Le Capital au XXIe siècle

There is a lot of important thought in this film, but it misses an entire, and important, chapter in the history of economic thought that provides clearer answers and actual solutions.

Early in the film, there is a great deal of talk about land. In classical economics, it was recognized that there are not two but three factors of production, LAND, LABOR and CAPITAL. The neoclassical economists, from whom almost all of today's college and university instructors learned their economics, somehow managed to treat LAND as if it is merely a subset of CAPITAL.

But LAND and CAPITAL are vastly different. LAND includes all the the natural creation -- the sites under our feet on which we live and work, the natural resources we draw from the earth,. the electromagnetic spectrum, geosynchronous orbits. LABOR uses those things to supply its wants and needs. Thrifty laborers can use their excess to create better and better tools that make LABOR more productive. That's CAPITAL.

But under it all is LAND. And if you think land is trivial today, consider that a single block in midtown Manhattan can be worth $250 million, $500 million or more. An acre of good farmland might be worth $2,500. It would take 100,000 acres of that farmland to equal the value of that single $250 million acre in Manhattan. And then we let them call it "CAPITAL"

Land was here before people were, and we're all equally entitled to share in its value. That's the chapter of the history of economic thought that most of the presenters in this film seem to have missed.

The names most clearly associated with it are Adam Smith, David Ricardo, John Stuart Mill and Henry George. Today, the people who know these ideas are often known as Georgists. Their thought has answers from which this film, and all of us, would benefit.

That film just showed a little top of the big iceberg... Even did not mention "Capital" of Karl Marx.. This guy and his book could tell you much more about Capital.

There is a good documentary underneath the layers of ideology pushed in this documentary. The people who made this documentary humorously talk about equality whilst promoting identity politics. Further, this documentary suffers from people who don't know their history very well. I specifically do not put this onto the author of the book.

The documentary opens with slavery and tries to attribute all wealth of Europe and England to slavery. This doesn't work for countries like Germany and Switzerland (among others). Further, they purposely ignored slavery in Africa (by Africans) or slavery by the Arabs and why that was somehow different.

What the creators almost completely missed was the Industrial Revolution (it was touched on). The drive away from slavery had a significant impact on productivity and competition (but you have to know history to know that).

Then during the documentary, you have people like Kate William who (unbelievably) said we must remember the "working class and women". It's unclear if she meant "no woman must ever be poor" or if she was promoting the "Ophrah Winfrey is oppressed" angle. With an ideologist (more specifically, a sexist), reason is always missing.

The documentary also touched on how noble China was, ignoring how people were welded into their houses, how Hong Kong was destroyed, or how the Uyghurs are interned in concentration camps. This isn't to side-step the criticisms of the west (which are predominantly spelled out in this documentary - and quite fairly might I add). It's unclear what the motive of this false narrative was.

Then there's the jaw-dropping narcissism of Faiza Shaheen who unbelievably said "why does my 26yo brother in law have to live at home". My parents lived in a garage for 10 years! I lived in shabby accommodation for 10 years - but Ms Shaheen believes she is special! The narcissim was unbeliebable.

Then there's the "all white people are racist narrative". In recent months, AOC and Nancy Pelosi and Jo BIden who continually disparage all white people with the "white supremacy" pejorative that the documentary "glossed over". Instead, they went for the "we are all equal (some more than others)" narrative.

Rather than glorifying Margaret Thatcher in a "girl power" narrative, they could have talked how she destroyed working class Brits and incited significant levels of violence whilst destroying people's lives, especially as that was a theme of the documentary. Sadly, such analysis would never have been permitted when the documentary was heavily influenced by ideology.

If you can make it past the indoctrination and the "you shouldn't think for yourself", there is an excellent message about tax havens, inheritance, concentrations of wealth and the failure of trickle down economics.

My honest advice is the director and several of the guest speakers were unfit to be involved in a documentary and the documentary suffered for it. The message was clear... all people are equal but some are more equal than others. A message sung loudly by Kate William and Ms Shaheen

I'm being kind and giving it 6/10 because the underlying message (under the ideology) was solid.

It's impossible not to be deeply affected by this film. It brings out the gross inequalities that exist today, but more importantly, how they relate to the history of the last 200+ years.

I wish our politicians would see this film and act ... before it is too late!

I'm not a fan of neoliberal capitalism. So, interested. Haven't read the book, and afterwards feel completely uncompelled to do so. Maybe because I'm old ^^.

"Everybody wants to sell what's already been sold And everybody wants to tell what's already been told What's the use of money if you ain't gonna break the mold?" - P. R. Nelson

There, I saved you the watch-time and totally mangled history-facts. Geez, my mind is still spinning from the spinning...

This is - I don't know what this is. A jambled mess. Painting a dystopic picture but in a fear-mongering way. The solution offered is 1 minute long (tax the rich). Not the worst of ideas, but by the time we get to it I was so annoyed by the sweeping and silly superficiality of it that I wanted to protest the idea just because I felt like protesting anything they said. How they handled the start for WW1 was - ridiculous. Just to mention the one point.

Waste of time.