其實(shí)還挺觸目驚心的。最簡單的一句話就是，買了房子之后盡早還貸款，因?yàn)槊绹y行已經(jīng)改了法律條款，可以提高loan rate的。而且千萬千萬不要refinance ur house，不然落得個(gè)傾家蕩產(chǎn)流離失所可就不是好玩兒的了。當(dāng)然，除非你也想像片子中的老兄們聽到的國會(huì)議員建議那樣做，耍無賴就是不走。

其實(shí)當(dāng)Obama當(dāng)選之后導(dǎo)演的態(tài)度大轉(zhuǎn)變就讓我厭惡到不行。這總統(tǒng)這么厲害這么優(yōu)秀，成效在哪里呢？我們怎么都還沒有看見。最后爭取自己權(quán)益的還不是咱們working class自己嘛？

我這一輩子是不想去美國的，老師在那里實(shí)在是沒辦法混，這一點(diǎn)看我在這里的美國同事們有多開心就知道了

最后的國際歌還挺那什么的～～
咱們工人有力量

片子本身還有些不夠客觀，依然帶了太多的Michael Moore自身的觀點(diǎn)，遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)沒有<Food Inc.>好。

最后說一句，可以看一看的，哪怕是抱著審視和懷疑的態(tài)度去看。

這個(gè)陰謀論拍滴有點(diǎn)蠢，michael moore是一個(gè)典型的思路混亂，又喜歡嘩眾取寵滴美國佬。話說我雖不偏向擁有話語權(quán)的權(quán)貴，但是一直認(rèn)為對于窮人，尤其是那些只會(huì)抱怨為富不仁，整天期盼著免費(fèi)午餐的窮人，也沒什么好同情的，話說可憐之人必有可恨之處。。。

只不過在中國，情況又不一樣。中國國民素質(zhì)低下的根本不是窮人，而是那幫自恃為精英，占有著社會(huì)資源卻又不履行相應(yīng)社會(huì)責(zé)任的黑領(lǐng)們。。。哎喲，開始憤青了。。。

什么是聰明的陰謀論，可以去看一下Zeitgeist,絕對會(huì)帶來一個(gè)paradigm shift.

其實(shí)，我是摩爾大叔的粉絲，他之前的幾部，我都看得津津有味。只是，從 "Bowling for Columbine" (2002), "Fahrenheit 9/11" (2004), "Sicko" (2007)　到這一部《資本主義：一個(gè)愛情故事》，我必須承認(rèn)，大叔江郎才盡了。
 
大叔的那種有些幽默感的諷刺(讓我稱其作comical satire)，我曾經(jīng)非常喜歡。這一次，他又試圖炮制一部comical satire, 只是不知是我厭倦了，還是這次大叔耍得水平不夠，幽默好冷，諷刺方面也不具之前那種直刺心肺的力量。
 
可能年齡大些了，閱歷多些了，就更能頭腦清晰、對事物作出客觀的判斷，大叔的作品我現(xiàn)在看來，實(shí)在是過于偏激、煽情和挑斗，邏輯混亂又太把自己當(dāng)回事。這部片子中又有一些他強(qiáng)行采訪未果的鏡頭，讓我有些忍俊不禁。也許，像有些豆友所指出的，大叔這次選擇了過為宏大的題目，實(shí)在“螳臂當(dāng)車”。
 
Michael Moore　富于自我審視和批判的精神，這一點(diǎn)也許比一般美國人強(qiáng)，但作為一個(gè)電影人，他的水準(zhǔn)好像一直沒有提高。這部影片但愿不是他電影生涯的最低點(diǎn)。
 
下次看到Michael Moore的新作，我會(huì)好好考慮到底要不要看。
 
評分：6.5 out of 10

2011.9.25

我不能完全同意其中的觀點(diǎn)，但是我卻完全徹底的喜歡這樣的說話方式。
不過我也有些悲哀，因?yàn)樵谥袊姓J(rèn)自己是一個(gè)徹底的信仰共產(chǎn)主義的共產(chǎn)黨人（不是說你一定中國共產(chǎn)黨員，而是說你完全相信并且追隨《共產(chǎn)黨宣言》的人），會(huì)被人覺得可笑。這是一層悲哀。
另外還有一層悲哀。那些所謂的資本主義的追隨者，也無法真正的解決資本主義的問題。
最終的悲哀是在于，當(dāng)你真正的去思考人類社會(huì)未來的美好前景的時(shí)候，你會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)你是孤單的。

