Change Your Image
nicksamm-23825
Reviews
Run Hide Fight (2020)
Proving yet again that movie critics, like journalists, care nothing about their agenda and promoting confirmation bias
Here we have another great film, where all critic reviews basically give it a 0, while all user reviews range anywhere from 7/10-10/10. Is it a masterpiece? No. But it's a good movie, and it's refreshing to finally have a good movie, with a good story, good production, good script, and good production, that doesn't jam a political agenda or ideology down the viewer's throats. Remember, before around 2010-2015, when movies were movies, and the plot focused on... well... a plot, rather than a surface level plot that instead sought to shove ideas of intersectionaltity, "down with the patriarchy," and making not-so-subtle messages about the evils of certain groups of people? Well, here we are, back to the roots and what makes movies enjoyable. If you're tired of all the Netflix originals shoving an agenda, worldview, and cult-like ideology down your throat, and want to simply watch an entertaining flick that doesn't feel like you're being preached to, than this is for you. The thousands of user reviews speak for themselves, and, again, prove that the "media critic," is a useless job filled with people who don't deserve to be taken seriously. In fact, the worse the "critic review," the higher the chance it's a decent movie; and that's been a tried and true way of finding a good movie to watch for years now.
Saving Capitalism (2017)
By the economically illiterate, for the economically illiterate
As economist Paul Gregory has noted in his Forbes article, "Reich's lamentable disregard for facts and his lack of knowledge of basic economics," has earned him and his theories an "F." Having spent enough time in academia and years at one of the top business schools in the country, I couldn't agree more with the numerous reviews and critiques on Reich's "Saving Capitalism." For those like me that have had the unfortunate opportunity of reading "Saving Capitalism," and seeing the "documentary," (quoted because it is more a lengthy advertisement for the implementation of a social welfare state and a forced societal and cultural paradigm shift built on a strong-armed redistribution of wealth), it is difficult to adequately cover how wrong Reich is nearly every step of the way, starting with his book's initial false assertion in which the rest of his arguments are reliant on. He complains about every debate he is in devolving into a debate about whether the free market or the government does a better job (completely ignoring that classical liberals, libertarians, free market economists, and conservatives alike, would all agree that for the government to create property rights, control monopoly, and enforce contracts are precisely things they would list as justified duties of the government. He relies on some perverted assumption that all of his opponents believe the government serves no purpose, has no right "setting the rules," is mutually exclusive of a free-market, and is always wrong and/or bad. Instead, they'd likely argue that it isn't their "making and enforcing" the rules that is the problem, but their tendency to also insert themselves as players or actors "in the game," in which they are "making and enforcing" the rules).
Overall, without writing a full essay, the best I can suggest is to take everything with a (huge) grain of salt if you are going to watch or read the book, especially if you are not, like most people (understandably), educated in economics, political science, or a related field. It's easy to hear agreeable things, like eliminating poverty, backed by nice buzz words, like 'wealth redistribution," and agree with everything else - it's why propaganda is so effective. So I urge everyone to at least do themselves a favor, and read multiple (academic/scholarly, or at least by an economist) book reviews and/or critiques of Reich as supplemental material to understand why it is that economists and professionals don't take Reich too seriously, and more importantly, why the ideas presented are downright dangerous