I.O.U.S.A. — The discussion begins
I.O.U.S.A. has made an auspicious debut in nationwide release. If you missed it last night, look on your favorite movie-search website for a "theater near you" this weekend. And not just because Roger Ebert gives it three and a half stars.
It's funny how people react to it. Their perceptions are colored by their preconceived notions. Conservatives see it as a veiled call for tax increases. Liberals see it as a veiled call for slashing Social Security. It is, of course, neither of those things. But this is good. As I knew well back in my journalism days, if you managed to anger both sides of an issue, you did a decent job.
Now… I suspect many of the people who read this blog and saw it last night were disappointed that the movie was not a wholesale indictment of central banking. That's an understandable sentiment… but that's never what this movie set out to be. For one thing, the late Aaron Russo already made that movie a couple of years ago. In contrast, I.O.U.S.A. is an attempt to start a very broad discussion among an ideologically diverse group — including, yes, certain establishment figures like Pete Peterson. And the discussion begins on a simple point of agreement — that, contra Alexander Hamilton, the national debt, certainly at its present size, is anything but a "national blessing." Seems to me that repudiating a central principle of the one founding father who threw a monkey wrench into the grand American experiment from the get-go is a darn good place to start the discussion, no?
Reuters has an account of the live-via-satellite panel that followed the premiere. For all the passion former Comptroller General David Walker conveys, for all his recall of how debt had doomed earlier republics in history (let us not forget this whole movie thing got started with his reading Bill and Addison's Empire of Debt), his starting point for a solution to this godawful mess — forming the proverbial bipartisan blue-ribbon commission — was thin gruel indeed.
Which perhaps underscores the notion that people in power aren't going to do anything meaningful until ordinary folks like you and me get mad. So if you didn't have the chance last night, go see the movie and get mad.
Update: From the comments below, it's clear our readership wonders whether Buffett was out to lunch during the panel. More where that came from (including reaction from a "puzzled" Addison) in today's 5 Min. Forecast.
My wife wonders how much of Buffett's attitude is tied in with the many U.S. positions he owns, and I think she's onto something. Clearly Buffett is still "long America" even though Americentric value investing hasn't performed very well this year for guys like Bill Miller or Marty Whitman — or for that matter, Berkshire itself. (Presumably they'd counter that by saying they're not necessarily investing on the basis of year-to-date performance.) But really, it would be hard for Buffett to say "we're screwed in America" without facing some pointed questions from the audience at Berkshire's next shareholder meeting.
Sphere: Related Content
I don’t see how we have a problem. See, it’s a pie thing. The pie always gets bigger and so, ipso facto, abra kadabra, my children and my grandchildren will be better off than me.
Has Warren Buffett gone senile? Is he a paid shill for the IOUSA? Please, someone explain his inane comments last night.
Comment on August 22, 2008 @ 10:33 am
… and of course Buffett doesn’t have a problem with raising taxes. He’ll hardly notice ‘em.
Comment on August 22, 2008 @ 11:45 am
I think I once read Doug Casey refer to Buffet as an idiot savant, and last night seemed to back up that assertion. “It hasn’t paid to sell America short for 225 years” could just has easily have been said about any of history’s great civilizations/empires… until, of course, it DID pay to sell them short.
What upset me the most (though overall it was a truly great movie and experience, don’t get me wrong, and i pray that wider distribution will follow) was that all the answers coming from the panelists ultimately went back to “forcing the government to do something”. Call it bi-partisan commissions, getting out the vote, or whatever. No one dared to say that maybe GOVERNMENT ITSELF is the problem. That maybe if we got rid of some of it there would be less government to spend money on.
Comment on August 22, 2008 @ 2:18 pm
Why should anybody care what is good for future generations? What have they ever done for us?
Comment on August 22, 2008 @ 3:20 pm
My wife said on the way home, “What’s good for Warren Buffett should be good for the country. He himself said that he’s a saver, so why not advocate the same approach for the country. Why was he belittling the point of the film when he himself has benefited greatly from it.”
Comment on August 22, 2008 @ 4:18 pm
While an American, I live in France. I’m one of over 4 million ex-pat Americans who daily bear the brunt of the declining dollar. We are a huge audience for this film but we can’t get to it. I think you should rush this production to DVD and on to eBay asap.
It won’t do any good if this movie hits theaters and TV next year. It needs the widest distribution possible before the elections. Force the candidates to acknowledge the issue. They both seem to be in denial at the moment.
Comment on August 27, 2008 @ 3:01 am