The other day I was watching Real Time. As usual, Bill and his panel - Arianna Huffington and Andrew Sorkin in this case - talked about how the Corporate America, especially those financial elites, rip off the hard-working middle class people and get away with it with tons of taxpayers' money in their pockets. As the heat mounted, it is, of course, inevitable to raise doubts about and criticize the existing system. Then, all of sudden, I was shocked, and partly amused, by how these spouts resemble what we have been preached throughout our education. Greed, exploitation, and ultimately the populist revolt. This type of rhetoric sounds no strange to us; for this is what we are expected, if not ordered, to believe in. And yet, to the American people, particularly the younger generation, it sounds just as exotic and remote as a fashionable historic curiosity.

There are more of these moments to find in Michael Moore's documentary, Capitalism: A Love Story. Jimmy Carter's presidential statement that "we are at a turning point in our history" in that "human identity is no longer defined by what one does, but by what one owns" called for the very same thing the Eight Honors and Eight Disgraces is intended to. The only difference here is that one has perished amid the laissez faire spree triggered by the president's successor, while another is ongoing in an emerging superpower experiencing an astounding economic growth and faced with increasingly polarized distribution.

Carter also rightly decried that "too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption". Ironically enough, this is exactly where Ronald Reagan thrived. By cutting taxes by a enormous margin, by packing those ideas that Carter hated and warned against into the doctrine of capitalism and the almighty power of the free market, the Republican president created a robust consumption-driven economy and garnered tremendous popularity. Historically, this was also a significant period of what Walter R. Mead, an advisor to Henry Kissinger, described as the breakdown of the blue model. Union power declined, competition intensified - just as Michael Moore lamented in the film, it was not an easy time for everybody. However, the cosmetic served well. With new policies well implemented, economic index responded with great numbers. So did the stock market, so did the financial sector; and so people say of the economy and the president's legacy. Indeed, it was the best of times, it was the worst of times.

But this does not solve the moral problems incurred by the ever greater gap between the wealthy and the poor. In an electoral democracy, for a policy, or more precisely -- an ideology to become legitimate it has to promote the core ideas that have been deeply rooted in this nation ever since its foundation - well known as the "American dream" - which, in its simplest form, requires two most basic elements: freedom and equal opportunities. Of course, it is no difficulty to claim freedom in a capitalism for it is already a "free market", but the concept of "equal opportunities" is not an easy case. How could everyone be equal in a system in which more capital could be gained out of capital itself? How is deregulation supposed to promote equality when the ones with more wealth is granted with access to more influence, and hence even more wealth? This is where the economists, along with their terrifying-sounding jargons, weighed in. Drawing on one after another premises that are too good - and too simple - to be true, they derived elegant models functioning perfectly in equilibriums yet inherently inconsistent with reality. But politicians, as they always do, conveniently neglected those flaws in nature and with the help of speechwriters blended the pretty conclusions into their exciting orations. The "invisible hand", what a tempting yet handy idea - it's like finding the key to the ultimate mystery of the universe - sparing us the tedious thoughts of how our society and economy really work, develop, and interact with fast changing circumstances. Capitalism and the free market, as the Cold War ended in the collapse of the Soviet Union, soon earned their unchallengeable status in the realm of economic expertise. This, I firmly believe, is the ugly but real side of the truth: people blindly come to believe in those slogan-like theories not because of prudence, but because of laziness; for it is the one of the most common human nature of us to see what we want to see.

But, how about the immoral and unchristlike worship of "self-indulgence and consumption"? It indeed sounds like a righteous warning, doesn't it? Let me put this in relatively vague words for the sake of a bit wit here. When people see and hear of the media promotions of smoking elaborately plotted and sponsored by big evil tobacco companies, as depicted in Hollywood products, in either an upbraiding or a nostalgic way, they easily buy it, assuming that's what surely is bound to happen, as though the condescending liberal media elites just reclaimed their integrity out of blue. Nonetheless, contradictory to the common ground that government and politicians are evil, hypocritical, or, at best, incompetent, when it comes to massive political propaganda people easily get dismissive, disdainfully calling them conspiracies. Anyway, were those speculations to have been true, you have got to give applause to the gentlemen behind the curtain, for they can somehow manage to manipulate people to do and believe in things that are obviously against their own interests. It is truly a tour de force, works like magic.

