Review of Saving Capitalism (2017) by Leo O — 02 Dec 2017

I watched Saving Capitalism on the advice of a friend. As I am a financial professional, he was intrigued on hearing my perspectives on this film.

After watching the first 20 minutes, I formed a picture of where it was going, and wanted to bail. However, I watched it all carefully and my suspicion was accurate.

Reminded me of a Michael Moore film. Completely biased. Missing half of a story. Selling a film and/or books. Nothing more. Former Labour Secretary Reich is an academic who became simply because he was a Yale friend of Clinton. Good qualification? Reich is a left wing idealist who knows nothing about business. In fact, he puts down Treasury Secretary, Trump, etc.

The highlights were Reagan's quote about "government is the problem" and the part with David Brat. Brat voted 2nd most conservative Republican out of about 250. His statements were accurate. Corporate cronyism is bad, but the point is that you need bad government to cause it.

Reich focuses on big business as a cause, when it is clearly big government. See the problem here? This is marketed to people with a limited understanding of "how the world works". Sophisticated viewers are left with comments that go unanswered in every segment.

Just like managing a household, it starts and ends with finances. Discipline, prudence, hard work and knowledge often leads to prosperity. "It's funny that the harder you work, the luckier you become.". The people in the film ask for more because they feel entitled and what they make is simply "not enough".

"Saving Capitalism" is an intriguing tag line to sell books and film. The film's content was largely unrelated. The protagonist showed his stripes (which I predicted and was waiting for) when he stated that when people are angry they go to the Right (eg Tea Party) because they need a macho strongman (Trump implied in a negative connotation), or to the Left (eg Sanders), when "they want reform/change (positive connotation).

I would rephrase this as, "When people want to manage the economy responsibly with a fiduciary duty, they go to the Right (eg Tea Party) because they need people with successful experience to manage costs on behalf of taxpayers because they have a fiduciary duty to taxpayers while that money is in their trust. The opposite of this is people's desire to relinquish their liberty and freedom, or to the Left (eg Sanders), when "they want reform/change (positive connotation).

Trump is the 1st non-politician Washington outsider to become President. For those wanting "change" and "hope" in America, they should be applauding him. Eight years of Obama's "hope" amounted to mounting bureaucracy, debt and little to show for it. Trump's clip in the film was accurate, "I pay all politicians, then I call them for favours - it's wrong.". This is the unfortunate truth and no other candidate who ran against him, Republican or Democrat, had the balls to say this...why? Because they are all bureacratic cronies, who rely on the business cronyism, lobbyists, and our taxes to feed them. Trump campaigned on "draining the swamp". Both Republican and Democratic bureacrats are threatened by him.

In the real world, I find it interesting to hear his perspectives on how Americans have become so tired and leary of the media bashing the Presidency; it's truly unprecedented. It's backfiring on the media now because people can't stand the constant bashing and lying.

This is why the disgraceful NFL behaviour has plunged viewership and attendance to new lows. Also, the Weinstein and other revelations just show how Hollywood's holier than thou attitude is an ironic crock.

The problem of this film and all of Michael Moore's films are they take 3 or 4 selected stories that fit their position, add some sad music, and convince impressionable people of their thesis. I thought, "Is he stating that people are worse off than 66 years ago, when my father immigrated?" We're not doing too bad. However, we worked and sacrificed for fucking 66 years while those who didn't try to convince us that it's unfair and we have too much and they have too little. Go fuck themselves!

People's natural tendency is not to work. Lacking means, they blame others for their problems and turn to Socialism to take from those that have. The lazy trash in society wants to tax us to take our money. The government bureaucrats want our money to feed their employment and livelihood. Unions do as well.

The protagonist in this film was incredibly short, under 5'. Typically, he would have grown up with a strong complex, where his natural defence would to use his brain (i.e. academic) or alternative talent. Being an academic, he has never had to battle in the business world, and he instead criticizes the advice of Clinton's Cabinet member, former head of Goldman Sachs. Coupled with his impractical idealism, hence he was a fish out of water in Clinton's Cabinet and asked to leave. He now sells books and these schlocky films for naïve audiences who will listen to him.