These values and the policies that extend from them look beautiful, as if nothing Chaos, a utopia is just around the corner, and he has indeed deceived a group of people. Unfortunately, the "freedom" that Roosevelt said is not true freedom at all. Although the connotation of the word "freedom" is indeed difficult to form some conventional existence, As Hayek put it: "Although I racked my brains trying to find a descriptive term that would be generally accepted by the people, I was unsuccessful in the end. "
Real freedom has nothing to do with scarcity. The so-called freedom is in a multi-person society, it is a complete set of what an individual can do within a certain behavioral constraint. Among all the actions and behaviors that an individual can make, draw When you go out of a circle, what is in the circle is your freedom. When you cross this circle, you infringe on others. In the collection of behaviors outside the circle, they are no longer your freedom. It is my freedom to stretch my fist, but I put It's not my freedom to put my fist 1cm from my neighbor's face. It has nothing to do with want or not, not even a cent. A person who grows up in a country with a sound legal system can also be very poor, a People who grow up in hot water may be rich. Besides, freedom only makes sense in a society of people or people. Trapped in an island, Robinson is not free or free at all. He can do anything without restriction. He may be short of fruit, or he may have caught too much fish. But, none of this has anything to do with freedom.
Examples that can be seen everywhere throughout the film are: you fired me, I have no money to pay my debts, the bank confiscated my house, in order to avoid want, I want to not be homeless on the street, I should be a nail in the house , I have the right to continue living here. Seeing this, I was shocked. In broad daylight, there are still people who have done such shameless behavior and there are people around to cheer him up. I can't think of anything else to describe it other than rogue, robber, villain. I have no money to repay the debt, and I have written the house as collateral in the contract in advance. When you really can't pay your debts and lose your house, you won't let anyone take it away.
According to this logic, in order to avoid the lack of XXX, I can XXX, then it is a paradise for assholes, I am too ugly, no girl likes me, I want to avoid having no descendants, so it's okay to rape a few people. I was so poor that the restaurant downstairs in my house had to give me free food every day in order not to starve to death.
On the other hand, the director questions why, under capitalism, there is so much polarization, with so many unemployed poor people and a small number of people who hold a lot of wealth. And think that the wealth of these people has a causal relationship with the poverty of most people. Or a small number of rich people exploit most people. For example, there is an example in it. The interest rate of bank loans to government officials is much lower than that of loans to poor people. It is said that why rich people can enjoy lower interest rates, they must be trying to curry favor with the government. This can no longer be absurd. As a lender, of course, the borrower's ability to repay the debt must be considered. The smaller the future income stream of the borrower, the less likely it is to repay the debt, and of course more compensation will be charged. The purpose of other people's banks is to make money, and they are not angels. Why should they give you money for nothing?
For another example, this director often sets the employment rate as a goal, thinks it is immoral for the company to fire people, and even goes to the GM headquarters by himself. No wonder he is regarded as an idiot. What does the contract between our company and employees have to do with you, the company Hire as many people as you want. Employees who are fired by the company may have a very difficult life, but what kind of rule says that once they are hired by the company, they will be responsible for the employees not to suffer from hunger and poverty for life. I don't like it. You have the ability to start your own company and hire all the unemployed people. The director's mind was a mess, and he had no concept of property rights at all.
Moreover, if a system is to be stable, it must stop somewhere with decreasing marginals, otherwise it is unstable. The meaning is that the person at the bottom ecologically just survives, as Malthus discussed in "The Principle of Population". In other words, poverty is ubiquitous, regardless of the political formation, regardless of the economic policies adopted, otherwise the population will expand. The whole population structure is related to the political formation. The problem is that he is rightly questioning why capitalism has so many poor people, as if there would be no poverty if everything was done his way.
In this film, the director questions almost every aspect of capitalist life, such as politics is for the capitalists, and the financial crisis is caused by Wall Street's greed. It is a pity that all the doubts are wrong, and none of them are to the point. All I can see is through sensational methods. The parties tell how miserable they are and how immoral the capitalists are. They come first to win your sympathy, but I can never see the logic behind the incident and the causal relationship. The key links of everything are hidden by him, he only tells you what he wants to see, and the way the whole story is told is also jumping. It seems to me like a despondent poor man venting his grievances everywhere, blaming this and that for his unsuccessful life.
There are many such people everywhere.
View more about Capitalism: A Love Story reviews