The point is not that such movies, or the culture more generally, argue that capitalism is evil. Just the opposite: it is that they so often merely assume, innocently and expecting to arouse no skepticism, that capitalism is evil...
In the late 1980s, as Mikhail Gorbachev embarked on his perestroika program of economic reform, Soviet officials were sent abroad to see how things were done in the West. One visited London's main vegetable market. He asked how the market was organized, and how prices were set He was told that the individual traders bought whatever quantities they wished, and set their own prices, and that these fluctuated throughout the day as the balance of supply and demand changed. At this, the Soviet visitor laughed. He said he understood that this was the official line--but, please, how did the market really set prices?
That, in fact, was the reaction of an intelligent man. It is fantastically improbable that markets work, at scale, as well as they do. It is astonishing that in an economy of America's size--to say nothing of the world economy as a whole--a limitless variety of goods and services is continuously offered at prices people are willing to pay, without persistent gluts or shortages, entirely without central direction. That the system also calls forth an endless flow of innovation and improvement is a miracle. The man from Moscow was right to be incredulous.
And it gets better, because this infinitely complicated, decentralized system has an obvious affinity with personal liberty, in a way that a centrally directed system never could. Market exchange, after all, is voluntary; under central planning, you are told what to do--or else. Europe's newcomers from the former Soviet empire need no reminding of this. But people in Western Europe and the United States, who never had to endure the alternative to a market economy, see little or no force in the connection between economic and political liberty. Often it seems that those in the West who are most concerned with defending political or civil freedoms are least concerned with the economic kind, even to the point of being outright opposed to them. They argue as though political freedom is the real thing, whereas economic freedom is merely a cloak for injustice. In the end, as socialism in practice showed, the two are indivisible.
But does it matter, really, if people are less comfortable with the idea of capitalism than they might be, or should be? Up to a point, to be sure, this skepticism serves a purpose, drawing attention to ills and injustices that might otherwise be ignored. But there is a cost: the mood of discomfort and suspicion is a pity in itself, to the extent that it is unwarranted. Also, it fosters a demand for, or tolerance of, frivolous or wasteful interventions by government...
How about a movie in which a firm prospers under threat of competition by selling things that people want at an affordable price, paying its workers the market wage, and breaking no laws, thereby advancing the common good? Well, you see the problem.
Drugs industry 'not as film shows'
The boss of one of the world's biggest drugs companies has criticised an Oscar-nominated film for painting an untrue picture of the pharmaceuticals industry.
The Constant Gardener - starring British talent Ralph Fiennes and Rachel Weisz - has won critical acclaim and box office success with its tale of misdeeds by big business.
Based on John le Carre's novel, it tells the story of a human rights activist murdered after discovering a big pharmaceuticals company was testing experimental drugs on poor Africans.
But Jean-Pierre Garnier, chief executive of Anglo-American drugs giant GlaxoSmithKline, made clear he was not impressed by the depiction of the industry in the film.
Mr Garnier told Channel 4 News: "The problem with this movie is that the author, at least in the book, attempted to link too much his fiction with reality - a reality that doesn't exist.
"When I see the work that we have done in Africa and the difference that our products make in the areas portrayed in the movie - and I have actually been there, I don't know if the author of the movie and the book have - the fact of the matter is the pharmaceutical industry has made a tremendous contribution.
"None of the scenario elements and plots in this movie have any relation to reality.
"It is a nice piece of fiction, let's enjoy it. It's entertainment, but it's not what we are all about."
GlaxoSmithKline today announced profits for 2005 of £6.73 billion.
Derek Lowe writes,
I believe that it was Ben Stein who once said that only in Hollywood could you have a setup of a murdered drug dealer in a dangerous neighborhood, with the villian turning out to be a wealthy businessman from the suburbs. Portraying an industry, which is actually saving and trying to save millions of people from suffering, as an assortment of amoral killers is the same formula. It's isn't new, and it isn't shocking. It isn't brave, and it isn't true.and LARRY E. RIBSTEIN has a paper about Wall Street and Vine: Hollywood's View of Business
American films have long presented a negative view of business. This article is the first comprehensive and in-depth analysis of filmmakers' attitude toward business. It shows that it is not business that filmmakers dislike, but rather the control of firms by profit-maximizing capitalists. The article argues that this dislike stems from filmmakers' resentment of capitalists' constraints on their artistic vision. Filmmakers' portrayal of business is significant because films have persuasive power that tips the political balance toward business regulation.
No comments:
Post a Comment