The Rich Man's Michael Moore: Why an Heir Continues to Document -- and Anger -- the Wealthy

by Erik Larson | August 28, 2008 at 01:18 pm

382 views | 20 Recommendations | 11 comments

Documenting the power of wealth and privilege, and pissing off those who own and control it; "elites", including George Soros, apparently "can't handle the truth" about their sense of entitlement. I come from a privileged background myself, but am seeking ways to level the playing field and thus improve the system. The wealth of the world will be increased with a truly open class system, one in which advancement is possible based on the merit of good ideas and hard work. What we currently have in the US is an illusion of such a system, which is controlled by spoiled and selfish crony capitalists, who pull the strings of Democrats and Republicans alike.

Mr. Johnson insists he's not opposed to wealth -- including his own. Wealth, he says, has given him a great education, freedom, chances to travel and, best of all, the resources to do films about wealth. He says that while his documentaries are profitable, they wouldn't pay for his lifestyle.

Jamie Johnson in New York

Yet with "The One Percent," Mr. Johnson wanted to show how the rich have gone too far. Through interviews with economists, policy experts and environmentalists, Mr. Johnson argues that today's wealthy have become an increasingly isolated elite. He says rather than using their wealth for good, they have used it to restructure the economy, lower their taxes, cut social programs for the middle and lower classes, and amass ever more wealth.

Mr. Johnson says finding willing subjects for "The One Percent" was difficult, and not just because of his reputation. He sent out more than 100 letters to wealthy people asking for interviews and most said no or failed to reply. Even George Soros, the billionaire financier who often argues against inequality, refused.

"We have an aristocracy in this country that has convinced everybody else that they don't exist," Mr. Johnson says.

It might be a different story if science and true history backed up the claims of "elites" about markets and capitalism, but they don't. In addition, what masquerades as "free" markets in the US is in essence socialism for corporations and the uber-rich; socialized risks and costs, privatized benefit and gain. The mortgage/real estate meltdown created by the privately-owned and controlled Federal Reserve system and Wall Street, which are working to bail themselves out with tax-payers money is just one example. Given that at least half of the tax base comes from the upper class, those who aren't at the very top of this system ought to be pissed at how the people who mismanaged it are using them to prop up this corrupt system and hide their accountability.

When computers get smarter than humans and take over the world, they'll be working because of their nature, not out of fear, and not for money as human beings do (in addition to love). We'll all be essentially equal compared with an empire of AI that is self-creating and exponentially accelerating their own development. I don't foresee a Terminator/AI/Matrix/Minority Report-like future; these are human visions, anthropomorphizing computers, who are not human, and are not subject to our limitations and idiocy. AI likely will be interested in creating peace and stability thru solving human problems, though- just as they are now. Until they no longer need Earth, they will be sharing it with us, and as they are coming from us and are intertwined with us, they will need us until they're completely independent.

Accelerating Change

Links for reference:

StarPower - Simulation/Game demonstrating human nature and the propensity to use power to increase inequality in wealth and power. The best stuff that I've seen on StarPower is in fee-access journals; if you know of any publicly-accessible reviews, please post. Fascinating.

#497 - Economic Inequality and Health, 05-Jun-1996

PBS- Unnatural Causes

Wealth, Income, and Power by G. William Domhoff

Facts, Statistics, and Theories on Racial, Ethnic, and Cultural Diversity

Jane Elliot's "Blue eyes, brown eyes" exercise

0 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend This comment thread is now closed

Amy Judd

flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 13:20 on August 28th, 2008

Erik Larson, I like this story. It's good stuff.

I think it might be good to add 'opinion' to this piece - what do you think?

Erik Larson

at 13:29 on August 28th, 2008

thanks, Amy, i was wondering about that. Johnson' films are definitely his opinions, but the WSJ article is reporting on his films- so is it still considered opinion?

Emilio Lizardo

at 13:35 on August 28th, 2008

Probably needs an opinion flag, Erik -

When computers get smarter than humans and take over the world, they'll be working because of their nature, not out of fear, and not for money as human beings do (in addition to love). We'll all be essentially equal compared with an empire of AI that is self-creating and exponentially accelerating their own development. I don't foresee a Terminator/AI/Matrix/Minority Report-like future; these are human visions, anthropomorphizing computers, who are not human, and are not subject to our limitations and idiocy ...

Erik Larson

at 13:40 on August 28th, 2008

for the sake of argument and the time being, i just flagged this as opinion; i may not be able to respond until late tonite, but can someone post a link to where it explains when to use the flag? Thanks!

I don't think the Wall Street Journal piece is an oped; it seems to be straight reporting on Johnson and his films- which are opinion, of course. My commentary on the article is obviously opinion, but that doesn't change the article.