This little note has a thesis. Michael Moore’s Capitalism: a love story had one too.

I’m a conservative, sort of. I say sort of because I happen to be more of a libertarian than what passes for a conservative these days. I had low expectations for Michael Moore’s thesis counterbalanced with his usual stream of consciousness cinematography and I was disappointed by neither. Allow me to summarize the film and save Shoemaker the problem of review it as an art piece: “blah blah I’m fat blah blah Rich people are mean blah blah don’t you agree with me?”

The film lacked a feasible argument, unlike Bowling for Columbine or Sicko. (That’s correct, I’m a card-carrying Republican and I’ve actually seen all of Michael Moore’s films.) Moore’s Capitalism: a love story ended with quotes from Jefferson and the elder John Adams, all the while neglecting the fact that both men participated in the foment of mercantile Capitalism in this country. Meanwhile, the film jumped from sob shot to sob shot, denigrating an economic downturn, neglecting to point out that that collapse was preceded by some of the largest and (excepting the post-9/11 market deflation) longest growth through which we all may ever live.
Moore sloshes blame on every president since Jimmy Carter (yes, even Tricky Bill), all the while trumpeting Franklin Roosevelt as the model on which the economy should have been predicated. We get shown image after image from the Bush Whitehouse, clearly the film’s real villain; Moore neglects to point out that the Spendmeister in Chief currently occupying that selfsame building rammed a stimulus package that would make the only Socialist in the Senate (Bernie Sanders from Vermont) blush and Andrew Jackson (himself a deficit-hawk and debt-reducing maestro) roll over in his cliché.

And then, just when it seems like a Michael Moore movie would pass without a GM reference, he trots out his old warhorse, attempting to equate GM’s collapse with the competition created by Capitalism. Competition which has been quieted by…bombs…lots and lots of bombs. Moore all the while argues for a similar bombing spree vis-à-vis a “peasant’s revolt”. That’s right: open revolution. Of course, he doesn’t want us to be irresponsible and actually kill congressmen (well, maybe all the Republican ones he didn’t interview), but just vote them out of office and vote in a Senate filled with Bernie Sanders.

Michael Moore Takes a Fallacious Peak at the Economy

Let me be clear: I don’t like recessions, nobody does. When recessions get bad, we call them depressions, which is pretty sensible considering that’s usually how we all feel during. The reason we’re having a recession, in a nutshell, is that everyone of the movers and shakers got excited about economic growth and let a bubble get so big that when it burst, everyone got gum in their face and hair. The beautiful thing about Capitalism is that it will come back, it will be fine. What the economy needs (and now I’m quoting South Park) is “people spending money”. The way people have money to spend is with lower taxes for the people who have less. That’s called Capitalism and it really is that simple, I promise.

Economic recovery takes time, that’s a hard reality. Nothing comes quickly. But we have to all keep trying; keep working;  keep doing whatever we can. Stan was right, spending money will bring some recovery. I bought my ticket, from which Michael Moore will get a nice fat cut (Irony, party of Moore?), and staged my own little “revolt” in the theater. A good many of us went, in varying stages and modes of intoxication, bought popcorn and sodas and pretended the movie was anything other than a fat man making money for being a Grumpapotamus. Of course…that’s just my opinion, I could be wrong.

By Jonathan Slemrod

On paper, the Obama administration cares deeply about America’s economic recovery, taking bold steps to rescue the failing financial system, helping to save the Big Three automakers, and spending nearly $800 billion to create jobs through an economic recovery package. The reality isn’t so sweet.

Last week, the administration announced they will slap a punitive tariff of 35 percent on tires imported from China, a move which makes no economic sense, other than merely as a gesture to the United Steelworkers Union, who have complained about the influx of cheap Chinese tires for months. The announcement has infuriated the Chinese, who are threatening to retaliate by raising tariffs of their own, or worse, refusing to buy further U.S. Treasury bonds to pay off our gigantic budget deficits. Already, China has announced an “anti-dumping” investigation into U.S. sales of chicken and automotive parts.

Regardless of the fact that Chinese tires coming to the U.S. make up a very small fraction of total Chinese exports, the Obama administration will make a grave mistake if it tries to pursue an agenda of economic recovery and trade protectionism simultaneously. Doing so will hurt investor confidence in U.S. markets, and damage relations between the world’s first and third largest economies. Politically, an administration hostile to trade will send the Democratic leadership in Congress a message to keep stalling two vital free trade agreements that are waiting in the docket; Panama and Colombia.

President Obama and Yang Jiechi

Another blow to economic recovery would be allowing passage of the deceivingly-named “Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA)” a labor-backed bill which would slant the rules of union organizing away from workers and towards union bosses. The bill easily passed through the House of Representatives, but has stalled in the Senate where moderate Democrats have been reluctant to embrace the controversial “card check” provision, which effectively eliminates the secret ballot elections for workers when voting whether or not to form a union.

It is possible that some version of the Employee Free Choice Act will emerge soon from Senate negotiators without any card check provision, a move which would be aimed at shoring up Democratic support and possibly luring some moderate Republicans who wouldn’t mind labor’s support in future elections. Yet a provision known as “binding arbitration” would be just as damaging as card check, allowing a government-picked arbitrator from the National Labor Relations Board to set the terms of an agreement (wages, benefits, etc.) if labor and business cannot reach a frivolous deadline for doing so. Arbitrators will likely be biased against employers, forcing business owners to spend a fortune on lawyers, rather than putting resources towards doing business. This drain on business means less profit, less economic growth, and undoubtedly less middle-class jobs in America.

The cliche Hippocratic oath “First, do no harm,” couldn’t apply more to the Obama administration’s wacky move to ramp up protectionism towards China and risk starting an all-out trade war. These tariffs, accompanied by labor legislation which threatens small business at the expense of the secret ballot for workers, should be quickly dismissed as nothing more than the populist, anti-growth measures that they truly are.