Of course the rantings of racist misanthropes such as Charles, makes the issue no better. Charles believes that people should be divided into two groups - those who are with him and those against. This way he can keep his world view in lock step with his definition of good and evil.
Fine review, although the following statement is simply non-nonsensical: "The economists and activists interviewed in the documentary are all on one side: anti-North. This is a good thing. Why? Because those who support the policies of the North have no ground to stand on."
Similar statements:
1.It is good we skipped the trial because he was guilty.
2.It is good that we infringed on her free speech because she had nothing worthwhile to say.
3.It is good that we prevent them from voting because they would have voted the wrong way for the wrong reasons.
The error is obvious. It's not so much that the movie SHOULD have included other economists but they way you justify it.
Well the people on the side of the North own all of the media outlets. Their viewpoint is well represented on every news channel 24 hours a day. That's the reason I would give why it's good to not take up time in your low budget documentary with their viewpoint.
@3, yes. An example of willful media ignorance; I was watching a news roundtable "discussion" of current events last Sunday, wherein the question was raised, "Will Obama's exit strategy for Afghanistan play out as he hopes?" The sad part is no one was willing to question why the hell we're there right now. Not a glimmer of critical, objective analysis, just sound-bite affirmation of current policy, and whether or not the Dems will lose seats next election. Pathetic.
I'm not sure the people who made the movie, Charles Mudede, or the economists who were interviewed in the movie, know what "liberalism" is, not to mention "neo-liberalism." What they're describing is hardly "neo"-anything; it's the exact argument the South (U.S.) made about the North (U.S.) in the mid-19th century! How "neo"! But seriously, folks, privatization and exploitation isn't called "neo-liberalism" (original liberalism, as an economic-cum-social concept, being represented by, say Wm. Gladstone) for the very simple reason that we already have a term for it: capitalism. I'm amazed Mudede missed that. The popular misconception is that capitalism relies on free trade ("economic liberalism"), when in fact it hates free markets and thrives on private property, interest, and exploitation.
Similar statements:
1.It is good we skipped the trial because he was guilty.
2.It is good that we infringed on her free speech because she had nothing worthwhile to say.
3.It is good that we prevent them from voting because they would have voted the wrong way for the wrong reasons.
The error is obvious. It's not so much that the movie SHOULD have included other economists but they way you justify it.
Go ahead, take your pick.
What the hell is "neo-liberalism"?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=neoliberalism