Get help from the best in academic writing.

Capitalism: A Love Story: A Reflective Paper Response Essay

The paper will start by giving an overall impression of the documentary, followed by an examination of what the documentary meant to me. This will be followed by an analysis of whether I agree with Moore’s message in the movie or not, and why. The conclusion will be a discussion on whether the movie has in any way changed my perception on capitalism. There will be included a bibliography page citing the resources used in the paper.

If you cut out the drama, the people-bashing and the over-simplification of complex economic systems in Michael Moore’s documentary movie ‘Capitalism: a Love Story’, you can still find substance in there. Having had reviews to both extremes; with others claiming that Moore should have stopped making movies at ‘Roger and Me’, and the other half exclaiming that it was an eye-opener, it was with mixed expectations that I watched the documentary.

I admit it was at first difficult to follow the storyline, but by the middle of the movie, I could see clearly the point that Moore was trying to put across. Moore was presenting the social and economic inequalities that have been the result of decades of capitalism. He pointed out at institutions such as Wall Street and Goldman Sachs as being the major culprits (Dargis n.p).

He argued that politics and the corporate world are too closely tied in America, and this undermines democratic practice. Who suffers for this? It is the small people, who, ironically make up 99% of the population and only own 5% of America’s wealth (Dargis n.p).

A broad definition of capitalism is an economic system where business enterprises are privately owned while the rules and policies that run market conditions are determined by a central government (Bowles 5). After watching Moore’s movie, I had to rethink my understanding on the benefits of capitalism.

Capitalism, as it was argued for by its earliest advocates: Max, Smith and others in their league, is that it stimulates economic growth. This is generally accepted as fact to date. A more important but less considered question, is, who does the economic growth benefit. Or rather, what percentage of a population does capitalism benefit?

Moore’s movie provides a clear answer for that; in America, which is considered one of the wealthiest nations in the world, 1% of the population own 95% of country’s resources (Gritten n.p). Is that not shocking? In a country that preaches constantly freedom, equality, democracy and human rights, something close to neo-slavery is being practiced. For in this materialistic age, are you not owned by the person who owns the material resources?

Get your 100% original paper on any topic done in as little as 3 hours Learn More Democracy is hampered, as Moore illustrates, because the process of elections and voting has become compromised; the corporations contribute to the campaigns for those candidates who they feel will best serve their needs, the candidate with the biggest campaign stash wins the election (Dargis n.p). And the 1% remain at the top of the game, getting off lightly for crimes such as the ‘pheasant insurance’ or the 700 billion dollar tax write off awarded to sustain failing financial institutions after the most recent economic downturn (Dargis n.p).

I agree with the movie to a large extent.The facts may be presented with some pomp and circumstance but they are still facts. Just because there are myriad facts involved in the foreclosure does not change the fact that a home in America is foreclosed every seven minutes (Gritten n.p).

There are still thousands of people losing their jobs monthly, there are thousands more who cannot afford insurance cover. Moore is right in his message; there are a select few who have abused the American capitalistic system and made a ‘plutonomy’ out of the system (Dargis n.p).

Conclusion The movie changes my view of capitalism in the sense of ‘unregulated capitalism’. Every social theory has its time, Karl Max evolved capitalism because the time was right for it, and the people, at that point in time, were ripe for the capitalistic revolution. But for every period in history there are systems that work, as well as others that simply do not.

From Moore’s movie, I see that perhaps it is time that not only the U.S, but also the rest of the world, reviewed how capitalism is put to work. With or without the blaster in Moore’s movie, the cold, hard facts do not change that there is a gross imbalance in the distribution of resources, as was intended in the first place, and that perhaps, it is about time there was a post-capitalism revolution.

Works Cited Bowles, Paul. Capitalism. London: Pearson

Women in Leadership Essay

Nursing Assignment Help Table of Contents Synopsis

Women and Leadership

Reactions and Observations

Conclusion

References

When Hillary Clinton went head-to-head with Barrack Obama for the right to represent the Democrats in the previous presidential elections, she did something that no other American woman was able to do before.

She wanted to be the next president of the United States. It was unprecedented in this country but not in the world. However, in the modern age when it was expected that women should rise up and be treated the same as men, few dared to do so. There were some who succeeded and yet many failed. And yet women can do so much.

There are things that they alone can accomplish with great results. With issues like reconciliation and social justice they can contribute greatly. Nevertheless, there are challenges up ahead and the report on PBS, as narrated by Maria Hinojosa, speaks about the reality and the difficulties faced by women leaders who believe that they can indeed make a difference if only the citizens of their nation will give them that chance.

Synopsis Senior Correspondent Maria Hinojosa begins by talking about women in politics and the failed bid of Hillary Rodham Clinton to earn the right to be the most powerful leader in the United States and the most influential leader in the free world. She then went on to say that the United States ranks 69th in the world when it comes to women holding national political office (PBS, 2010, p.1).

This prompted her to investigate even further and in the course of her investigation she realized that while it is extremely difficult for a woman to get elected she also found out that women leaders may be the solution to many of the problems that plague society that for many decades was never resolved by men in power. There is a certain talent, skill and insight that women bring to politics.

In many countries around the world, its citizens are aware of the importance of women in politics. Citizens of Chile and Rwanda knew why there must be women in politics but it seems that in the United States not everyone is convinced that women, politics, and power can be placed in the same sentence. Hinojosa tried to explain this by taking a closer look at the lives of world leaders and why they succeeded and what were the challenges that they had to deal with in order to reach the top.