Back to the film, and the ideology talk partly thanks to its title. It is amazing how frequently and strongly Michael Moore stress the term "socialism". And not in a Cold-War-minded way, but in a progressive and advocating way. So advocating that it proclaims socialism is the unfulfilled dream of FDR. So, how does the landscape really looks like in the US? Is it as biased as either side insists? Trying to answer that question, another popular liberal president, Jed Bartlet, would probably say, "Give me numbers." Fair enough. Let's take a look at them:

http://filer.blogbus.com/4598556/45985561268749559s.gif
http://filer.blogbus.com/4598556/45985561268749552q.gif

This poll was conducted earlier this year. It shows that, significantly, though 58% of Americans still maintain a negative image of socialism, among Democrats and leaner a majority of people share a positive one, and that majority grows even bigger when it comes to liberals, topping the "supermajority" threshold at 61%.

Also underlined in the film is Barack Obama's ascendency in polls during the '08 presidential election, which Michael Moore arbitrarily attributed to the underlying socialism in his rhetoric and agenda. It is easy to commit the mistake of post hoc ergo propter hoc, but the exhilarated crowd was real and hard. Young people, with their compassion and idealism yet to fade, are known to be the main components of the liberal base. This hypothetical electoral map below demonstrates that fact convincingly well:

http://filer.blogbus.com/4598556/45985561268757624r.jpg

These results altogether illustrate a sharp contrast with that across the Pacific, where the pro-capitalism outrage amid the young is burgeoning seemingly as fast as the economic growth. The bottom line is that it is widely acknowledged that China's economy and growth model are in fact ill and flawed, but is capitalism the solution to all our conundrums? I am too often astounded by the extend to which some of our professors and pundits, who are supposed to think and analyze in a much more comprehensive way, appear so naive as to blame many problems on the markets not being open, free, and in essence capitalist enough. The contemporary history of the US has already showed the idealistic promises of capitalism that everyone shares an equal opportunity to work his way into the upper class are nothing but a fantasy; in reality, it is never in its purest form but other derivatives, namely, crony capitalism. Which does little good to the society as a whole but quite the opposite, creating even more inequality in the long run. In an economy that is strong and hence resilient to tentative turbulences so long as the marginal well-being stays positive, it might take decades for a bubble to burst. Nevertheless, in an over populated nation governed by a young regime dealing with various inherent social tensions, it could lead to catastrophe.

So, what does all this imply? Should we just entirely reject the Western philosophies as merely historical blunders? Of course not. To me the very point here is that we are bestowed - in an ironic way - with this dual perspective on the nature of human society, in terms of how social progressivism driven by different values eventually converge at promoting human equality and how dogmatism could be manipulated to impede that momentum and ultimately undermine our integrity. For a nation in the face of a seemingly unstainable economy, for a people shadowed by a wobbling ethical system, this is an utterly important issue.

