爱情故事2009

看看那个电影中罗斯福说的话，那些嘲笑摩尔的人根本没看懂的是什么？！可耻！！
摩尔是真正的诗人，真正的艺术家。
我现在理解那些浴血奋战的2战美国士兵的精神动力了，他们保卫的是用国家军队保卫他们对抗保护资本家的警察和打手的美国！

这片子跟华氏911一比，差了不止3条街。缺了阴谋论，看上去就很乏味，以至于后半段简直令人昏昏欲睡。对资本主义的血泪控诉，就这点桥段，都不好意思写进我国的政治教材啊（话说按今天的眼光看，80年代的中学政治教科书很像另类科幻，什么牛奶倒大海，什么证交所多过米店，竟然都一一应验了）。说实话，我真的很想推荐老麦看一看我国80年代的中学政治教科书，虽然分析我国的事情不怎么靠谱，但是找资本主义的茬，那还是相当地一针见血啊。

其实华尔街，多好的阴谋论题材啊，但看到老麦对函数的导数满头黑线，就知道这不是他可以驾驭的了（不如请宋鸿兵来当顾问）？于是剩下的就只有感情宣泄了；美国本来是很好的，都是布什/鲍尔森良心让狗吃了，只要信天主信民主（党）以及巴马，于是乎就万事大吉了。红脖子智商固然低，但也没有这么好忽悠的吧。而且话说巴马上台已经两年了，那下次再怎么拍呢？看情形是要搞”党内出了佩洛西这样的走资派“之类的桥段了。

既然对问题没有深入的分析，老麦开出的药方也是可笑的。”罗斯福多活几年就好了“，算是解决方案？要知道罗斯福的social security现在都快破产了唉。人人有工作，人人有房子住，人人有医疗，哪个不需要花钱的啊？当然罗斯福有可能办得到，您老自己在开头就说了，那是因为欧洲日本都被还原成2D了嘛。

说老实话，搞福利国家北欧可以，日本可以，但是美国不可以，因为美国是老大，天塌下来也只能硬顶着，养懒人的下场就是老大地位不保，这个是一点办法都没有的事情。

喂喂，最后摇滚版的ED是虾米意思啊？欺负美宣部的同志们没有听过国际歌是吧？伟大导师教导我们，革命不是请客吃饭，自发的，盲目的，没有xx党领导的，那个啥啥啥，终归是要失败的。哼着小曲就想改天换日，那是门也没有的。现如今只有我国纪念的51劳动节和38妇女节，想当初都是芝加哥工人的滚滚人头啊。

纪录片必须客观么？这是谁定的规矩？纪录片只是一种没有剧本的电影题材。只是发生了什么，我把它讲出来，不是我让大家来演的，就这么简单。没有剧本跟客观有什么必然联系么。首先，只要拍电影，就没有客观。这电影，只要是人拍的，只要是摄影师扛着机器摄的，就不叫客观，机器就有取舍，机器只拍框进去的。框外头的广大世界机器就给抛弃了。这叫客观么？拍完了还得剪辑，剪辑就更是anti客观了。你想要客观，用你自己眼睛去看，别听任何人的教唆鼓动。只要是人的立场，就不客观啊，这肯定的啊。我不知道那些说michael moore纪录片不客观的人觉得什么样的纪录片才是客观的，觉得哪部纪录片是客观的。没有解说就客观了？没有配乐就客观了？摇摇晃晃就客观了？长镜头五分钟不完就客观了？？拍片子就是因为有话要说，不吐不快。选择一种表达方式而已。凭什么因为是纪录片就得背上客观的包袱？？

其次，大千世界，尤其艺术领域，就没有客观。我不知道客观在艺术的领域有什么意义？？飞行员救生员是需要客观判断，你得分清楚到底什么情况再行动啊，都是人命关天的事。科学需要客观判断，这实验做完了，对象没反应，你非记录一个有反应，这跟韩国著名基因科学家的行为有何区别。艺术你要什么客观我就不懂了。纪录片首先是电影，电影就是艺术，连本雅明废了半天劲都承认电影是艺术。那艺术说到底，不论是荷马史诗还是达芬奇毕加索，跟客观有什么关系。是，达芬奇是系统研究过人的肌肉和运动，再画的人体，但是，画蒙娜丽莎也得是建立在客观基础上的主观创作啊。纪录片，凭什么就非被要求要客观？别说拍动物自然界的就是客观啊，我求求你们了。