Aside from that she also studied the behavior and aspirations of up and coming leaders of American society, the next generation of women leaders, and for that she went to where young women leaders tend to meet – in a debate contest. At the end Hinojosa had to admit that much work needs to be done in order for women to be at par with men in terms of nationally elected offices but she had to admit that women, power, and politics is a rising tide.

Get your 100% original paper on any topic done in as little as 3 hours Learn More Women and Leadership Hinojosa chose to follow Jeanne Shaheen to start her report. The reason for doing so is that Shaheen had the right combination of achievements and attributes that would make her a suitable example to show what Hinojosa had in mind. Shaheen was a former school teacher who at first glance was suited to work as a housewife and not a politician.

However, Shaheen was the first woman to be elected as governor of New Hampshire and afterwards decided to run for the U.S. Senate (PBS, 2010, p.1). Hinojosa considers her as a prime example of the possibilities that women bring to U.S. politics. Nevertheless, the correspondent had to concede that compared to the rest of the world America is a few steps behind when it comes to electing women to national office.

As a matter of fact, this was not the first time that Shaheen decided to run for the Senate, in 2002 she ran against John Edward Sununu and she lost. Shaheen explains that it is because the events of September 11 were fresh from the minds of the people. They believe that security is the priority issue and as a result they voted for a man rather than a woman because they also believe that a man would be able to handle those issues much better than a woman (PBS, 2010).

What exactly can women do in order to prove that they can do a better job than men? It is possible for n can do a better job but there are issues and they are problems that can be considered a perfect fit for them and arguably there are others where they are perceive as lacking in capability.

While Clinton made history in the presidential race, another woman took center stage when McCain chose Sarah Palin to run as his vice-president. Immediately the impact of her candidacy was felt and according to Hinojosa her gender was a major factor to consider and that come election time her being a woman affected the way people decided to vote for McCain or not (PBS, 2010). It is clear that in America the people are not yet ready to entrust the highest position in the land to woman no matter how qualified she may be.

Shaheen argued that when people decided to choose their leaders it must not be about gender. She added that it must not be about their soft side that she can be treated like a mother to her constituents but because of her abilities and how she speaks regarding the issues that confront the nation (PBS, 2010).

But when Hinojosa went to Chile and Rwanda she discovered the opposite. Women leaders outside the United States where chosen not simply because they have the same qualifications as men but they were chosen because the people believe that they can resolve the problems that for many years men in their country were unable to solve.

We will write a custom Essay on Women in Leadership specifically for you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More The people of Rwanda and Chile believe that it is the mother instinct present in women candidates that made them effective against issues like health reform, social injustice, and the need to heal the land from strife such as what the Rwandans experienced in the 1994 genocide that killed close to a million people.

The success of foreign leaders like Bachelet and Inyumba is not only attributed to their skills. This is what can be understood from the PBS report. Their success is linked to their womanhood. Their being a woman played a crucial role in their candidacy because they came at the right time and the right place.

In Chile, Bachelet rose to power after her country suffered from a brutal dictatorship and a failed government and the reason why Chile is considered a poor country. The leaders that came before her were all men and they succeeded in bringing the country even lower while the people suffered.

When Bachelet came in she was considered as the best alternative and the citizens were willing to gamble on her. Her being a woman did not come as a liability but it was an asset.

Aside from that one can understand from watching the video that the people of Chile felt that they were neglected by past leaders who were preoccupied only with politics and the need to increase their power so when Bachelet took to the campaign trail and showed her soft side then the people responded positively to her and one person even commented that she was seen as a mother to the nation (PBS, 2010). The same thing can be said about the women politicians of Rwanda who were elected to Parliament.

The Rwandans had to deal with a terrible experience that they went through as a nation. Fifteen years ago genocide left almost a million people dead in racial attack that occurred in one hundred days (PBS, 2010).

One can just imagine the pain and the suffering of the people. This is linked to the fact that they elected women to Parliament, almost half of the lawmakers are women (PBS, 2010) Many believe that women are better at reconciliation, better at maintaining peace and less prone to corruption (PBS, 2010). These are the factors and the circumstances that made women leaders in Chile and Rwanda succeed where their U.S. counterparts failed.

Reactions and Observations It is easy to understand why Hinojosa had to go to Chile and to Rwanda and why she had to spend a few days studying and following an all-women high school debate team. She went abroad to show America that if it is possible to elect a woman as president in an economically challenge country then it is possible to elect one in the United States.

Not sure if you can write a paper on Women in Leadership by yourself? We can help you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More She went there to show Americans that if it is possible to elect a great number of women lawmakers in a war-torn country then it is possible to also do the same in the United States. She also went to the High School debate team to know the struggles that women face.

But Hinojosa’s travel and other activities failed to produce a solution to the problem why American women failed to secure elected positions especially the highest office in the land (Zeinert, 2002). She also failed to show that there is a reason why Bachelet and Rwandan women were elected to the Parliament and it has something to do with their history and circumstances (Worth, 2008).

If this can be used as a comparison then it can explain why Americans are reluctant to vote for a woman as Senator or as President. First of all American politics is fairly stable compared to that of Chile. Secondly, although there is a need for unity and healing the problem in America never reached a point where 1 million citizens were massacred because of their ethnicity. In other words Americans are happy with the way things are so why would they change it?

Aside from that there are other challenges like finances and how to lead an effective campaign (Carroll, 2003). There is also a problem on how American women can explain what difference will they be able to make if they get elected and can they really do a better job than men (Gelb

[casanovaaggrev]