Last night I went to see Robots, Fox's most recent animated adventure, and it was pretty dull. The animation and voice acting were great, but the plot was thin and the script was barely amusing; the only parts I actually laughed at were incidental background widgets thrown in by the artists (such as male and female robot bathrooms labeled with images of plugs and sockets). Aside from all that, the movie was incredibly frustrating because the writers chickened out on a golden opportunity to educate young viewers on the merits of capitalism.
To explain briefly, Robots takes place in a metal world inhabited entirely by robots. Apparently, the robots are all built by a company owned by a big round robot named Big Weld. Big Weld's company is taken over (somehow) by an executive named Ratchet, and Big Weld loses hope and retires into obscurity to play with dominoes. Ratchet is more obsessed with making money than with helping other robots, so he decides that the company is going to stop making spare parts and only sell "upgrades" from now on -- upgrades that are too expensive for the poorer robots to afford, which results in them being melted down once they can't be repaired.
These events set the stage for Rodney, the hero, to solve the problem. He's an inventor himself and gains some quick popularity by fixing some poor robots who can't get spare parts. Rather than charging money for this service -- as is sarcastically suggested by another robot -- he does it for free and then laments that the robots can't be fully repaired without parts. A clever writer would have realized that by charging money, Rodney and his friends could have set up their own company in competition with Ratchet and easily cornered a significant market niche that the villain intentionally neglected.
Children could have learned that only a foolish capitalist would stop making spare parts and thus eliminate a huge revenue stream and a whole host of customers. That's no way to make a profit! The motto of Big Weld was "see a need, fill a need", and the mantra was repeated many times throughout the movie. Indeed, that motto is fundamental to capitalism, and the film would have provided a great foundation for introducing the concepts to children. Obviously Big Weld understood how to make money, or he never would have accumulated the capital necessary to dominate the robot manufacturing market, so why did he allow Rodney and the audience to wallow in naivety?
In the end, Rodney rouses Big Weld from his self-imposed exile and helps him reclaim the company, thus re-establishing the monopoly structure that led to the problems in the first place. Why not instead teach kids to start their own company rather than depend on the moods of others? Why not teach kids the value of competition? Why not teach kids that the best way to make money is to provide something people want?
I offer six reasons why the makers of Robots would not illustrate the idea that capitalism is good...
6] Because capitalism is EEEEVVVIIIILLLL.
5] They didn't want to lose Robin Williams
4] Capitalism violates the principle of making consumers pay full fare for low quality schlop.
3] Good, moral messages don't win you an oscar, baby!
2] Capitalism? Isn't that that thing that Reagan preached? forgeddaboudit!
And the number one reason to not illustrate the merits of capitalism...
1] Looking to offset slow revenues in US market by wider distribution in europe, china, and cuba.
Under other circumstances, I might agree about the opportunity to promote capitalism. In the movie, however, robots are falling apart -- unless they are repaired, they die. Did you not catch the comment (from Fender) about "only those with insurance"? The point was that there are certain services you can't in good conscience refuse to someone. That's why hospitals are expected to admit you even if you can't pay: life trumps property, convenience does not. Spare parts are required, upgrades are not. The problem is that capitalism doesn't provide a good mechanism for rewarding those who provide these "necessary" services. You need only look at our healthcare industry to see how much of a mess things get under the circumstances (yet we refuse to really acknowledge that it's a separate type of problem, possibly requiring its own algorithm.)
The motto rings true (in a capitalist sense) for "all other cases" -- I don't think that will be lost on children. There's plenty of mention of "success" through innovation and "filling a need". BigWeld is culturally reminescent of 1960's businesses in the US, in an era when we were directly competing with the soviet union and its economy. It imitates GE, IBM, the Bells ... centers of innovation and profit (and monopoly.)
Not to get to far off topic...
But the reason HealthCare is so expensive is we have created giant pools of money (Insurance or Government Plans) and people expect their insurance to pay the majority of all of their healthcare. In other words, most people don't even look at their bill anymore to see they got charged $150 for ice cream that one day they were in the hospital. And worse... they don't care because big daddy insurance is taking care of all those crazy cost.
For some reason, what they don't see is that those cost do in fact get passed right back down to us, the user of the insurance. That's why the cost for insurance and healthcare are so ridiculous. And now, you actually have people suggesting a massive government insurance for all plan is the way to go. This will make the problem even worse for the same reason.
