A clever but mildly alarming cartoon movie is making it’s viral rounds on the interwebs. I think it’s a Tea Party hit piece. My son asked my to watch and comment. As usual, you get more than you asked for when you ask me to do that. Like Mike Moore movies it’s a garden path of some honest and good points mixed in with exaggerations and half-truths, leading to unsupported and questionable conclusions.
The most alarming is how the film advocates violence against public servants. This is intolerable, and the makers of this kind of film should be ashamed that they abuse their right to free speech to incite people to violent acts against people they have unfairly villified.
The “film” http://www.youtube.com/user/theamericandreamfilm#p/u/1/kx7HDTDDopA
No. No Conspiracy. But the misleading notions are buried in several good points and a clever simplification of the systems that drive our remarkable, successful economy. Have you noticed your lifestyle lately? Where do you *actually see* evidence of the claimed “jackboot” of evil corrupt bankers? This is, FYI, a tea party hit piece and I think it’s support of violence against people is very alarming.
Interestingly many right and left wing folks will probably like this piece even though they hold opposite views of how the economy should and does work. Both think the sinister, poorly defined super rich “bad guys” are screwing it up for all us regular folks when in fact, like it or not, “we’re all in this together”.
Good points: Debt is very dangerous and it’s getting passed to your generation at an alarming rate. But not by bankers, it’s by … umm… your parents aka “me and mom” and their accomplices, namely your friend’s parents and everybody else including you. This is in the form of massive government borrowing to sustain massive Government spending, mostly on only TWO things. Military (US spend is half the global total) and “entitlements” like social security and govt health care programs. Another growing expense and implied (good) point in the film is that we pay huge and growing *interest* on this massive debt.
However lost in the cartoon’s simplicity is the complexity of money printing, inflation, and how the Federal Reserve, under Bernanke’s brilliant guidance, appears to have prevented a global economic meltdown. It’s odd to me they are raising alarms about things that worked, like the coordination of the global banking systems to prevent catastrophe. A global depression would have crushed the hopes and dreams of *billions of people* and this has not happened. Rather we’ve had some troubles but nothing catastrophic. Many believe this is because both Bush and Obama’s monetary policies under Paulson, Bernanke, and Geithner have been excellent, even brilliant, and effective in creating a “soft landing” for a troubled, overheated global economy. You can’t focus on the economic slowdown without also noting the huge surge in productivity and goods and wealth that led up to the trouble. Many of us were … in short … living too large and unsustainably. That led to trouble and the national and global economies are still fragile and debt is a huge concern. On that the film is correct in my view.
The real “Federal Banking System” story:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System
The real “Red Shield” story:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothschild_family
How much debt? YIKES!
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
Point ONE: Note how there are many countries without the strong banking and taxation systems this piece says are destroying our country. Examples abound, some are: Sudan, North Korea, Pakistan. I’d prefer living here… wouldn’t you? Both right and left wing propaganda folks don’t like real world examples of the things they advocate because the complexities often get in the way of what seem like nice clean relationships.
Point TWO: Why do so many powerful-but-not-rich-non-bankers work so hard to keep the system working? e.g. Bernanke, Obama, Gheitner are the *architects* of the systema and the policies the film hates. All these guys could make 10x current salaries outside of Government. They are super smart and competent and they believe the system serves the public good. In general, it does. Bill Gates is a beneficiary of the system as well as an architect of the new economy.
He’s wealthier than most *groups* of “Red Shield” folks, but runs a massive charity for extremely poor. They fight hard to bring our system to others, not to kill the goose that keeps laying the golden eggs. Or let’s take a look at a real live “rich banking” guy. Wells Fargo’s biggest owner Warren Buffett. Richest human in 2008, second in 2009, third now. What’s he doing with all that money he took from “Pile” in the film? Giving over 95% of his wealth it to the world’s poorest people and another few percent to other charities. Pretty greedy, eh?
Point THREE: What exactly is the film advocating as a solution? Correct to challenge us to spend less, but where is the call to massively cut defense, effectively required to balance the US budget? Tea Party is very much hypocritical on this point, thinking that govt waste does not extend to military, and also that you can cut significantly by cutting things like welfare. Both these ideas are simply foolish and naive. Defense is huge and therefore must be cut to cut the deficit and welfare is too small to matter much, cut or not.
