight, sell the plane and sever the crew. There are two ways to
reduce the treatment of the crew. Is it better to be dismissed directly?
Take a hundred steps back and say: If you buy a ticket, you will Shop around on the website to find the cheapest one.
How can you ask the airline to pay the pilot's salary above the market level?
As for "Dead Peasant"
, it simply means that the company buys life insurance for its employees, and the beneficiary is the company,
so the employee dies If you lose the company, you can get a sum of insurance money. Of course, the employee's family can't get a dime
in the movie. This kind of insurance is really evil. It
seems that the company has stolen more than one million insurance money from the employee's bereaved family.
Hey, what seems to be missing here?
Yes! "Who pays the premium?" The
company helps employees insure life insurance. Of course, the premium is also paid by the company
. matter
Even if the company does not have dead peasant insurance, the family members of the employees can’t get a dime
and want the insurance money. No one forbids employees to insure their own life insurance, and beneficiaries for their own family. The beneficiaries
of employees feel bad about dead peasant insurance. Out of jealousy
, "the company got the money, we didn't get it." As for the
company's profit from the death of its employees through dead peasant insurance ? Who is the beneficiary of the insurance? The insurance company has actuated for its own interests. What kind of person should pay the premium, and how much compensation can be received after death are all actuarial based on the risk and the profit of the insurance company, especially the dead peasant insurance . , It is absolutely impossible to ask employees to go for a physical examination . Of course, life insurance that does not know the physical condition of the insured must assume a higher risk than the actual (there will be no deductibles that do not smoke, do not drink, have good heart and lung function, and have no genetic diseases). Why? Looking at the companies that pay the premiums, the average is relatively loss (the company also has a high possibility of paying the premiums all the time, but the employees are living well). If the employer can make a profit from this, is the insurance company undertaking this kind of business an idiot? ? Then why is the company willing to insure dead peasant insurance? It is very simple, because the death of an employee while on the job has costs to the company, such as business losses, connection losses, the cost of hiring new people, the cost of training, and even family members who sue for death from overwork The cost of compensation must be taken into account . This insurance has its own needs, and naturally it will be established "3. Wall Street's bank suffered a crisis, but was bail out"
This is even funnier, because the government bail out is not the spirit of capitalism at all.
If it really follows the spirit of capitalism, these banks will simply let them go
and pay the price for their wrong decisions along with those who do venture capital through banks
( Of course, the rights and interests of general depositors should be protected, because depositors are not
the interest rate and principal agreed between the risk taker and the bank.)
The most funny thing is Michael Moore's own conclusion:
"We don't want capitalism, we want "Democracy"
Hey, the bail out of Wall Street, isn't the democratic process passed?
Michael Moore opposes such a
conclusion that capitalism is raped through democracy, but he thinks that capitalism is not good,
what is better than democracy?
If you want to review the government and business Collusion is called "rent competition" in economics.
Unfortunately, the more the government controls the economy, the more it goes against capitalism
. It
's
not a problem of capitalism (because the "market" is determined by public power)
anyway, it's not a matter of a day or two for Michael Moore to understand the subject of his
appeal Featured, not required, not required....
View more about Capitalism: A Love Story reviews