In one aspect, I'm comparing this movie to Avatar, in that it is spectacular (in its own way), technically excellent, and the story is very engaging. But the (unfounded) political bias, while not as over-the-top level as Avatar, it is nonetheless a mostly one sided polemic against capitalism while leaving government on the sidelines pretty much unscathed, when it should have been the other way around.
Oliver Stone, in his effort to damn leveraged debt, makes a lot of the Dutch Tulip Mania bubble of 1636/7. That was when the bulbs of a rare strain of tulip became so expensive due to speculation, they became worth 10x more that what a skilled craftsman could earn in 10 years. He probably has a point, but he doesn't drop the other shoe--government intervention. The Dutch Parliament unilaterally declared that the tulip contracts could be nullified by the holder for 3.5% of the contract price! Then when a few people had traded in a bulb or two for a country estate (literally), the bubble burst. Then trading was halted. If they hadn't panicked before, they were sure to stampede now. The "crash" almost certainly wouldn't have been near as bad if the government had just stayed out of it completely, AND most PEOPLE WOULD HAVE LEARNED A VALUABLE LESSON.
To make matters even worse, judging by the increase in deposits in the Bank of Amsterdam, the government was expanding the money supply to "finance" the bailout. Does any of this sound familiar? While we're at it, why don't we take a long hard look at the definition of greed.
Sep 25, 2010 @ 18:08:10
