One of the reasons I often find things I like in the Guardian is because where else would you find someone like Mark Weisbrot (the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, and economics PhD) writing a review of something like Michael Moore’s new film, Capitalism: A Love Story.
Regardless of what you think of Moore and his work–and for the record I suspect that his over-the-top nature sometimes does more to alienate the very people he wants to convince, even if we tend to agree on who needs convincing and about what–you should read the review.
Especially this bit:
As an economist who operates in the think-tank world, I have to appreciate this work. He gets the economic story right. How is it that Michael Moore’s father could buy a house and raise a family on the income of one auto worker, and still have a pension for his retirement? And yet this is not possible in the vastly more productive economy of today? The answer is not complicated: in the first half of the post-War era, employees shared in the gains from productivity growth; since 1973, most of them have hardly done so at all. (Productivity growth has also slowed.) Moore also explains the structural changes, such as Ronald Reagan’s rollback of union and labour relations to the 19th century, that helped bring about the most massive upward redistribution of income in US history. (Moore even includes graphs and charts to back up the main points with data.)
I see no real downside to moving that particular discussion out of the realm of the liberal intelligentsia’s parlour discussions and into the mall, even if it also brings out the economic equivalent of the tea bag nutcases.
Oh, and here’s the trailer for the movie:
5 comments for “The Dismal Science vs The Invisible Hand: A Movie”