飞行员还要打两份工，7秒半就有人的房子被银行收走再卖给别人，美国国会就是高盛的董事会，宝洁沃尔玛给员工买寿险，自己填受益人，就为了等员工死，自己捞一票。这就是美国的现状。金融专家发明各种金融衍生品的名目，最后陷在自己堆的烂泥坑里。美国国会就得拿纳税人的钱去救他们。我就不明白了，难道资本主义的核心理念不是优胜劣汰自生自灭么？这些高盛们能不能遵守一下游戏规则？再说现在，他们说的是真是假也是一回事了。你要真快死了，还能拿钱消费么。如果是一个饿得快死的人，你给了他钱，他会拿着去买豪华飞机么？他们真的有那么惨么？郎咸平说全球变暖和哥本哈根大会多半都是美国导演好的制中国的戏，那金融危机怎么就不能带点表演成分呢？

美国人打死也不愿意姓社，别看他们说的这么热闹，让他们去朝鲜住一住，估计爬也要爬回美国了。现阶段人类社会能实现的社，显然不是可以代替资本主义的制度。但是，马克思理想中的社，是可以的。人家说的是，在物质极大丰富情况下的社。谁能想到人类的医疗发展得这样快，婴儿死亡率降到这样低？虽然不能治的病还是那么多，但是已经发明出如此多过去所谓的不治之症的疫苗?谁能想到资本主义可以发展到让员工都买股票？让你造反就是反自己？ 谁能想到广告和科技发展到如此亲密的联姻，利用人类的贪婪到如此地步？科技救了资本主义，物质看来永远也不会有极大丰富的一天了。再丰富，也不是最新潮时髦的。Ipad过几年就会被取代，马克思怎么能想到资本主义给自己开辟了这样宽广的新路？住大别墅开奔驰有什么不好？ 我们一代代的青年被培养出来，首先是打破头去高考，然后是打破头进最好的系（将来挣钱最多的系）。他们翻了翻报纸，发现所有的都说，高收入行业永远有金融。于是他们纷纷来到了金融系，我认识的一个同学甚至才大二就发短信问他们老师说：老师，基金经理一年能挣200万么？我真想跟他说，能，太能了。只要替有钱人搞老鼠仓，只要把穷人的钱全都搜刮了，那太容易了。试问哪个学金融的不想进摩根高盛？试问哪个学金融的不想开发出更多的金融衍生品？他们一天天头破血流地学，考能杀死十万个脑细胞的证，最后他们进了中环的写字楼，他们进了华尔街，住上了大别墅，开上了奔驰，觉得自己的一生真是幸福充实。电影里的那专家还那唏嘘，说这么聪明的脑子用在正路上，将是多么大的创造力？但是金融系的同学们不是这么想的。他们看不出自己和那些被赶出家门，住在卡车里的人有什么联系。他们前赴后继地做资本主义体系的螺丝钉。

我不明白为什么总有人能说出这样的话：“ 那些被赶出家门的人真是可怜之人必有可恨之处，谁让他们用房子抵押去买车？”或者“我真不觉得那些因为股市崩盘，就把自己养老金炒没了的老头老太太可怜”。换言之就是，谁让你们非买的？谁让你们非要入市的？我又没求着你入市！！我们一直明说了，入市有风险啊！

我靠，难道把老百姓卷入金融体系不是高盛们盼望的么？难道拉动美国gdp的不是老百姓的消费么？难道中国老百姓都去炒股不是大多数高层喜闻乐见的么？如果没有散户，庄家抄谁去啊？庄家抄庄家么？？你怎么能先是利用了人性的共同点——贪婪，自己牟利了，然后又反过来取笑这种贪婪呢？？怎么理全让你们占了！我把房子抵押了买车怎么了？以我当时的工作，我就觉得我能还上贷款。谁知道后来公司把我裁了（让剩下的人干两倍的活），又找不到别的工作，或者我出了个事故，残疾了，就还不上贷款了。谁知道啊？？ 这时有人说了，这就是你们提前消费遭的报应。你看中国人过去老讲未雨绸缪，就不会出这事。可是提前消费还不是高盛们忽悠的么？我们中国老百姓一被忽悠，这不也都纷纷提前消费么。老百姓太好忽悠了，还有比老百姓更好忽悠的么？？

罗斯福死了，他的理想被日本和德国实现了，或者正在实现中。人家那中产阶级居然能说上话，人家那中产阶级就没被银行扫地出门。如果姓社就意味着集权，如果姓资就意味着更庞大的官商勾结和剥削穷人，那为什么在日本和德国那就不这样呢？我已经不想再反观中国了，再反观只能自己去哭死了，还是去那飞行员网站上看看怎么救济飞行员吧，好让我别再赶上俩飞行员抱怨挣的少，一走神，让我跌死在美国回中国的路上。