 最近看了這部電影，想了一些東西。
這部電影給我?guī)淼?，不止是對美國?dāng)前嚴(yán)峻形勢的認(rèn)識(shí)，更是一種對資本主義產(chǎn)生的思考和對其未來的探索，資本主義，不僅是一個(gè)美麗愛情故事，而更像一個(gè)一個(gè)引人深思的，能左右人類未來的神話故事。其實(shí)可以看出，導(dǎo)演其實(shí)并不反對資本主義。我也是。
提起資本主義，就有一個(gè)繞不開的人——馬克思?韋伯。
馬克思?韋伯在其著作《新教倫理與資本主義精神》中認(rèn)為認(rèn)為資本主義精神是盎格撒克遜新教文化的一個(gè)天然的繼承者和重要成果，把重商理論自然而然的加入新教徒的信仰中，他甚至創(chuàng)造出一個(gè)詞——天職（calling）——來描述經(jīng)商對新教徒的重要性，他提倡的資本主義是一種有理性的，神圣的道德制度，一種能給世界帶來美好未來的先進(jìn)生產(chǎn)制度。且不說韋伯理論里的長處與不足，單從影響上來看，韋伯的理論無疑對資本主義的合法性和先進(jìn)性做了一次充分的理論證明，成為近現(xiàn)代資本主義存在與發(fā)展的重要基礎(chǔ)，對當(dāng)代也有著極其深遠(yuǎn)的影響，美國尤為如此。
總所周知，當(dāng)“五月花”在北美大陸上第一次撒下種子時(shí)，美國，就注定是一個(gè)不折不扣的新教國家。美國宣揚(yáng)的所謂的“普世價(jià)值”和自由民主無疑是2000年前耶路撒冷那位圣人觀點(diǎn)的延續(xù)和過度“補(bǔ)充”。盡管自詡為進(jìn)步國家和民主天堂，但美國卻不斷被各種社會(huì)問題所困擾。貧富差距深深地刺痛著這個(gè)美利堅(jiān)巨人的神經(jīng)，為何這個(gè)貫徹著“神圣而科學(xué)”的資本主義的人間天堂也會(huì)如此的困擾呢？另一個(gè)馬克思或許告訴了我們答案。
馬克思在《資本論》中精辟而又全面的對資本主義進(jìn)行了深度解剖，從理論上否定了其存在的合法性，認(rèn)為“資本主義的每個(gè)毛孔都是帶著血和骯臟的東西”，“有100%的利潤，它就敢踐踏一切人間法律；有200%的利潤，它就敢冒任何罪行，甚至絞首的危險(xiǎn)”并預(yù)言資本主義最終必將被社會(huì)主義所取代。馬克思的偉大之處，在于他超越時(shí)代的眼光和科學(xué)嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)?shù)姆椒ㄕ?，《資本論》的最重要的價(jià)值，也是教會(huì)了我們一種更深層次的方法。首先，馬克思的歷史唯物主義把世界看做是一個(gè)動(dòng)態(tài)的發(fā)展過程，認(rèn)為資本主義不會(huì)是世界發(fā)展的最終形態(tài)，這就是為什么他能看到資本主義的黑暗并能大膽的把它們指出來。而西方主流經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)和哲學(xué)家卻把世界看著是一個(gè)靜止的過程，他們不否認(rèn)運(yùn)動(dòng)，但他們認(rèn)為資本主義已經(jīng)是運(yùn)動(dòng)的終點(diǎn)了，他們所做的，是在資本主義這種制度的前提下的研究，這就帶來了無可避免的局限性。他們把經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)當(dāng)做了為現(xiàn)實(shí)辯護(hù)的工具，從為大蕭條而采取政府干預(yù)提供理論基礎(chǔ)的 “凱恩斯主義”，到今年來為80 90年代為私有化，自由化辯護(hù)的“新古典經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)派”無一不是如此，而被他們稱為“偽科學(xué)”的馬克思主義政治經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)卻能以長期的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)發(fā)展為條件，很好的解釋各個(gè)環(huán)節(jié)，并能做出準(zhǔn)確的預(yù)言和科學(xué)的分析，其中孰優(yōu)孰劣，個(gè)人心中自知。
 馬克思對資本主義的預(yù)言，自有時(shí)間來驗(yàn)證，但資本主義逐漸衰退并逐漸失去了活力早已是一個(gè)不爭的事實(shí)，社會(huì)問題的頻發(fā)便是一個(gè)標(biāo)志。
 其實(shí)，不僅是美國的資本主義出現(xiàn)了問題，有些西化痕跡明顯的強(qiáng)大的社會(huì)主義國家也無法獨(dú)善其身，貧富差距，注定是國家走向繁榮的一塊不得不搬的石頭。
子曰：“不患貧而患不均”，縱觀中國歷史，每一個(gè)王朝崩潰的前夕，都有土地大量集中，百姓無糧無地，生活困苦，產(chǎn)生“朱門酒肉臭，路有凍死骨”，這也解釋了為什么農(nóng)民是反封建王朝的主力軍，而當(dāng)今有些強(qiáng)大的社會(huì)主義國家正有這種趨勢，該國的基尼系數(shù)以超過0.5，這已是逼近社會(huì)動(dòng)亂的邊緣，自由化，私有化的運(yùn)動(dòng)曾經(jīng)給這個(gè)國家?guī)磉^30年的輝煌，但這條輝煌的道路的前面到底是萬丈懸崖還是金光大道，現(xiàn)在已日趨明顯。當(dāng)資本主義的美國在其神圣的制度下步履蹣跚得掙扎著時(shí)，我們們是應(yīng)當(dāng)邯鄲學(xué)步，還是應(yīng)該對前人的寶貴財(cái)富進(jìn)行提煉和總結(jié)，找出自己的走路方式，這應(yīng)當(dāng)是每個(gè)有責(zé)任有擔(dān)當(dāng)?shù)娜藨?yīng)追求的。
極右們~~ 噴我吧~~ 其實(shí)我真是個(gè)中間派，有點(diǎn)偏左