Summary (the film would actually agree with much of this I think, but does not support the good news about USA in the film – they are fearmongering to try to get Tea Party people elected): There are problems but the US economic experiment remains the most successful in history and remains a powerful example of how to bring prosperity to hundreds of millions mostly within a framework of freedom and fairness. For every legitimate criticism (and there are many), there are many positive aspects to the entrepreneurial innovation and personal responsibility model. Let’s keep it.
Joe Duck 
Interesting.
While most conspiracy-fetish types may be quacks and hicks, that doesn’t in itself imply there are not at times sound reasons to suspect conspiracies of various types operating in government and business. Consider the… Rothschilds’ financial empire for example. Now, the wingnut who reads the “Elders of the Protocols of Zion” might just spout off the name, Rothchilds (as….nazis did) and allude to shadowy financial dealings, corruption and so forth. But as the Wiki you linked to makes clear, the Rothschilds were definitely a major power (still are in Britain). They owned massive estates and chateaus, and issued orders to Churchill… and the Family Windsor when required.
Some historical research will demonstrate that there have been very powerful, wealthy bankers who were…jewish. That of course does not justify..Hitler. But one can understand, at least slightly, some of the anti-zionist rhetoric of the germans (and…italians as well…perhaps muslims to an extent). Many german people still consider UK sort of a zionist conspiracy, and unfortunately that leads to anti-semitism. Yet in some sense, some suspicion of zionist rackets might be justified, just as it was when powerful italian families had documented ties to the mafia. By opposing..the mafia one doesn’t thereby imply…all italians/sicilian are scum.
When the conspiracy-buff starts chanting that Rothschilds or Rockefellers or the Clintons are like…Shapeshifters, however, they’ve entered the realm of speculation rather than empirically-verifiable claims.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptilian_humanoid
They are super smart and competent and they believe the system serves the public good. In general, it does. Bill Gates is a beneficiary of the system as well as an architect of the new economy.
He’s wealthier than most *groups* of “Red Shield” folks, but runs a massive charity for extremely poor. They fight hard to bring our system to others, not to kill the goose that keeps laying the golden eggs. Or let’s take a look at a real live “rich banking” guy. Wells Fargo’s biggest owner Warren Buffett. Richest human in 2008, second in 2009, third now. What’s he doing with all that money he took from “Pile” in the film? Giving over 95% of his wealth it to the world’s poorest people and another few percent to other charities. Pretty greedy, eh?
Super smart? I sort of doubt that. Gates dropped out of college like his second year, as did Ellison and Stevie McJobs (he did pass a BASIC class or something). Their success followed from a lucky roll of the techno-capitalist dice–being in the right place at the right time. Or in Gates’ case (and Apple as well)–they more or less ripped people off, and then re-vamped the software slightly and made billions from it. Monopolies, as they were formerly known ( Clinton’s people filed an anti-trust suit via MS with little success. Nearly all IT companies would have considered monopolies/trusts/rackets say during FDR’s admin.–ie, would not have occurred)
The charity efforts of Gates and Buffett may deserve some respect. But…charity-nomics is just a drop in the bucket–dependent on the largesse of the Tycoon. They may toss a few billion into africa or something, yet many areas in California are near 3rd world conditions, and no Bill and Melinda shekels appear to be arriving. Charity-nomics at best provides a sort of ad hoc solution. Po’ folks take the cash, but its about like winning a few hands of blackjack.
US economic problems are not just with the dirt-poor, however. Gates-Co, Apple, Ellison, Google, et al do little to assist struggling educators, students, even technical people. There are some MS programs–but in many public schools and colleges actually frown upon Microsoft programs–most prefer Apple-Co, though Apple’s hardly any more PC than MS (worse, according to some reports of sweatshops–)
How is it that “zionists” control the U.S. and force it to act on their behalf? How are they able to control all the world’s media? How are they able to get away with all the crazy conspiracies that nuts attribute to them?