Michael Moore对于美国，大概相当于台湾的李敖。欣赏的他们的原因也是一样，言论虽然极端，但是背后总是有一大堆数据和文件来佐证。何况现在的社会，太缺少这样的声音了。我猜导演也不把自己当成一个纯粹的电影工作者。而同样的，我们几乎不能用一般的标准来衡量这部电影。

作为一个金融工作者，我目击了两年半来市场神奇的变化。世界末日曾经来过。我们可以如此健忘，难怪历史一直重复。又或者你无知到都不曾感觉到世界末日来过。就好像开始工作之前我也对LTCM一无所知，对房地产市场毫无兴趣。如果你像我曾经那样无知，请看这部电影，你会知道一些你应该知道的事情。比方说雷曼兄弟的倒闭来自于同为犹太人投行的劲敌高盛在华尔街的散播谣言。比方说AIG被美国政府解救高盛丝毫没受金融危机影响反而比从前盈利更高的主要原因是高盛与美国政府高层的密切关系。就好像LTCM事件一样，为华尔街买单的是老老实实的交税人。

百分之一的人控制百分之九十五以上的财富，这就是资本主义，没有道德可言。从个人的角度，我们总是可以尽量保证自己不是最严重的受害者，但是总是有人会受到伤害。而制约伤害的方法真的是民主吗？

给了5颗星，是因为它的时代性，值得每个人去关注。

去年的九月，我们正坐在商学院里上课，教授走进来说：上课之前，请大家看看今天的日期，记住它。
那天，雷曼宣布破产，美林宣布被美银收购。那天，华尔街再一次成为世界的焦点——一个巨人笨拙地倒下，发出一声闷响，掸起一地尘埃，围观者心惊，无助地捂着眼睛抓着头发，半响说不出话来。

资本主义，自由经济，deregulation，还有，American dreams.
这就如同一场盲目而执着的恋爱，你爱得深沉爱得义无反顾爱得连自己都被自己感动了，然后突然有一天，你发现，你爱的这一切，你并不真正了解。

对，麦克摩尔就给我们讲的是这个盲目而别致的爱的故事。

我和一群女朋友，一群在商学院挣扎着理解教授们关于金融衍生产品的定义和期货期权以及其他充满创造力和想象力的金融产品的价值衡量等“学术”概念里转来转去的我们，对金融业充满着憧憬和初生牛犊不怕虎的傻气的学生们，坐在电影院里，听麦克摩尔给我们讲这个故事。

多生动啊。

和恋爱一样，这样一种爱，对体制的爱，是不能完全分清青红皂白的，是不能pin point说真的谁就evil谁就不是了。对，你可以说那些银行“欺负”了贫民，你也可以说，那些政府官员为了自己的利益，自己集团的利益，一部分程度上滥用了纳税人的钱。但是，这是一部分程度上。你不能不说的是，什么样的经济大背景下，那些决策者面对的压力和大局的考量——事发之后总要有人来收拾，收拾必然会出现资本的分配，分配就有不均。而且，人渣哪里都存在。我们为那些失去家园的贫民们表示悲哀。但如果说这就是资本主义的错——至少摩尔先生认为如此——那么，你能找到任何一种体制，一种经济体制，能够解决贫富差异的问题么？哦，别告诉我是共产主义，政治教科书上说，那是一种理想。
这理想就像永恒的爱情一样，是一种古老的传说。

美国人民信仰资本主义，信仰美国梦，就像投入一场恋爱。
于是这是美国人民，尤其是美国平民的一次失恋。
而且似乎还是初恋失恋，于是痛得这样深刻，悲恸地让人叹息。

作为观众，我要说，摩尔把这一场失恋描述得细致而深刻。
作为半个“业内人士”，这就像是一堂道德课。
而作为一个曾经在美国呆过，接触过那些中低层美国人生活的我，摩尔带给我自己的“美国梦”冲击也着实不小，把自己观察到的和在影片中看到的，由一个一个点连成了线，连成了画面，连成了我更加真实的认识，它们矫正着我的憧憬，带来了前所未有的思考。

最后，作为一个在不同制度下接受教育的留学生，由摩尔纪录片得以上映，并拿到如此多的材料和愿意透露姓名站在摄影机前做一名“目击者”的这件事本身，带给我的冲击更大。

美国人虽然失恋了。
我们却全可以从这失恋中学到这么多。
这是任何一场失恋能带给我们的——不是得到，就是学到。

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.