You simply can't expect others to spend your money as wisely as you would. That's the fallacy with big government for anything.
unordained: The solution for people who can't pay is simple, it's called charity. However, if everyone relies on charity (as in the movie), then the system ends up breaking down.
GG: You're right. Insurance creates the illusion that the buyer is the recipient of charity, because the costs are hidden.
MW: Charity, alone, won't pick up all of the slack. We've been over this before.
Expecting charity to grow enough to cover what falls through the cracks is rather tenuous.
The fallacy of believing that people will automatically do what's good and proper... a charge often levelled at liberals... also applies to the expectation, among conservatives, that charitable giving will be able to take care of those who get left behind.
GG: Big government works best for some things because it allows for the purchase of goods or services cheaper than what each person would pay individually. That's one of the precious few things government is good for. If there's a system or service that a majority of the nation wants... that can be provided for cheaper through the government purchasing the service... and that is of the same or better quality than the same service purchased by the taxpayer on his/her own... generally it makes more sense for the government to purchase that service on behalf of its citizens.
It's true that the socialized health care systems of various countries leave a lot to be desired... and some of them are downright pathetic... but that doesn't mean there's no merit in the concept of universal health care. If we can determine the problem(s) with the systems of other countries... we can see what not to do in the crafting of our own system... or, short of that, determine what we need to do to fix our current system.
The biggest problem with universal health care, in my opinion, is the increased costs associated with the poor decisions some people make which have an adverse affect on either their current or future health. The paradox, though, is that all of us... somehow... are going to pay for those poor choices.. through charities that we donate to or other direct or indirect methods of support.
Mark: Even if charity doesn't pick up all the slack, who are you to take a gun and force people to be charitable? That's what a welfare state does. Being charitable is a choice.
As for "big government" providing anything cheaper than private associations, name even one single thing. It's absurd. Everything the government does costs more and works worse than private endeavors.
MW: Your characterization of the situation is not quite accurate. Part of paying for something is being a participant in the process and a potential user of the service. You're not necessarily being forced to pay for the actions of others... you're paying for your own right to benefit from the system.
As for naming one "big government" service... I'd say the Armed Services and National Defense are the first ones to come to mind.
If it's done right... where there's some sort of ability to opt out... I could see myself supporting a national health care plan.
The thing about "big government", though, is that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats.. at the leadership level.. really believe in "smaller" government. They just believe in shifting the spending to different areas. Republicans want it to go to private schools through vouchers and to farmers through agriculture subsidies... and Democrats want it to go to public schools and programs such as Social Security and Medicare.
The problems we see in healthcare aren't a result of the free market, but a result of the lack of free market.
The movie would be more of an analogy to our health care system if Rodney wasn't allowed to try fixing any robots without a license - and the number of licensed robot fixers was deliberately held below the number needed. And neither spare parts nor upgrades could be bought until the FDA had spent years reviewing them.
You can't blame the health care mess on the free market. The free market has an airtight alibi - it hasn't been anywhere near the scene of this crime for years...
Mark: Except that your payment for the system should be equal to anyone else's, not progressively proportionate to your income. If that were the case, maybe I'd be fine with it.
And yes, national defense is nice to have controlled by the federal government. It's no coincidence that that's one of the few powers granted to the feds in the actual Constitution. 99% of federal laws are now based on the commerce clause, which is absurd and obviously a misuse of power, no matter what any judges say.
Ken: You're right, there's no free market, nor will there be until the government shrinks. As Mark said, neither party is really interested enough in that, unfortunately, but at least Republicans want to cut taxes and have politicians sympathetic to the idea of small government.
MW: Cutting taxes is fine... so long as there's cuts in spending to go along with it, which is what the Republicans haven't done.
Shifting spending from Democratic causes to Republican causes isn't gonna do it.
MW: I agree that payment for such a system should be equal.
MW: I think some successful capitalists do indeed stop making spare parts for old equipment, and buy up start-ups which attempt to fill that niche in order dismantle that business. Technological sectors spring to mind, where a disposable product is preferred to one which could be maintained.
jez: Oh certainly, to some degree. Often the replacements are at the same price points as the old units, though, and it's just a part of normal turnover. The cure for that sort of manipulation is, of course, more competition.